"Knocked Up" - Sure, why not...

I am a Judd Apatow fan. "Freaks & Geeks" and "Undecided" were both great (personally, I prefered "Undecided"). As far as "The 40 Year Old Virgin" goes, I would put that in my five favorite comedies of all time ("Vacation," "Caddyshack," "Animal House," and "Blazing Saddles" being the other four). So needless to say, I had high expectations for his newest film, "Knocked Up."

The premise is easy to figure out - stoner (played by the chairperson of the Apatow Players Seth Rogen) knocks up a woman way out of his league ("Grey's Anatomy" star Katherine Heigl). Their shared pain turns into a shakey romance as these polar opposites attempt to find middle ground. Then a fat kid walks in and makes a weiner joke and all is right in the world. The end.

Is "Knocked Up" a great comedy? No. But it certainly is a pretty damn good one.

The laughs are pretty consistent thanks to the type of inane conversational dialogue seen in Apatow's other work. Rogen and his gang of burn-outs provide most of the laughs, which usually revolves around busting each other's balls. Paul Rudd (another Apatow stalwart), as Heigl's brother-in-law, provides some nice moments as the stereotypical "trapped" family man, reduced to telling lies just to get some alone time.

The estrogen-laced side of the cast is pretty decent as well. Although not overly funny, Heigl does a pretty good job as the it-chick who manages to screw up royally. I'll give her extra credit for overcoming two giant hurdles. First, she successfully shed herself of the "Grey's Anatomy" whine-factor (if you've ever watched the show, you'd have to admit that a bigger group of cry babies might not exist). Secondly, I've always thought she kind of looked like Rocky Dennis's younger, slightly better looking sister - with her giant forehead and widely-spaced eyes. Yet for two-hours, I almost forgot about it. Good for her.

Leslie Mann, as Heigl's somewhat demanding sister, also did a decent job, routinely going toe-to-toe with Rudd.

"Knocked Up" does a nice job of mixing clever humor with a healthy dose of low-brow. Maybe "mixing" isn't the right word, as quite frankly it's pretty raunchy. Dick jokes run rampant, as does a nice lesson in how someone can contract pink eye. Personally, my favorite low brow moment came when an apparently poorly trained gynecologist gets her orifices confused. And in case you haven't heard, the ending offers an extremely graphic birthing moneyshot. Don't say you haven't been warned.

I do feel compelled to point out a few flaws. First off, two hours nine minutes was way too long. This could have been trimmed down by downplaying the "horrors of marriage" storyline a bit.

Secondly, said "horrors of marriage" storyline - although a good idea - is weakly developed. At times, Rudd's dissatisfaction with his marriage seems a bit thrown in, specifically during a somewhat funny, yet ultimately pointless Vegas scene.

Thirdly - and probably most unsettling - is how the film takes on this mismatched couple. Stoner meets pretty girl, they have sex, pregnancy ensues, and then - boom - they are a couple. Heigl is a tv personality for the E! channel; Rogen is a pothead who sits at home planning a website a little too simliar to "Mr. Skin.com." Yet, the pregancy creates almost instant compatability. Addtionally, the film focuses a lot on how much of a loser Rogen is (how exactly does he afford weed, beer, rent, food, more weed, internet access, a bong, another bong, pants, lite beer, and weed?), yet mildly glosses over the fact that Heigl's character is ultimately embarrased by her situation (relegated to roughly one scene). You would think the film would focus more on their differences.

But I digress. This is a comedy. Rarely does a comedy achieve perfection (plot development, consistency, well-developed characters, etc.), as "the funny" is the ultimate goal. "Knocked Up" offers plenty of "the funny" - probably the kind of funny that gets funnier the more times you see it.

As long as you enjoy plenty of lowbrow humor (and I pity you if you don't), you'll enjoy "Knocked Up."

