Thoughts on Renting Movies - Robbie C

The other night, exhausted after a long day of work, I stopped by my local Blockbuster to rent a movie. It's probably sacrilege to admit it on this blog, but I don't watch a ton of movies. When I do, I either borrow or stop by a Redbox kiosk. So it had been a while since I was in a Blockbuster. Going in was like stepping back in time. If there's magic lost in watching movies on a laptop or iphone, there's also magic lost when renting a movie online or from a machine at the front of walmart.

Do you remember what it was like to go to a movie store when you were a kid? My sister used to keep a list of movies she wanted to rent and she'd take it with her. I was more freeform, and I wasn't afraid to rent the same movie half a dozen times. Even if I knew what I wanted, I was going to walk all the way down the long wall of the store that held new releases before I ever decided on some old favorite. I could spend an hour just looking at the covers. It was a treat to get to rent a movie for the weekend, even though we did it almost every Friday.

I think stores are better than the internet and redboxes because they're immediate and the selection is immense. And I'm just talking about your chain kind of stores here. I had a friend in high school who moved to Austin, TX and ended up working at an independent movie store there. Not only did they have films you couldn't get anywhere else, but the people who worked there were also knowledgeable and could make great recommendations. They were movie lovers, and just like going into any store with experts, they could get you pumped about something as bad as Rosemary's Baby (which was on the shelf at Blockbuster, btw).

It occurs to me: maybe this blog, paired with netflix, is kind of like that independent movie store. But you do lose the immediacy, and you don't get that movie-store smell...

Anyhow, I grabbed a movie I'd seen before (but not in a while) and went to pay, only to find that it now costs $5 to rent a movie. FIVE DOLLARS.

WTF Blockbuster?

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans - KDJ

Manic, disjointed, pulpy, a noir-throw-back (or a noir-re-awakening), rhythmic, looped, fantastic, naive, reaching, revolutionary, original, freaking crazy, ungainly, unpredictable, uncoined, undefinable, altogether un-boring, and therefore: great. Melanie, I could not disagree with you more. Nicolas Cage and Werner Herzog have combined their greatness and achieved greatness.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is not about plot or character development. Nicolas Cage, Xzibit, