Good News Film Reviews

Movie Trailer: Law Abiding Citizen

2009-11-22T18:00:00.000-06:00

"Its gonna get Biblical..."

Yeah, me thinks someone didn't pay attention in Sunday School.

Screenwriter: Kurt Wimmer (Street Kings)
Director: F. Gary Gray (The Italian Job)
Actors: Gerald Butler (300), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Michael Gambon (The Good Shepherd), Leslie Bibb (Iron Man) and Viola Davis (Doubt)

Movie Trailer: Whiteout

2009-11-22T09:00:00.000-06:00

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber, Carey Hayes (House of Wax) and Chad Hayes (The Reaping)
Director: Dominic Sena (Swordfish)
Actors: Kate Beckinsale (Underworld), Tom Skerritt (Alien) and Gabriel Macht (The Good Shepherd)

Movie Trailer: I Sell the Dead

2009-11-21T17:00:00.001-06:00

Zombies and Ron Perlman? I'm in.

Obviously, this will be rather macabre.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriter: Glenn McQuaid
Director: Glenn McQuaid
Actors: Dominic Monaghan (Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings), Ron Perlman (Hellboy II: The Golden Army) and Larry Fessenden (The Brave One)

Movie Trailer: Gentlemen Broncos

2009-11-21T10:00:00.000-06:00

Jared Hess, writer/director of Napoleon Dynamite, appears to be sticking with that works for him = unfortunate geekery.

An awkward teen gets his sci-fi story ripped off by his novelist idol. If handled right, this could be an interesting quirky little movie. Despite Jemaine Clement's great haughty, drawl , I noticed I didn't laugh while watching the trailer - not a good sign.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite) and Jerusha Hess (Nacho Libre)
Director: Jared Hess (Napoleon Dynamite)
Actors: Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile), Michael Angarano (Lords of Dogtown) and Jennifer Coolidge (Robots)

Star Trek (2009) Repost

2009-11-20T12:00:00.000-06:00

Originally posted June 3, 2009

Should I see it?

Yes.

Short Review: Anything that can possibility offend Trekkies and get them hyperventilating through their retainers is okay by me.

A production like this isn't new. Yet another Corporation continuing to recycle pop cultural baubles of previous generations, repackage it, and then sell it to quite possibly the dumbest generation to draw breath. This may be the case with this film. It may be a soulless McMovie rehash, but its a well made soulless McMovie rehash.

What is surprising is that it manages to achieve the balance of acknowledging its source material while still striking out on its own and finding its own voice. By the end of the film it is clear a new, individual franchise has been born. This is remarkable given that Star Trek is one of the most identifiable, dearly loved series in history. Producers have been trying to reboot the series for decades. After the surprise cult following in reruns, they began to pump out the popular films - oh but they were seriously awful . Honestly, they travel to San Francisco in the 1980's to save whales and we're expected believe Sulu doesn't go AWOL and stay behind?

As the actors aged, and the egos inflated and the internal conflicts boiled, the natural inclination to replicate the series took its course. Since the late 1980's there has been a continual string of syndicated television series attempting reignite the original series. The first outing, Star Trek: The Next Generation was good but not great. The remainder were stumbling affairs that never quite got over their derivative existences.

When JJ Abrams took over the franchise he smartly choose to break away from the failing model of retooling the Star Trek universe with new characters and instead chose the bigger risk of recasting the original characters. This isn't a small task.

It is easy to dismiss Star Trek given William Shatner's goofiness and the social abominations known as Trekkies, but this is one of the main myths of our civilization. Messing with Kirk and Spock is no different than recasting Darth Vadar, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and trying to make them your own. Thousands of people flock to stupid conventions over this crap. They made up a ridiculous fake Klingon language for Pete's sake. In our pop culture based society, Star Trek is a sacred cow. Abrams took a huge gamble, he could have had a humiliating disaster on his hands. When the original trailer hit, I thought he had taken the simple road. I wasn't the only one.

The film, thankfully, isn't the hollow teen dreamy junk pile that the trailer made it look like.

Abrams delivers a carefully executed origin story for the series that, thanks to a overly convenient time travel plot, explains away the old series and makes way for the new. While fun and light, the film is also technically marvelous. The story is impressively tight and direct. Abrams and company had the challenge of reintroducing us to characters many of us knew inside and out. These characters are a part of our lives even if we've never seen a single episode of the show. Their catch phrases alone litter our culture possibly more than any other series in history.

Given the large cast, these introductions threatened to slow the story down every time someone new appeared on screen. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do a masterful job of weaving these introductions seamlessly into the story. On top of these introductions, they also managed to rewrite the characters in a way that enhances our memory of them. This is particularly true of Spock.