Peter Parker 1

I remember how excited I was when "Batman" came out in the late '80's. For what appeared to be the first time, Hollywood was going to make a movie that captured the darker, truer, side of comics. Sure, "Superman" had come and gone, but he always felt (at least to me) like such a shallow character (a feeling I don't necessary still hold on to). "Batman" was going to prove that a true comic book movie could be made.
Maybe it was the grandness of the whole event, but I remember being so overwhelmed by the experience. Like the first time I saw "Star Wars," I couldn't wait to see "Batman" again.
A few days after seeing it, I was at a friends (actually, a girlfriend of a friend) house talking to her father, who happened to be a huge Batman comic fan. I remember being completely surprised when he told me that he thought the movie was a total disappointment. "Why?" I asked. His answer - too much Bruce Wayne, not enough Batman.
Having seen "Spiderman 3," I'm reminded of that experience. I don't want to say it was bad - it certainly wasn't; and I'm not even sure it was a disappointment. I guess it just wasn't what I expected.
If the original was about Spidey's origins and the sequel was about the pressure that comes with such a heavy burden at a young age, "3" is about how BEING Spiderman can impact personal relationships - specifically, Peter Parker's (Tobey Maguire) relationship with Mary Jane Watson. First and foremost, "3" is a love story - a theme in all of the Spiderman movies, but never to this extent.
The film begins with a euphoric Parker - something not seen in the other movies. Spiderman is a local hero and he (being Parker) has finally scored the girl of his dreams. The only thing left is to seal the deal with a marriage proposal. But one teensy problem exists - Harry Osborn (James Franco) is still bent on revenge for the death of his father. Fairly early in the movie, Parker and Osborn engage in what one would hope to be the first of many fights. Instead, the film leaps head first into a relationship analysis of Parker and M.J. (Kirsten Dunst).
Along the way, a few new characters are brought into the fray: Sandman (Thomas Hayden Church), an escaped convict who is transformed into, well, a Sandman; Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a self-proclaimed hotshot photographer who eventually gets transformed into Venom, a rage filled carbon-copy of Spiderman; and Gwen Stacy (a surprising hot Bryce Dallas Howard), an ancillary character who unwittingly serves as a rival to M.J.
It would probably be fair to say a fourth character exists as well. Appearing early in the film as the result of a strange meteor crash is a strange black goo, defined eventually as an alien "symbiote" - living matter that bonds to a host and amplies negative emotions. When Parker allows himself to be consumed by this symbiote, he is transformed into both a dark Spidey and an even darker, more violent Parker.
Upon coming to his senses, Parker separates himself from the goo, only to have it latch on to the aforementioned Eddie Brock, who's anger towards Parker allows him to transform into Venom.
Sound like alot to take in?
Once again, I didn't find "Spiderman 3" to be bad; it just wasn't what I was looking for. I've always applauded the franchise, and specifically director Sam Raimi, for digging deeper than just a dude in tight fighting other dudes in tights. Raimi has always been willing to present his title character as a conflicted individual who struggles with balancing his obligation to society with his own happiness. But I think in doing so with this film - digging so deeply into Parker and M.J.'s suddenly fractured relationship - caused the film to drag a bit.
As a result, the film seemed to like a defining action moment - something still central to these films. In "Spiderman 2" it was the subway fight (possibly the best comic book action scene next to Nightcrawler's invasion of the White House in "X2"); in the original, it was everything about the climax. Yet this film seemed to fall just short of delivering that moment.
An early fight between Parker and Osborn is good, but it seemed so busy that it was tough to literally FOCUS on what was happening. The climactic scene in which Parker must fight both Sandman and Venom is good, but because so little time is spent on developing the villains, it's tough to develop a real animosity toward Spidey's advesaries.
Raimi really missed a golden opportunity with the Venom character. Fans of the comic have been waiting for this moment - unfortunately, the moment (being Venom's creation and subsequent attacks on Spiderman) occurs so late in the film that resolution is forced a bit too quickly.
Additionally, Sandman seems a bit thrown in and his own internal conflict is given surface-level attention at best.
The cast, from top to bottom, is excellent (as always) and the special effects are top notch (once again, as always). The creation of Sandman is pretty awesome as is the fight between him and "dark" Spiderman. WHen Venom is given screen time, he comes off pretty freaking scary.
But, like my friends dad said about "Batman," this film seems to lack enough SPIDERMAN. Even when Parker dons the red and blue suit, he seems to do a good portion of it without his mask. Maybe that's intentional; a way to put the focus on the man and not the ideal.
I will say that Tobey Maguire is probably the greatest superhero actor of all time. No one has ever so perfectly nailed the origin character (Peter Parker); in turn, Maguire has always had the luxury of playing a character whose costume conceals every inch of his body, thus blurring the lines between actor, stuntman, and CGI.
Additionally, I still believe that "Spiderman" is still consistently the best hero franchise (with "X-Men" a close second). Each film uniquely attacks a theme that transcends good vs. evil, exploring both the characters and the icons. This is probably the weakest of the three, but certainly not in a cheap way.
I guess what I'm saying is know what you're getting into. The usual cliches don't apply ("action-packed", "full-throttle," blah, blah, blah); this is first and foremost a love story. Spiderman clearly takes a backseat. Did I like it? Yes - but I wanted to love it. I wanted to see a tormented Spiderman struggle with his dark alter-ego. I wanted to see Venom scare the sh*t out of everyone on that screen (as well as every little kid in the theater). And I wanted to big time, jaw dropping fight. I didn't get any of that and I'm not sure you will either. BUT what you will get is another well-written, well-directed, well-acted film with a good combination of laughs and drama, with some (but not enough) action thrown in.

