The Blind Side - Matty Yezerski

I am shocked. Shocked because I saw this movie in the theater (along with millions of other shmucks), instead of seeing it the way it was made to be seen...out of obligation to your parents after receiving it in your Christmas stocking with the other "straight to DVD" hits like Facing the Giants and Fireproof.

The only Southern accent that deserved a GG was the one coming out of Houston Nuts pie hole.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Are Wes Anderson movies annoying because the hipster at work or in your class constantly talks about how awesome, funny and piercing Wes Anderson movies are? Or are Wes Anderson movies annoying because they are just 'too-cool'? Or are Wes Anderson movies really good and fun despite people telling you how annoying or great they are? I don't know. I do know that this movie didn't put to rest any of the arguments about what his movies are--parts of this one were super annoying because I knew hipsters were going to love them, and parts were just really fun and creative and parts were almost too cool for school. Overall though, as I say about all his movies, I enjoyed watching it.

Some thoughts:

I'm worn out with George Clooney. I honestly think he has been in 48 of the last 52 movies I have seen. He is still good, though.

The animation was cool, I thought.

The movie didn't waste any time, which was cool.

This was a better movie than I thought it was going to be.

The way that Anderson and Tarantino keep making their movies with chapters is a good way to separate their movies from being seen as more than they should be. (This is a statement against people that love their movies too much.)

You should see this, it is a fun movie.

Bottle Rocket is still his best movie, though.

Alice In Wonderland

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have teamed up to make some movies that are always going to 'be around'. Alice in Wonderland is definitely one of those movies. Their movies don't change the way movies are going to be made in the future. They don't redefine a genre. They (maybe exclude Scissorhands from this) are always fun or good but, for me, never amazing. They are, however always really clever, kind of 'weird', and worth seeing. In fact, I have seen most of their movies more than three times because they are always fun to watch. This movie is getting bad reviews across the board and I don't think it should. I also don't think it should get amazing reviews across the board. I think it should just be chalked up as another Tim Burton and Johnny Depp movie. There are a few reasons why this is not getting good reviews and I think by looking at these reasons we can kind of see what this movie is about and how if you have not seen it yet, it would be better to know what it is about before you hear someone tell you if it is good or not.

It sucks that this movie has come out right after Avatar. James Cameron spent 8 years making Avatar with a budget that was ridiculous. Avatar has indeed ch

anged the way we are going to view and make movies. Mainly, because it took 3-D too a whole other level. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were both adamant about people needing to see this in 3-D. I'm not completely sure I agree with them. Maybe last year you would have needed to see it in 3-D. But this year, Avatar has done such awesome stuff with 3-D that it is going to take a director tons of money and tons of time to match what Avatar did. The 3-D in this movie is not Avatar-esque and therefore is going to be a let-down to anyone that has recently seen and been amazed by neo-ferngulley.

It also sucks that Johnny Depp has created such a huge following for being 'weird'. It makes movie-goers way too excited about seeing him be weird in his next movie. Indeed, he is really weird and Edward S-hands, Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka and Sweeney Todd are all weird. Indeed, JD and all these characters are really fun to watch. The problem is, and I think it has finally come out in this movie, is that at some point all these characters run together and JD doesn't seem as novel and cool as he once was. He is still really awesome in this movie, even though he does a special effects dance and meshes all his weird characters into one. But I can see why people are getting tired of it and need JD to stare eerily stare into their soul like he did in Sleepy Hollow, Secret Window and Donnie Brasco. It should be said though, that in my opinion, he was still pretty good in this movie.

Any remake of a classic story is going to garner some bad reviews. Even more so if that classic story is one that people may say, "The chess board scene was just so magical for me when I was a kid." about. The people that are going to be jacked about going to see this movie are going to be the same people that most likely have strong emotions about the story of Alice in Wonderland. And, it is probably safe to say, that Tim Burton's interpretation of Alice in Wonderland is going to be freakishly different than the average European or American kid's. So, yeah, Burton's means by which to tell the story is really different than the children's books and focuses on stuff that may or may not have any importance to the average viewer, but if you haven't seen this or if you have, I don't think being pissed about the movie not doing what you wanted it do in reference to your childhood memories is a good thing to judge the movie on. You would do better to just let it be a totally new story.

Speaking of the story, however, it was told so slowly in this movie. Avatar was told slowly but slow story telling fell in the wayside while you were being entertained with shit floating around in front of your face. The 3-D in this movie, until the very last scene was not spectacular enough to keep you entertained while the story or acting was average.

All in all though, I think this was a pretty good movie. Don't expect it to be an Avatar or S-hands and don't expect it to bring back the memories of childhood. Just expect it to be another movie where JD and Tim Burton are really weird and creative and I think you will like it.