Leonard Nimoy's Spock is a cultural landmark. In this production, we are shown the young Spock, first as a promising professor and then as an officer on the Enterprise. Zachary Quinto, who appears to have been born to play the role, tackles the task of portraying this iconic figure. Quinto has to balance between marking the role as his own while also paying homage to Nimoy's classic portrayal. The script's conceits allow to present Spock as we know him while still giving him amble room to infuse his own details. His Spock is written not a mimicry of the earlier version of Spock but instead as a new angle on the old character.

The duality between the old and new is the approached used for the whole franchise. This is not an attempt to replace the old version, simply a new generation putting their own mark on things. This franchise isn't going to be the cultural standard that the original version has become. It's not that good, nor important. It is entertaining however and will provide some relaxing cinematic eye candy.

The downside of the film are a few poor choices that seriously break the narrative flow. If you've seen the trailer you have already have witnessed the amazingly stupid young Kirk stealing an antique car and driving it over a cliff. In this sequence, he is being chased down a dirt road by a cop. Young Kirk then turns on the radio and LISTENS TO THE BEASTIE BOYS. What? No one listens to them now, except musically illiterate morons, and we're expected to believe this is something a kid would turn to a few hundred years in the future? The entire sequence should have been cut. It is as poorly conceived as the jazz sequence in Spider-Man 3.

There are other choices that cut into the story as well, like having Scotty being transported into the water pipes, having Kirk illogically being sent down to an Arctic locale on a planet, and other items that act as sidesteps to the main thrust of the story. All of these diversions steal time away from the main story which does need some help.

The main villain Nero, a revenge obsessed Romulan, is pushed to the back burner for most of the film and only appears when its convenient to establish character for Kirk, Pike or Spock. Nero is the least developed character in the entire film and is given the least amount of attention. His whole reason for revenge is not given enough depth to have any real meaning so his actions are without context and therefore meaningless. This deficiency would kill most other stories, this production survives because it gets the audience so wrapped up in the interpersonal drama on the Enterprise that this exterior force is more of an annoying procedure rather than life threatening conflict.

This is a solid movie that succeeds well beyond expectation. This is easily the most fun I've had seeing a McMovie since Iron Man last year. This is fluff but it is very good, very entertaining fluff.

Click on Kirky to view the trailer

Related Reviews:
Star Trek movies
Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (1982)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
Need Coffee

2012 (2009)

2009-11-19T11:00:00.001-06:00

Should I see it?

If your brain is not connected to your spinal column, then yes.

Short Review: It’s as bombastic as it is ill conceived, which is fancy way of saying its loud and stupid.

John Cusack is in his forties and is still playing half-man schlubs who can’t manage relationships. His character Jackson Curtis is broken down, broken-hearted and just plain broke. His ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) has left him. His kids loathe his mere presence. In a way, this film is like seeing Better Off Dead as done by Michael Bay.

This is a horrendous film.

Awful.

Lousy.

Thankfully it is also a bloated disaster movie so it doesn’t really matter. All the film has to do is flash lights to distract from its limping plot in order to be successful. The only reason to see this film is to watch the end of the world in glorious high definition. Writer/Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, 10,000 B.C.) promises to deliver the apocalypse with as few words as possible. He delivers on his promise.

What I found amazing is that Emmerich still bothers trying to shoehorn relationship issues into the end of days. At one point Jackson and Kate have a quiet moment together. She complains that Jackson spent too much time working and not enough time with his family. They literally just watched billions of people perish, the totality of human civilization has been destroyed and she is still nagging at the poor sap. I guess we can see why things didn't work out them.

The problem with trying to pull off character development in a film like this is that once you show the USS John F. Kennedy on a tsunami wave crashing into the White House and killing the President, it's a little much to ask us to care about the gripes from John Cusack’s ex-wife.

If you are only interested in seeing crashing buildings, ridiculous plot contrivances and perilous escapes, this will be a good pick. If you have the tendency to pause while watching movies and consider how reality actually works, you will probably still enjoy it because it’s dang funny from that angle.

I laughed constantly through the film. Here is a moment which sums up the film for me. Jackson is driving a limo through Los Angeles as the city is literally falling to pieces. A building crashes down in front of him. He jumps the limo into the side of the falling building, drives the car across a floor, speeding through a business office, crashes out of a window and manages to land safely on the highway on the other side. If you can handle that level of dumb, knock yourself out.