"Year of the Dog"

I was able to catch an advance screening of "Year of the Dog" last night at the Baxter. Opening this Friday (May 4th), "Year of the Dog" is the story of Peggy (Molly Shannon of SNL fame), a single woman who is very close to her dog - and not much else. When her dog, Pencil, unexpectedly dies, Peggy is left with a huge void in her life - something she attempts to fill through dating, family, and activism. Unfortunately, her desire to find purpose leads her down a dark path, punctuated by a depression that forces her to act irrationally towards those closest to her.
Other notable cast members include Peter Sarsgaard, as an asexual dog adoption worker, John C. Reilly, as Peggy's next door neighbor and personal nemesis, Laura Dern, as Peggy's sister-in-law who also happens to be an obsesively overprotective mother, and Regina King ("Jerry Maguire", "Ray" as Peggy's flighty insecure best friend.
Written and directed by Mike White (also wrote "Nacho Libre," "School of Rock"), "Year of the Dog" is a likeable comedy that attempts to explore one woman's trust in animals, as well as her ultimate distrust of humans.
Off the bat, I need to say that this is a good movie IF you take it at face value. What I mean is that if you allow yourself to get sucked into the greater themes, you'll be disappointed. As a comedy that shifts between light and dark, it's enjoyable. The casts does a good job - Sarsgaard manages to tone down his creepiness (although he does seem to channel Todd Louiso [Chad the nanny] from "Jerry Maguire) a little too much. King and Dern are excellent as obsessive stereotypes - both consistently adding laughs. King is especially funny when discussing her relationship with her boyfriend, admitting at one point she superglued part of a chipped tooth back into her mouth so as not to give her boyfriend something to criticize her about.
Shannon is especially good, toning down her usual over-the-topness and attacking the character with a mousey subtleness. As she attempts to fill the void in her life that surfaces when her dog dies, she balances insecurity with a sense of confusion as she floats between relationship issues and extreme animal activism.
However, where the film fails is in its attempt to tackle deeper (and darker) human issues - specifically depression and the feelings of emptiness that accompany it. I guess it ultimately starts with the catalyst for Peggy's transformation. We are to believe that she has an undying loyalty to her dog, yet early in the film, she surprisingly allows her dog to wander off (eventually resulting in its death), placing her own comfort ahead of the well-being of her most trusted companion.
As the film progresses, Peggy makes astounding leaps towards a scary level of depression (eventually resulting in some uncharacteristic behavior towards her neighbor and boss) - astounding because we don't see that progression. The shortest distance between point A and point B is a straight line; unless your Peggy, as it seems the straight line was replaced by a wormhole that jumps directly from point to point.
Upon reaching the final half hour, the film takes an extremely dark turn. But instead of the lights slowly dimming, they just go out altogether - more of a powershortage than a loss of focus on Peggy's part. Peggy's behavior is understandable for someone who has suffered a great loss, but it never seems to be developed. When the movie reaches its climax, it comes off as lazy with Peggy making another underdeveloped leap.
I will say that the idea ones faith in humans versus animals is interesting. Early on, Peggy states that she's incapable of trusting people, as unlike dogs, they always let you down. As the film progresses, we see that Peggy is her own best (or maybe worst) example, as her irrational actions negatively impact those who care of her.
I would have liked to see the film examine Peggy's insecurities a little more in-depth. When questioned about her animal beliefs, she rarely seems to have a solid answer, suggesting that even she doesn't know what she is doing. At times, there appears to be an emptiness in her actions - especially when she takes her niece to visit an animal rescue farm (followed shortly by a trip to a slaughterhouse). Unfortunately, the ending kills this concept as we are to believe that she truly FELT a strong calling to these causes.
All that being said, if I separate my nitpicky issues, and look at the film from a more simplistic view, it really wasn't that bad. I did find myself sympathizing for Peggy at times and there are plenty of laughs.
I can't imagine this film will have much of shelf-life in Louisville. If you are an animal lover or enjoy "quirky" comedies, you'll probably enjoy "Year of the Dog." However, looking to deeply might leave you unsatisfied.
On another note, I'll be catching "Spiderman 3" on Thursday night and will have a review up by Friday morning.

The "Bobby" argument

My mother watched "Bobby" the other night, which prompted a mother/son confrontation, reminiscent of the father/son confrontation that occured months ago.

In case you forgot, "Bobby" is about this little kid with a really annoying voice who gets into all kinds of wacky misadventures. Occasionally, he puts a surgical glove on his head and blows it up with his nose. No wait...that's "Bobby's World." My bad.

"Bobby" is about a group of supremely fascinating individuals who are eventually witness to the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy. The cast is a who's who of A-List superstars, including Sharon Stone, Helen Hunt, Emilio Estevez (who also directed) and Christian Slater! I can only guess that Clint Howard was unavailable.

If you can't tell, I thought "Bobby" sucked. Terrible cast and a series of mind-numbing subplots.
Like many of you, I grew up in a house that worshiped Bobby Kennedy. A strong belief existed that the world would be much better place had he lived. To this day, my mother cannot contain her emotions when confronted with his legacy. So needless to say, I have a deep appreciation for the man. I'm sure many of you can relate.