Crazy Heart (a micro-review) - Buck Snodgrass

We’ve all known a Bad Blake or two—hauling ass to kick-up trouble, cause us grief, and brighten our lives. They have big hearts and little cash. You can usually spot a Bad by the inextinguishable twinkle in their eye and the deep, deep sadness tucked behind whiskey bottles, long laughs, and mischievous grins. Nobody loves as fully—or breaks your heart so completely—as a Bad. Bads are basically good but ultimately self-destructive, and if you love a Bad, as we all do, you’re going to get hurt. And that’s ok—it ‘s worth it. Never too late.

Crazy Heart tells the story of the ultimate Bad, and--to quote a Bad Blake original--how he began as "somebody and turned into somebody else."

Films Without Borders - Tim Johnston

The following is a great commentary on the 'globalisation' (or non-globalisation) of film by my friend Tim. Says a lot about the politics of marketing and what a movie really is 'for'. I think it is for a lot of things but the marketing and copyright issues are slow to catch up with the on-line demand. Netflix in the U.S. has cornered the market, I think, so far. Being able to watch on demand movies, through a subscription, on your television, computer, or hand-held device is definitely pretty amazing. I wonder too, though, what Netflix means for the 'movie-experience'. Having so much control over 'how' to watch a movie seems to really alter what the movie is 'for'. Obviously, this really only applies to 'new releases'. But even for movies that have been out for a while--does it change what they are for when the viewer decides how, when and where to watch it? Does it matter what a movie is for? I don't know for sure but there has to be something to be said for having 'your place' to watch a new movie (or even an older one). If the Golden Globes, Oscars and BAFTAS are going to celebrate themselves this time of year, we should at least benefit from some sort of option that makes seeing the movies before the awards shows, I think. I agree with Tim. I also agree with Ebert that the local cinema may be losing ground but still has a 'place'. Let's get this worked out, execs in power-suits. What if Netflix finds a way to get rights to new releases the day they come out? And what if my Netflix subscription was able to be used in the UK? And what if I projected the films from my computer out on to a wall in the plaza outside my apartment?

Tim:

During this year's award season it again annoyed me that films take so long to make it from their country of origin to cinemas abroad. This became especially clear during the Golden Globes which took place before many of its contestants were shown in the UK. How is this possible? They don't have to be translated and director's cuts are usually only undertaken for films exported from abroad to the US in case they are deemed not fast-moving enough for American audiences.

The negative effects of the industry's tardiness are manifold:
1. Because users don't want to wait so long to see a film that has perhaps already won some awards and that everyone is talking about they download it, depriving its makers of the reimbursements they deserve. Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges have bagged Golden Globes and will do the same at the Oscars but British filmgoers won't be able to see their films in time for the awards.
2. Films lack relevance. Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story came out in the States in September 2009 when everyone was still talking about the economic crisis. Its UK release date is 26 February 2010, five months later. Even though I like the narrative style of his documentaries I am not going to watch it with a half year delay.
3. Foreign films are placed at disadvantage. By the time films reach audiences abroad, the hype surrounding them has often died down. One is less inclined to watch Mesrine: Killer Instinct ten months after its French release date than if it had come out at the same time.

In a thoughtful piece on film piracy, Mark Kermode has explained that the reason people download films is not that they are unscrupulous thieves but that users nowadays want to choose the way they watch a film, be it at the cinema, at home on the telly or on a portable gadget. That would give people who don't even want to be at the cinema the option of staying home and sparing us their popcorn-crunching and cell phone-ringing.

Just like the music industry took ages until it responded appropriately to Napster (with iTunes), the film industry is dragging its feet, blaming the users instead of recognising how demand has changed. To me it is unfathomable how in the age of globalisation it can take five months (Up), a year (Mesrine) or even longer (Ponyo) for a film to spread across the globe. The UK is especially slow as many films are translated and released in Germany and Spain before their untranslated versions make it to London. Does the British industry want us to download movies?

Any libertarian economist will tell you that when a market is constrained, the resulting trade is suboptimal. If you look at the majority of films coming out of Hollywood at the moment, I think the word suboptimal is flattering to say the least. If we had more power over what we can watch (through global video on demand) we wouldn't have to resort to the American mainstream films that are being dished out almost daily. A walk through Leicester Square should prove to anyone the severeness of the situation. Here are the options: Percy Potter and the Lightning Scar, James Cameron's Smurfahontas, It's (not very) Complicated, The WolfDouche, Alvin and the Chipmunks The Reekquel, From Paris with Travolta and -last but not least- Valentine's Day.
Faced with these options, I would risk legal prosecution by downloading a non-Hollywood film anytime.