Worldview: I was struck by Emmerich's treatment of faith. Every once in a while someone would casually mention that “its time to start praying”. Other than these passing nods to the notion that some people may or may not possibly consider asking for mercy from something that maybe perhaps might be something kinda like a God or something or who knows what, there is a remarkable absence of any real faith. The President begins to quote scripture at one point, but he is cut off before he finishes. The world is ending, billions are dying, and the only references to Jesus Christ are when characters are cursing.

Emmerich is very deliberate in his presentation of religion in this film, particularly when it comes to the destruction of iconic places. Emmerich is given credit for popularizing the destruction of landmarks in action/disaster movies. The White House being blown up in Independence Day started the trend. Destroying the White House, Washington Monument, and other landmarks serves to pervert the “Death of God Image" I’ve discussed before.

In this film, Emmerich takes the Death of God Image and runs with it. He not only shows the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Brazil crumbling, but he stops the movie cold to spend time at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholics are crowded outside of Saint Peter’s Cathedral as the Pope looks down on them from the balcony. Inside, a collection of cardinals huddle in a circle praying. As the room begins to shake they look upward to see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (apparently its been moved). The ceiling cracks and splits, severing the famous fingers of God and Adam. Suddenly, the Saint Peter’s Basilica plops over on its side and rolls over all of the collected Catholics killing the faithful like a big rolling pin made out of cosmic irony.

Beyond the obvious “imagine if they did this to any other group” argument, I need to point out that Emmerich goes out of his way to avoid showing large groups of people in this film. All of L.A. is destroyed but we only witness a few dozen actual deaths. The crowds that are killed on screen are shown from vast distances or are represented by focusing tightly on the fearful face of a known character.

The deaths at the Vatican are the only crowd shown killed in a specific, almost devious way. This is not by accident. Emmerich himself admits that the destruction of religious locations is intentional – in particular his choice in showing Christians getting it.

"Why ... don't [we] have the church fall on people's head?" Emmerich said. He added: "The whole Vatican kind of tips and kind of rolls over the people. It said something, because in the story, some people ... believe in praying and prayer, and they pray in front of the church, and it's probably the wrong thing, what they would do in that situation."

When asked about destroying Christ the Redeemer Emmerich explains,

"Because I'm against organized religion,"

When asked why he didn't destroy an Islamic site like the Kaaba, Emmerich suddenly finds some respect for the faithful.

"You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out."

For those playing at home, here is the math: Catholics = Let's drop one of their most precious places on their stupid heads. Islam = Let's not upset the poor dears, otherwise they may start acting wonky and hurting people - can't imagine what that would be like.

Cautions: There's death and destruction. There's some foul language and a few instances of people taking Christ's name in vain. Beyond these infractions, there's not too much that is worth being cautioned over (regarding the content).

Click below to view the trailer

Run, Forrest, run!

Once you see the film read what follows:

Two items:

Congratulations! The Good News: you’ve been cast in a huge Hollywood blockbuster. The Bad News: Your character arc is that you learn to stop peeing the bed at night.

So, the world’s elite are given the chance to buy a seat on the arks. In the end the world leaders come together to allow some stranded folk into their ships. This is used to show how we maintain our humanity. Yeah, about that, the stranded people are also rich elites who also bought their way onto the arks. So, other than some Chinese slaves, the survivors of humanity are all billionaires who drained their resources from the rest of the world so they could comfortably survive the hell on Earth they left for everyone else. The worst of humanity gets to live. Nice message.

Movie Trailer: 2012

2009-11-18T21:00:00.000-06:00

Do you really want to spend the end of the world hanging around John Cusack?

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Roland Emmerich (Godzilla) and Harold Kloser (10,000 B.C.)
Director: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day)
Actors: John Cusack (Better Off Dead), Thandie Newton (Rocknrolla), Woody Harrelson (No Country for Old Men), Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Redbelt), Oliver Platt (Casanova), Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon) and Morgan Lily (Henry Poole is Here)

Tyson (2008)

2009-10-12T08:00:00.000-05:00

Should I see it?
Sure.

I won't pretend to know the first thing about boxing. To me, it is nothing more than gladiatorial lunks pummeling one another for profit. I see no art, no finesse, no inherent worth. In other words, I have no reason to find any interest in this documentary about the career of boxer/media punching bag Mike Tyson. It is interesting however. Tyson, for all of his ominous reveals himself to be a broken, essentially scared man.

As far as portraits are concerned, this documentary does well to show its subject, warts and all. Tyson is a bad guy, but he is at least willing to acknowledge his sins. He manages to present himself as sympathetic while admitting his troubled nature and shameful path.

This is far from a balanced film, but it does offer some insight into the all-too-common duality of the abused becoming the abuser. I think his openness and seeing how his weaknesses has themselves in his behavior is the film's hook.