So Emilio Estevez decides to make a movie - and a very poor one at that. Since the movie is already 7 months old, I'm not going to give a full-blown-review; instead I just want to make a couple of personal observations.

1. The subplots are meaningless. I understand that the intent was to show how average the day began, but this was well-below average. With the exception of William H. Macy and (I guess) Anthony Hopkins, the cast was nothing more than a parade of has-beens, never-was, and should-never-be's.
2. No tangible relationship exists between the characters and the Kennedy movement/aura. Casual observations are made about how great he is, but no one appears to be profoundly impacted by the promise of his greatness.
3. Estevez is shameful in his use of Kennedy footage. The first five minutes or so consists of a Kennedy montage - a brilliant and emotional montage at that. Similar footage is spliced in several times in the film. Why is this shameful? Because it feels like a blatant attempt to inject emotion and context into a film whose various storylines lack both. By naming the film "Bobby" and using this footage, it creates a misleading expectation about the film's motives. A better title would have been "1968," or maybe Estevez should have named it after the hotel the days events occured at. Or maybe he should have named it "Sh*t Sandwich." Any of those would have been better.

In summation, I hated it. And clearly, I am not in the minority. Good for all of us bitter, self-loathing individuals who can't find joy in the simple things in life.

Now, I am my parent's son. My taste in movies is very similar to those of my parents (with the exception of their love of snuff films). That being said, I was extremely surprised when I learned that my parents both loved "Bobby." Actually, "loved" might be an understatement. Like Tracy Jordan in "30 Rock," I'm convinced both my parents loved it so much that they'd "like to take it out behind the middle school and get it pregnant."

When discussing - I'm sorry, I meant arguing - with my parents about "Bobby," the conversation veered away from the movie and back to the man himself. How could I, the son of two people who so admired Bobby that it permeated every aspect of our lives, turn on this movie? To which I asked them, how can you not separate the ideal from the film itself? To hate the movie is no way an attack against the man. Of course, it probably didn't help matters that I told both parents that they would have liked the film just the same if instead of boring subplots, Estevez just spliced footage of Kennedy into a hardcore porno (I know I would have liked it more).

I bring this up because I'm fascinated by the generational opinions of this film. Is it fair to say that those who experienced Kennedy's potential first hand are incapable of objectively judging this film based on its overall story? Is it fair to say that those of us too young to know what it was like aren't capable of feeling the depth of emotion Kennedy's death caused? I guess in some ways both questions are valid. However, since the film supremely sucked, I'm going to say that the inability to separate the man from the film is more valid. I guess that makes me a blog-bully.

All I know is that Hollywood has generally avoided RFK. My mom suggested that it would be meaningless to watch someone do an impersonation and maybe she's right. I appreciate the ideals that he stood for and, through my parents, believe that the world may have been a better place. I just think it's unfortunate that "Bobby" may be the first introduction many young people get to his legacy.

Death of My Interest

I recently watched "Death of a President" - the supposedly controversial faux-documentary that asks" What if George Bush was assasinated?" Maybe before asking "What if?" the director should have asked himself either "Why?" or even "Who cares?"

A quick synopsis. George Bush visits Chicago. His visit is marred by violent protestors. Following a speech he delivers, Bush is assasinated. Suspects are targeted and eventually, a Muslim takes the fall. Then out of nowhere, the actual culprit is revealed in one of the most poorly portrayed and least interesting twists in some time. The film is shot like a documentary, primarily consisting of interviews with Bush staffers, local protestors, and other fictitious characters.

When this film was released in 2006, my initial response was that this seemed somewhat irresponsible - an odd feeling considering I always support any efforts that involved giving the middle finger to people in positions of authority. Certainly Bush is a polarizing individual, but does the man really deserve to have his death depicted on the big screen, possibly giving inspiration to countless wackos? However, my bleeding heart, first ammendment-driven alter-ego took hold and I figured, "what the hell."

Here's the problem - ultimately, it's just a dumb movie. If you're going to make a movie about a current world leader being assasinated, there should be a reason - an agenda of sorts. Maybe you're trying to effect change or expose corruption. Or maybe you're making an honest plea for someone's death. Unfortunately, this film fails at this central point, settling for a cheap attempt at controversy for the sake of controversy.

Bush is portrayed as a somewhat sympathetic figure. Interviews with staffers show him to be well-liked and he is described as a down to earth type dude. Honestly, those are probably fairly accurate depictions.

Upon his assasination, the country scrambles for answers - some good, some bad. As predicted, an innocent man is accused, but any attempt by the filmmakers to indict the U.S. government comes across as feeble. When the real killer is revealed, it seems so unimaginative and thrown in, that it has virtually no emotional or intellectual impact.

I'm reminded of the scene in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," in which Steve Martin snaps at John Candy. Tired of Candy's mindless anectdotes, Martin says (and I'm paraphrasing), "Here's an idea, have a point!" "Death of a President" fails miserably at having a point. Demonize our culture for stereotyping; defend Bush, or maybe portray him as a puppet president; show a positive or negative result. Just do something that resembles anything.

It would be like if I made a movie called "Going to the Grocery." It begins with an overview of my current shopping needs. Oddly enough, my refrigerator and cabinets are not barren. I'm down to a half-gallon of milk, and maybe a fourth of a loaf of bread. Some soup would be good, but not necessary. A quick scan of my physical stature suggests that I'm not grossly overweight - therefore, the suspense of whether I should go on a diet is removed. Conversely, I'm not starving, therefore the emotional impact of me withering away is also removed from the story. Looking at bank records, we see that I have some money in savings as well as a healthy enough checking account to suggest that I not only have enough money for regular groceries, but I'll have enough left over to pay bills, go to a movie, and maybe pay for two or three prostitutes. Hold on - strike that part, as that smacks of something interesting or controversial. Instead, I have enough money to pay for two or three rounds of Putt-Putt. I get in my car, drive a mile to Kroger and begin purchasing groceries. All the wheels on my cart are perfectly aligned, so there is no concern over whether I'll lose control and run over a child. Everything I need is available so I'm able to fulfill all my shopping needs. The end. I just gave you a kid friendly version of "Death of a President."

If you were aware of this film when it first came out and read any of the reviews, you'll realize that I'm not saying anything new (of course, when do I ever?). It came and went, without registering even a blip on the public consciousness. Which is good because for quite frankly, it's just a dumb movie that fails to be either controverial or even thought provoking.

"Grindhouse"

I saw a screening of "Grindhouse" this evening. I guess when I was younger, I was into slasher movies and car chases. Then my parents got Cinemax, and as the saying goes, "the rest is very lonely and disturbing history..."

If you're not familiar with "Grindhouse," here's a quick breakdown. Directors Robert Rodriguez ("Sin City" "El Mariachi") and Quentin Tarantino (production assistant on "Dolf Lundgren: Maximum Potential", director of the "ER" episode entitled "Mother," among other things) decided to create a double feature that pays homage to campy horror films of the past.

Rodriguez wrote/directed "Planet Terror" in which zombies take over a small town, leaving a small group of locals to fight for survival. One of the locals, Cherry Darling (the painfully sexy Rose McGowan), just so happens to lose her right leg to said zombies, only to have it eventually replaced by a prosthetic machine gun. The movie sort of writes itself from there...

Tarantino's contribution is "Death Proof," featuring Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike, a twisted little psycho who gets his kicks off on hunting down young hotties in his "death proof" stunt car. I'd tell you more about the plot, but to do so would require me to make a bunch of stuff up as, well, that sentence sums up the entire plot.

In between the double feature (as well as before "Planet Terror") a group of guest directors (including Eli Roth of "Hostel" fame and Rob Zombie of poor-hygiene fame) create previews for fake movies, with titles like "Werewolf Women of the SS" and "Thanksgiving."

To add to the authenticity, Rodriguez/Tarantino give the film a worn-out look, including missing reels/scenes and out-of-sync dialogue, replicating the wear-and-tear these films endured as they were passed around from theatre to theatre. Additionally, several actors appear in both films, indicative of a time when actors/actresses of this genre would crank out film after film.

So what do you need to know about this movie beforehand? First off, it's three hours long - fortunately, it doesn't feel as long because you do get two separate stories. Secondly, it's very self-indulgent. Rodriguez and Tarantino did this movie to honor their influences - Tarantino's film in particular has too many moments when you can tell he was clearly making the film for himself and not necessarily for the audience. And finally, the whole thing is pretty damn twisted.
The first feature is Rodriguez's "Planet Terror." Although it's slow to rev up, once it gets going, this movie is a hell of a lot of fun. The gore is constant, yet completely cartoonish. Heads seem to explode at an alarming rate, but it's more funny than gross.

In true form, the film is filled with dopey dialogue, with lines like "I never miss" (refering to pistols of both a literal and figurative nature") and "I want to eat your brains...and gain your knowledge." Additionally, in true tribute, "Planet Terror" is jam packed with gratuitous T & A shots. Of course to say gratuitous would diminish the value of the artistic direction these visionaries hoped to...ah who am I kidding...there's a whole bunch of boobies in this film.

Rodriguez does a nice job giving the film an authentic look, so much so the film skips ahead at one point (once again, the missing reel thing) from a somewhat...hot...scene to some sort of zombie armageddon scene - I know it sounds dumb, but it was actually pretty funny.