If you are interested in the film, chances are you will find it compelling enough to track it down. If you're on the fence, this is a good portrait, but not a masterful one. If you skip it, you won't be missing anything. If you pick it up, you won't regret it.

Click on the lummox to view the trailer

Related Reviews:
Other documentaries
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008)
The Heart of Texas (2008)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Popcorn Reel

Review Link: Inglorious Basterds

2009-10-11T13:00:00.003-05:00

"the antihuman dirty dream of a pretentious, vacuous clown primed with Hollywood gelt"

h/t Dr. Epps

Armageddon (1998)

2009-10-07T08:00:00.002-05:00

Should I see it?

It depends on how much self-respect you have left.

Short Review: It turns the stupidity up to 11 and keeps it there.

Michael Bay is the Spielberg of crap. and this loud, brainless Mountain Dew commercial with a narrative is his masterwork.

The plot of this wasteful, culture-killer is simple, a big rock is going to crush Earth so in response, America sends up Bruce Willis to blow it up with nuclear bombs because...well, just because it sounds awesome, that's why.

It isn’t that the film is stupid, of course its stupid - it a film starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck directed by Michael Bay and written by JJ Abrams, it has stupid in its DNA. The fact that this is dumb doesn't mean much. The number of truly brain dead movies is legion. This movie is a momentous achievement because of the its ability to sustain its stupidity for the duration of its run time and does so at an extreme level. From the moment the lights dim to the second the credits thankfully begin to roll, the audience is assaulted with an unyielding dumb, a thought-smothering blanket of idiocy so thick that it can cover any struggle for logic. Michael Bay has managed to develop a redefinition of the moronic. From the plot to the dialog, every aspect of the script manages to avoid any not being completely dunderheaded.

Here is the kicker, despite the idiocy of every frame, this is a fun movie. It asks nothing from the audience but gives a lot of flashy lights and numerous moments of peril in return. The reason the film works is thanks to the two-dimensional character writing skills of JJ Abrams. He pens a gaggle of impressively thin characters and then Bay cast these shells with solid character actors to bring them to half-life. There's the cranky blue-collar dad (Willis), the virginal princess daugter (Liv Tyler), her handsome young buck (Ben Affleck), the down-to-earth sidekick (Will Patton), the frenzied genius (Steve Buschemi) and let's not forget, the black friend (Michael Clarke Duncan), tossed in for good measure. Across the board, the cast is given an easy job, play to the low expectations and recite some snappy lines that really make no sense, even in context. Its a heck of a living these people make.

I could keep going on make unspecfic attacks on the film but I think I've made my opinion clear. Allow me to sum this up and we'll all move our separate ways. To sum this up, it has Ben Affleck in it and it suits his skills.

Click on Bruce to see the trailer
(it has the same intellectual depth as the whole movie - so its a bit like seeing the real thing)

Related Reviews:
Bruce Willis movies
Hudson Hawk (1991)
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Bad Movie Night
Independent Critics

Girl 27 (2007)

2009-10-05T08:00:00.001-05:00

Should I see it?
Sure. But only if you love feeling miserable.

With the news of confessed rapist Roman Polanski being arrested for his drugging and raping a 13 year-old - let me say that again so all of you Polanski defenders can get that through your amoral, thick skulls, DRUGGING AND RAPING A 13 YEAR-OLD - again, 13, not even old enough to go see one of his movies in the theater by herself.

I'm already off subject...let's start this again.

With the news of confessed rapist Roman Polanski being arrested for his drugging and raping a 13 year-old...

You know what? If you are defending this guy you really, really, need to reconsider the moral framework by which you run your life. Don't give me this nonsense about the judge or this crap about how it was so long ago, the woman has forgiven him - He was a forty year old man. He knew she was 13 - she wasn't a teenager for more than a few months. He intentionally offered her a part of a barbiturate and some alcohol. He intentionally forced himself sexually on her. Tell you what, if you're still not sure check out the Polanski plea agreement.

That done, let's start this again.

This is a riveting documentary about the rape of an underage dancing girl in 1930's Hollywood. Back in the studio era, it was commonplace to have teenage girls brought in to dance for various productions. In one case, the production was actually a party for the MGM sales force on Hal Roach's secluded lot. At said party one of the girls, Patricia Douglas, was raped by one of the salesmen. The story initially received huge press but was then squashed by the studio. Over the decades, the horrific story was forgotten.

David Stenn has done a great job of reviving this scandal in a thoughtful manner. He doesn't exploit the lurid details and handles the subject with care. He gets Douglas to come out of hiding to discuss the crime and cover-up that appears to have ruined her life. To hear her discuss the awful events is heart wrenching, yet compelling.