McGowan, as the machine gun-legged go-go dancer with a penchant for listing her useless talents, is equal parts sexy and fun - sort of like Rosie O'Donnell except not. Freddy Rodriguez ("Six Feet Under") as the mysterious Wray, is violently awesome. Let me rephrase - he was really violent and it was really awesome - thus "violently awesome."

In summation - "Planet Terror" was stupid fun. Good job, Robert Rodriguez. We're all very proud of you.

As fun as "Planet Terror" was, the highpoint might be the previews that are slipped in between "Planet" and "Death Proof." "Werewolf Women of the SS" (Rob Zombie's contribution) is absolutely ridiculous - tremendously absurd and bizarre. "Don't Scream," directed by Edgar Wright ("Shaun of the Dead" - great movie, if you haven't seen it then see it!) is hilarious for its repetitiveness. The final preview is for "Thanksgiving," Eli Roth's contribution. If you've ever seen "Hostel", you probably already know that Roth is a twisted f**k. There is nothing I can say to prepare you for "Thanksgiving" - I can't recall the last time something took me so off-guard. I'd like to call it "genius" but I'm afraid my parents might read this blog and finally ask themselves what all that tuition money they paid out actually went to.

The film's finale is "Death Proof," Tarantino's car chase film - and as odd as it is for me to say, it is the most disappointing part of the movie. The film is at its best when it sticks to car-on-car violence. The chase scenes are pretty exciting and Russell's big murder moment is well-done (Tarantino relives consecutively the moment of each victim's death, which is much cooler than it sounds). Additionally, if you're a big Tarantino fan (which if you read my column this week, you'll know that I fall in that category), you'll appreciate the references to his earlier movies - including a camera-shot reminiscent of "Reservoir Dogs" opening scenes, as well as several "Pulp Fiction" dialogue acknowledgements. Doesn't add anything to the film, but still kind of, sort of cool.

However, "Death Proof" stumbles on two points. First off, from a stylistic standpoint, Tarantino seems to lose sight of the overall look and feel of the film. Whereas Rodgriguez effectively uses missing scenes/reels and damaged film throughout "Plantet Terror", WITHOUT BECOMING A DISTRACTION (all caps, folks, so it must be correct), Tarantino appears to forget the look/feel of the film, going long stretches without any of the damaged look. When it does suddenly appear (a blotch in the film, lines across the screen) it seems out of place and thrown in for the sake of throwing it in. I recognize that the whole point of this film is something greater than crappy looking production, but it's part of the kitch - just be consistent.

The other letdown - and this is weird to say - is that Tarantino tends to out-Tarantino himself. Long stretches of mindless conversation dominate "Death Proof" to the point that you forget their is an action element all together. I recognize, and embrace, the fact that Tarantino is a master of pointless discussions, but the difference is that in past films, both the characters and their conversations were interesting. In the second half of his film, Tarantino introduces a gang of four wannabe celebrities (actually, I guess one of them is a minor celebrity within the context of the film) who embark on a painfully uninteresting conversation that takes place in their car and carries over into a diner. Admittedly, I completely zoned out as if I were trapped in some sort of twisted Bunco hell. Rosario Dawon et al. just drone on and on (sort of like this blog entry...)! When the film finally jumps back into car chase/destruction mode, it couldn't overcome the boredom that had set in. Don't get me wrong - the films closing car chase/fight scene is pretty sweet, but by then, the life had been sucked out of me.

However, in Tarantino's defense, he did come up with one great line - "There are few things fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel." I'll have to remember that line when 20 years from now I'm trying to talk my youngest daughter of the stripper pole.

So overall, what to say about "Grindhouse"? "Planet Terror" is fun; "Death Proof"...not so much. Much to my surprise, Rodriguez outdid Tarantino. The "Coming Attractions" are GREAT (once again, with the caps). Should you go see it? It's not for everyone. If you like absurdity and can take the three hour run time, then go for it. I want to say I loved it, but "Death Proof" wore me out. Frankly, "Grindhouse" will probably be a better DVD.

Oscar nominations

The Oscar nominations were announced today and honestly, I can't say I have much of a problem with them. In fact, instead of pointing out what was wrong, I'd like to point out the one thing they definitely got right - the failure of "Dreamgirls" to receive a Best Picture nomination.

I saw "Dreamgirls"; I actually enjoyed it to a certain extent. But frankly, it was less of a film, more of a collection of great performances. Jennifer Hudson (who, in my opinion, was more of a leading actress than Beyonce) will win the Oscar and deservedly so. Eddie Murphy has a real chance, even though he failed to say "Too hot in the hottub" at least once.

But the problem I had was that "Dreamgirls" seemed confused as to whether it was musical OR a movie about music. When characters broke out in spontaneous song, too many times it seemed awkward. Plus, the moments between the songs seemed to slow.

By excluding "Dreamgirls," the Academy was able to (rightly) include "Letter from Iwo Jima," which in an up-for-grabs race, might win the thing.