This may seem to be just another cheap true-crime documentary made to tickle the interest of the audience and move on. Stenn offers something more however, particularly in light of recent national scandals. The studio setting up the circumstances for the rape to occur and the rape itself aren't the whole story. It is the cover up, the way the studio was able to make this "problem" disappear so completely is what really makes this film notable. Douglas' rape is horrible, and I do not mean to diminish her pain. But it is her second rape, the publicity raping she receives that is the broader crime shown here. The film also does a fantastic job of explaining how society viewed women and female sexuality at the time and how those social mores were employed to put this story to rest.

The powerful influence of those who control media, who therefore control the message, is on display in this film and make this required viewing if you have any compulsion to believe the defenders of Polanski. When you hear people defending something in the media, it is important to stop and take a serious look at what they are actually defending, and why.

Related Reviews:
Other documentaries
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008)
The Heart of Texas (2008)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Los Angeles Times
DVD Verdict

Movie Trailer: The Invention of Lying

2009-10-04T13:00:00.000-05:00

It has Ricky Gervais, Louis C.K. (the best stand-up comic working) and Jennifer Garner - how could this stink?

Well, probably pretty easily. Let's see, the hook is simple enough, in a universe where everyone always tells the truth one man (Gervais) invents lying. This means the film is structurally about morality. Is lying wrong? When it is acceptable to lie? So on and so forth. Looking at the cast list, looking at the folks who developed the film, considering the film industry's track record on making definitive moral statements, I'm left thinking this probably isn't going to leave audiences with a good message.

But that's me. I could be wrong.*

Word is that there is a deep anti-religious message waiting for audiences at the end of the film. You know, cuz religion is all a lie - get it? Sure. You know, cuz a bunch of film makers and actors say so, cuz they got it all figured out. I know when I have complex metaphyscial questions I confer the closest actor, because someone who spends their life pretending to be other people is always a reliable choice.

Let's do a quick unpacking of their proposal. If religion is a lie and by extension God Himself is a lie, then the universe is a soup of random, nonsensical reactions with no inherent worth beyond the whimsical meanings we place on things. Therefore, all understanding is a matter of perspective rooted in our temporary perspectives. So, the concepts of telling the truth and lying are irrelevant given that there is no such thing as actual truth or actual falsehood. Since this is the case, Gervais and company have no grounds to attack my belief in God. Their non-belief negates their standing to have a voice given that their belief negates the relevance of their voice. If I believe in God, and there is no God, your contention that I'm wrong is meaningless since in your truthless universe my stating there is a God is as valid as you saying He's not there. So, shut up. Have a nice day.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson
Directors: Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson
Actors: Jonah Hill (Superbad), Jennifer Garner (13 Going on 30), Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces), Tina Fey (Mean Girls), Patrick Stewart (Jeffrey), Jeffrey Tambor (The Hangover), Ricky Gervais (Ghost Town), Louis C.K., and Christopher Guest (This is Spinal Tap)

* - I'm not wrong.

...as I was saying

2009-10-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

I am back. My first post back? All about me. Me, me, me, more me now.

Thank you to everyone who wrote letting me know what you missed my site. I will begin posting once again this week. Starting out I probably won't do too much as I get back into the swing of things and reestablish my routine. If I know myself however, I will have multiple posts up before too long.

As I begin rebuilding my post schedule and how I do things around here, I would like to ask my remaining readers for their input. What would you like to see on the site (other than proper grammar)? More reviews? More trailers? More film news? Commentary? Do you want the Carnival of Cinema back? Leave a comment or email me at carnvialofcinema (at sign) gmail dot com

This summer has been very productive. I have spent lots of time with my wife and kids (celebrating my 18th wedding anniversary tomorrow). I worked on my garden and had a huge harvest. I also managed to finish up my book. It has been a mostly relaxing time and I am very happy I decided to back away for a while.

Regarding the book, I am putting the final touches on things right now and expect a release in early January (we'll see). It is titled You Are What You See: Watching Film Through a Christian Lens and it offers a Biblical approach to movies and makes the argument not for cultural engagement by Christians, but for cultural renovation. I will give more news as I have it on the book front. I do know I will be starting up a new site http://www.youarewhatyousee.com and will have some other things I will be doing to to support the book. If you know of anyone who is any good at setting sites up and works cheap, let me know (email above).

Again, thanks to everyone for their kind words and messages encouraging me to return over the past few months. I do appreciate them.

Now, on with the bad grammar and under-educated cynicism

Starving the Feed

2009-06-23T12:00:00.004-05:00

I am taking a break.