Were their snubs? Sure. The main two being "United 93" and "Children of Men." For my money, "Children of Men" is the best picture, hands down. Unfortunately, a limited release plus the shortened Oscar season made it impossible for it to garner the necessary support.

Why "United 93" didn't get nominated does confuse me a bit; however, I can't really complain about the five that were nominated ("The Departed," "Babel," "Letters from Iwo Jima," "Little Miss Sunshine," and "The Queen"). All five were excellent films, furthering illustrating just how surprisingly good of a year 2006 was for film.

I waiver on whether "Pan's Labrynth" deserved a nomination for Best Picture - it was an incredible movie - but once again, I'm not sure what I would have substituted it for. However, it at least deserved a nomination for Best Director.

If it were up to me, I'd begrudging drop "The Queen" and "Little Miss Sunshine" and substitute "Children of Men" and "United 93." But having been married for 10 years, I've slowly learned that nothing is really up to me anymore.

It has been suggested that Maggie Gyllenhal was robbed for "Sherrybaby" but admittedly, I haven't seen it yet. But it's tops on my Netflix right now.

I am deeply troubled that "Click" received a nomination (Best Makeup). I guess the producers of "Little Man" couldn't get their asses in gear.

Children of Men

Yes, I'm posting two blogs within minutes of one another, but I wanted to separate this from my long-winded list-fest. Unfortunately, it is 2:40 a.m. and I'm half asleep, so I apologize for any rambling that might occur in the next few paragraphs.

I saw "Children of Men" this evening. Wow. Really...wow.

Based on the P.D. James novel, the film is a bleak look into a future where women are incapable of conceiving children. When the youngest person alive (18 plus years old) dies, the world is thrown into one massive hissy fit. But there is hope. A resistance group (known as FISHE) is protecting a young lady who managed to get pregnant. After their leader dies (played by Julianne Moore), Theo (another excellent performance by Clive Owen), an innocent bystander who gets sucked in after assisting FISHE, must help her escape war-torn England in hopes of hooking up with a mystery organization, known as the Human Project, that might provide a glimmer of hope for mankind.

Technically, this is a 2006 release, so I should have included it in my post below. However, since it just opened here today, I'll avoid doing so.

I think it's fair to say that "Children of Men" should be included in the Best Picture discussion. The story is excellent, the acting is great, and the intensity is at times overwhelming. It's a cross between "V for Vendetta," "A Clockwork Orange" and "28 Days Later."

It does its best to tie the story into current affairs - "Homeland Security" pops up constantly, there are strong Muslim references, and terrorism is concern number one.

Some of the scenes are absolutely beautiful - particularly a poignant moment between Michael Cain (who plays Theo's pot smoking pal Jasper) and his wife set to "Ruby Tuesday", as well as a quietly intense scene in which Owen escorts his fertile friend out of a battle ravaged building.

The violence is exceptionally real. Let me rephrase - it's not so much violent as it is destructive. The final moments in which Owen and young Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) must maneuver through an insane battle between FISHE and the army is shockingly realistic.

Admittedly, the film takes a bit of time to build up steam, but once it gets going (specifically, the moment a flaming car appears out of nowhere), it doesn't let up.

I try not to say this too often, but this really is a "must see."

I'm sleepy now. In summation, "Children of Men" = good.
ZZZZZZZ.

More Lists...

For those of you that read my Velocity article this week, you've already seen my Top 10 for 2006. Here are a couple of other lists for your ass...

Movies That Didn't Make the Cut
Getting the list to ten was a bitch - here are few movies that I hated to leave off:

"Dave Chappelle's Block Party" - Live Hip Hop is sink or swim. I'm still haunted by the images of Tone-Loc struggling to catch his breath while mumbling over a vocal track of "Funky Cold Medina" on the VMA's years ago. But when the performer gets it done, it's pretty frickin' good. I'm still lame enough to think L.L. Cool J's "MTV Unplugged" was pretty good. That being said, "Block Party" was a great collection of live performances - Jill Scott, Erika Badu, Mos Def, and so on. Not necessarily a funny movie; however, Chappelle's battle w/ "Mr. T." and his "Yo Momma" shtick was great.

"Half Nelson" - On two occassions, I was taught by history teachers that were notorious drunks. "Half Nelson" taught me a valuable lesson -when scheduling classes, if you have a choice between a drunk history teacher and a stoned history teacher, go with the one that's high. Unpredictable is underrated. Both Ryan Gosling, as the drug addicted teacher, and Shareeka Epps as the student whose life he gets involved with do incredible jobs. There is an amazing scene in which the film alternates between each character in their respective family settings that is absolutely heart breaking. However, the first half hour was just too slow.