With the passing of my father, having the house for sale, and the fact that I prefer tending to my garden outside over watching movies inside - its time to take a break.

Thanks to all of my subscribers and readers. I hope you will return when I do.

Idiocracy (2006)

2009-06-22T08:00:00.003-05:00

Should I see it?
Yes.

Short Review: This is the kind of film I’d recommend, but I won’t be able to look you in the eye when I do it.

The premise of this movie is fantastic. It is centered around Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson), an average guy - actually he's the average guy. Joe is cryogenically frozen by the military and, thanks to some bad luck, wakes up five hundred years in the future where he finds that due to reverse Darwinism, stupid people have out bred the smart ones. Joe is the smartest person in the world. This is solid groundwork for a comedy.

Mike Judge (Beavis and Butthead) wrote and directed this movie and his sharp satirical talents are clearly visible. While this piece isn’t as comfortable or quotable as Judge’s cable TV staple Office Space, it has the same insight. In essence, this film is a full frontal attack on the stupidity of modern American culture. Judge, who has been mocking the idiocy of this culture for almost twenty years, is dead on with many of his salvos. The overall culture is in complete free fall. We have come to embrace the lowest parts of human nature as treasures by celebrating the inept over the helpful. We are taking climatological advice from dimwit actors and considering moral advice from comedians. Our “intellectual” class couldn’t be more useless as they battle against free thought and embrace groupthink concepts like political correctness. Heck, we’ve dipped so low as to allow for journalists to decide what’s important. Face it, when low life, do nothing journalists are considered vital members of society, you’re in trouble.

To water this down, Judge argues that our culture is little more than a bunch of brain dead zombies giggling at nutshots and farts. We're a culture obsessed with the dumb, obsessed with stuff like this:

Okay, that's pretty awesome so its not the best example. Honestly, I can watch this loop for hours. The reaction of the guy holding the pogo stick is priceless.

To put it another way, this movie is a poor man’s Children of Men, which is a haughty examination of how vacuous Western Civilization has become. While Children of Men is an insufferable mess that is so intent of being smart that it smothers itself, this film travels the exact opposite direction. It goes out of its way to mock our stupid natures by trading in a long line of scatological punch lines. The intelligence hidden in overall point gets a muddled by the litany of butt jokes. To be fair though, the butt jokes are pretty funny.

As a comedy, this film isn’t hilarious but does manage some good laughs. It starts out very strong and fizzles out by the final act. This is due to a lack of a viable villain for the hero Joe to confront. In essence, Joe Bauer is fighting against the whole stupid world. While this may work on paper, it doesn’t translate to the screen. Judge is forced by his final act to devolve into a distracting resolution that feels clunky and certainly isn’t funny – its barely even interesting. This said, the satirical points forwarded by this movie make up for the thin script and by the time the final act rolls around the film has made enough good moments to cover for its lousy resolution.

To sum up, this should have been a funnier film but it couldn’t be more pertinent. Judge makes some strikingly salient points about the condition of our culture but fails to balance them with his usual biting humor.

I will end by pointing out that the best way to enjoy this film is to watch it and then quickly make your way to the closest Wal-Mart. The similarities are creepy.

Cautions: The film has plenty of foul language and sexual references - just like you get when you hang around real life stupid people.

For fun, here are some commercials for the very real energy drink Brawndo. I think they do a good job of summing up the humor of this film.

Related Reviews:
Luke Wilson movies
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Henry Poole is Here (2008)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Film Critics United

Movie Trailer: Sherlock Holmes

2009-06-21T18:00:00.001-05:00

I haven't read all of Sherlock Holmes, but I fail to remember the one where he's fighting like a ninja and being handcuffed naked to a bed.

So, we're making Sherlock Holmes into Tony Stark with an accent?

Jude Law is Watson.

What part of this isn't freaking idiotic?

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg (Jumper)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye), Mark Strong (Body of Lies) and Jude Law (Sleuth)

Movie Trailer: Food Inc.

2009-06-21T09:00:00.002-05:00

I couldn't agree more about clear labeling on food and the need for people to take what they consume more seriously.

Notice the trailer however. The fat headed Southern hick, the obtuse reference to Bush - oh, its the mean, dumb Southerners who are to blame. I guess all those corporate farms in California and upstate New York don't count. Dragging out the republicans as the ones keeping people from outing those poisoning our foodstuffs is childish. Democrats are on the take too. The truth is that no one in Washington is really fighting back.

My guess, this film brings up some very valid points but screws them by smothering it all in agenda-laden nonsense.

Return to the movie trailers page

Director: Robert Kenner (Russia's Last Tzar)

Movie Trailer: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard

2009-06-20T18:00:00.003-05:00

This trailer actually made me laugh. Trailers rarely make me laugh. Ken Jeong's expression during the Pearl Harbor bit kills me.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Andy Stock and Andy Stempson
Director: Neal Brennan
Actors: Ed Helms (The Hangover), Will Ferrell (Land of the Lost), Jeremy Piven (The Kingdom), Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction) and David Koechner (Get Smart)

Movie Trailer: The Untouchables

2009-06-20T09:00:00.004-05:00

Its worth the price of admission just to hear Sean Connery try to pronounce the word "booze".

Yes, its a corny flick but it is a darn good looking one and David Mamet's dialog is wonderful. It even makes Kevin Costner's "aw-shucks" turn as Elliot Ness bearable.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: David Mamet (Redbelt)
Director: Brian De Palma (The Black Dahlia)
Actors: Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves), Sean Connery (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), Robert De Niro (Raging Bull), Andy Garcia (Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead) and Charles Martin Smith (Left Behind: World at War)

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

2009-06-19T22:00:00.001-05:00

Should I see it?

No.

This is the cinematic equivalent to eating left overs of left overs.

Instead of South Africans, Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Murtaugh (Danny Glover) battle Chinese Triads. Other than fighting Jet Li, the partners whine about getting old...well, actually Murtaugh always complained about being old but in this outing Riggs joins him. Chris Rock is thrown in as a over pronunciating soon to be son-in-law to Murtaugh and Riggs shack up girl Lorna (Rene Russo) is knocked up. That's about it. A bunch of characters who have been kept on life support being shoved into convienent plot twists. You get the feeling like you've watched a movie without really watching one.

Related Reviews:
Mel Gibson movies
Signs (2002)
The Patriot (1999)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Christian Spotlight on the Movies

Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)

2009-06-19T15:00:00.003-05:00

Should I see it?

No.

It's all of the stupid from the first two Lethal Weapon movies without any of the fun. The poster for the film pretty much says it all. It's a Hollywood-kinda-dumb, directed from the balance sheet, McMovie. Riggs and Murtaugh are back and this time there's a cop girlfriend accessory!

Violent and appealing to the lowest common denominator, this is utter pap and not worth the bother.

Related Reviews:
Mel Gibson movies
The Man Without a Face (1993)
What Women Want (2000)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Jester's Movie Reviews

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

2009-06-19T12:00:00.002-05:00

Should I see it?

No.

I don't recommend this because I wouldn't be able to look you in the eye if I did. Privately, I might pull you aside, shrug, and admit that its a fun movie - but whoa is it stupid, and it ain't going to do you any good.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover return as Riggs and Murtaugh. The cops work to bring down a South African drug runners. The pair are also stuck protecting a Federal witness named Leo Getz (Joe Pesci). Getz is a hyperactive, grating little man. Pesci, with his high pitched voice, is perfectly cast as the irritant but also makes the character likable. This is notable given how abrasive the guy is.

This is an effective sequel to the original since it takes what made the first film work, the relationship between the characters, the instability of Riggs in particular, and the over-the-top cartoonish action sequences and kicks it all up one more notch. The use of the South Africans as the villains played into the political events in that country at the time. You will also note other social marketing plots "We're boycotting tuna now, honey." All of the social marketing slips by easily as the amusement ride aspect of the film takes over.

Ultimately, I can't recommend the film because its really not that well done. Its a big, flashy piece of crap. But like the original, it is fun. There's plenty of rough language and violence, so those who are sensitive should take note. For the average, jaded audience member, you probably have already seen this one, if not you will most likely find it to be enjoyable in the same way getting a sleeve of fries from McDonalds can be a pleasure.

Related Reviews:
Mel Gibson movies
Million Dollar Hotel (2000)
The Patriot (1999)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
eFilm Critic

Lethal Weapon (1987)

2009-06-19T09:00:00.001-05:00

Should I see it?
Yes.

Screenwriting legend Shane Black's first big gig. This fat, stupid movie about self-destructive white cop Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and his beleaguered black partner Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is a vacuous, ridiculous waste of time - but still a fun way to waste it.

The film is an amoral carnival ride of stupid. Not a second of the film makes sense, its completely out of the realm of the possible and ultimately we're all along to have our brains tickled for ninety minutes. Black manages to manipulate all matter of elements into his film to elicit visceral responses. The film opens with a sexy whore dying, Riggs makes light of suicide, plenty of references to Vietnam, there's a silly bit about Riggs being an expert sniper (if he's a sniper then why isn't he on S.W.A.T.?) and carefully crafted scenes with Murtaugh's Cosby-lite family. All of this mashed together with a intruding saxophone soundtrack that may as well been loud fart noises. It's all so obtuse and it's all so dumb.