"Jimmy and Judy" - Harsh independent film that caused one guy in the audience to stand up and start screaming at the screen. The only time I ever thought I might get beat up during a film. Easily the most uncomfortable film of the year. But then again, maybe that's because I was sitting on my keys the whole time.

"The Prestige" - I'm a big Christian Bale fan. That Scarlett Johansson ain't too shabby either. Great cameo by David Bowie as well.

"For Your Consideration" - Christopher Guest is a genius. Catherine O'Hara deserves an Oscar nod and it looks like she might get it. Fred Willard and Jane Lynch as hosts of an "Entertainment Tonight" rip-off steal the show. Very smart comedy; however, it couldn't quite keep up w/ "Thank You for Smoking" or "Borat."

"The Fountain" - I'm adding this one while acknowledging that I might change my mind after a second viewing. When I saw this, I was the ONLY PERSON IN THE THEATRE (great way to see a movie), plus I was a little blue at the time. Somehow, it managed to really touch me at the right moment. Pure art in it's presentation. However, this is certainly not a film for everyone (as evidenced by both the critical and commercial reaction it received).

Top Guilty Pleasures

Although not great, some are very good for personal reasons:
5. "Beer League" - Not to be confused with "Broken Lizard's Beerfest", this movie by Artie Lang was low-budget and awfully obscene. But being a Howard Stern fan most of my adult life, I can't help but include this for my love of Stern's hilarious sidekick.

4. "Superman Returns" - Visually, it was magnificent. The concept of Superman as a Jesus figure (notice the crucifixion pose after propelling the kryptonite-laden land mass into outer space) was a great touch by director Bryan Singer. However, like all previous Superman movies, it suffered from a lack of a really evil bad guy.

3. "The Pursuit of Happyness" - Just a great feel good movie. Will Smith's reaction at the end is so fricking genuine that I couldn't help but get a little emotional.

2. "Tenacious D in 'The Pick of Destiny'" - I laughed my ass of during this stupid movie. A definite DVD purchase for a sleepless night. Jack Black tumbling through the rapids while high on mushrooms was classic.

1. "X-Men: The Last Stand" - I'm a 34 year old geek who still loves the X-Men. Would have been infinitely better had Bryan Singer directed. However, I bought the stupid "Collector's Edition" the day it came out and have watched it at least 10 times. Considering I've already fathered two children, it's not like I'm doing anything else once the lights go off...

Worst Movies

Since these movies sucked, I'm just going to say hateful things.

5. "Let's Go to Prison" - All the good will that Will Arnet earned from "Arrested Development" went out the window. The person at the theatre who sold me the ticket should be ashamed of themself.

4. "The Pink Panther" - I would rather vomit relentlessly for a month than sit through this sh*t bomb again.

3. "Click" - If you haven't seen this, the whole movie was a dream. I hope I ruined it for you. I can now admit that although I was paid to review this movie, I actually walked out before it ended. Sure, there was only about 5 minutes left, but I felt like I had disappointed my parents for staying as long as I did.

2. "Little Man" - Although I did not pay to see this, I felt like I paid a king's ransom in dignity. A kick in the balls is always funny (unless of course it's happening to me), but try writing a second joke.

1. "Marie Antoinette" - I've been accused of "not getting it." I got it. It was supposed to be a playful romp and not a bio pic. That doesn't give it the right to avoid anything remotely interesting. Mindless movies can be good - I once wrote in "Velocity" that I watch "Rockstar" everytime it's on and as a child, I saw "Xanadu" seventeen times. This film made me nostalgic for the time I had a fatty tumor removed from my back and the doctor cut into a part of that wasn't completely numb.

Biggest Disappointments

Some movies should have been much better...

5. "The DaVinci Code" - Blah. Just plain blah. Here's an idea - try forcing the audience to think. Instead, it plodded along explaining itself every step of the way.

4. "Hollywoodland" - Great premise, boring delivery. As much as I liked him in "The Pianist," I'm just not buying Adrien Brody as an actor anymore. Don't get me started on Ben Affleck. Screw his Golden Globe nomination - he's a no-talent smug pretty boy who destroys everything he touches.

3. "All the King's Men" - How did they screw this up??? Great cast plus incredible novel somehow equaled slow-paced bomb. So much promise, so few results.

2. "The Good Shepherd" - In last week's "Velocity" I explained my extreme disappointment in De Niro. Too long and confusing. Simply overwhelming.

1. "Bobby" - This would have been number six on my worst movie list. My father (who loved it) and I got into a big argument the other night about this. Like many people of that generation, my father idolized Bobby Kennedy. To see and hear him again was an incredibly emotional experience. Writer/Director Emilio Estevez did a brilliant thing splicing in footage of Kennedy working his magic. However, I argued to my father that he could have done the same thing using hardcore pornography (instead of the painfully lame character arcs he chose instead) and he would have felt the same sense of nostalgia. I can't argue against an ideal, but I can argue against a crappy film.