Gibson was a known actor prior to his turn as Riggs, having found success in the Mad Max films. It was his energetic performance launched him to wider fame. Gibson's wild-eye Riggs makes psychotic suicidal tenancies approachable and funny and gave him a place to showcase his natural humor and charm. Gibson turned a buddy film into a star vehicle.

This is a fun movie, there is no taking that away. It is also an utter waste of time and a obscenely moronic. Shane Black is a great screenwriter. He can take something idiotic and revel in the depths of its stupidity and pull out something that makes you not care that you're being presented vapid. This is not a small feat. Black makes crap, but it is impressive crap.

Related Reviews:
Mel Gibson movies
Signs (2002)
What Women Want (2000)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Movie Vault
The Washington Post

Movie Trailer: The Last International Playboy

2009-06-18T20:00:00.000-05:00

So, a black hole of a human being learns to love? Perhaps its just the way the trailer is cut but I loathe the lead character enough just from what I see here that I want to avoid the movie altogether.

If watching an STD infested, morally retarded man-child who drinks too much attempt to ruin a wedding is your thing, knock yourself out. Me? I've had enough with the loser as hero flicks.

Return to the movie trailers page

Screenwriters: Steve Clark and Thomas Moffett
Director: Steve Clark
Actors: Jason Behr (The Grudge), Monet Mazur (The House Bunny), Krysten Ritter (27 Dresses) and Lucy Gordon (Spider-Man 3)

Up (2009)

2009-06-18T15:00:00.001-05:00

Should I see it?

A weak yes.

Short Review: It's called Up but the plot never takes off.

It appears that Pixar’s quiver is just about empty. I’ve been praising Pixar for a long time and see them as one of the most consistent and reliable shops in business. Something that has always impressed me about Pixar’s films is how realized they all have been. From the carefully crafted scripts to the detailed visual designs, each outing up to this point has been worthy of the praise it has received. This film makes me worried that they have finally run out of ideas.

Like most other Pixar films, this movie centers on a journey. In this case, we are following Carl, an old man who straps balloons on to his house and flies away to a idyllic land in South America. He does this to fulfill the lifelong dream of his deceased wife Ellie. The set up for this works wonderfully and plays into the strengths of the story. Carl is a curmudgeon but we know he is a softy at heart. He remains in his home despite the developers and construction workers laboring literally right outside his door. Carl does his best to protect his home and by extension his memories of Ellie. This conflict works and is interesting, but it is a brief sideshow. In a moment of desperation mixed with inspiration, Carl hooks his house up to the balloons and he floats away in his house. This kills the conflict with the developer and sends the whole production down a dead end. The movie effectively ends at this point and it lingers on with no central conflict. XXX lands in South America and finds a villain that puts him in peril but the conflict is forced and illogical. It is there so Carl has something to do. Heck, the entire second half of the movie is there so Carl has something to do. There's no continual conflict from the beginning of the film to the end. This leads to a broken focus and a meandering storyline.

This is easily the weakest of all Pixar movies, including A Bug’s Life and Toy Story 2. This is a Pixar short stretched out to meet a longer running time.

The film isn't a complete loss. The visuals are pleasant to watch and there are moments that work. In particular the opening. The realtionship between Carl and Ellie is condensed into a tight review that is one of the best character summaries I've seen. It is truly moving.

I don’t recommend this film if you’re going because you trust Pixar. Its just not that good. If you’re going to entertain the kids, then this will work. It probably won’t be a huge hit with the kids but it should keep them quiet for a while.

Click the old coot to view the trailer

Related Reviews:
Pixar movies
Cars (2006)
The Incredibles (2004)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Fistful of Donuts
Big Fanboy Reviews

Good News Film Reviews

Movie Trailer: Law Abiding Citizen

Movie Trailer: Whiteout

Movie Trailer: I Sell the Dead

Movie Trailer: Gentlemen Broncos

Star Trek (2009) *Repost*

2012 (2009)

Movie Trailer: 2012

Tyson (2008)

Review Link: Inglorious Basterds

Armageddon (1998)

Girl 27 (2007)

Movie Trailer: The Invention of Lying

...as I was saying

Starving the Feed

Idiocracy (2006)

Movie Trailer: Sherlock Holmes

Movie Trailer: Food Inc.

Movie Trailer: The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard

Movie Trailer: The Untouchables

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)

Lethal Weapon (1987)

Movie Trailer: The Last International Playboy

Up (2009)

Star Trek (2009) Repost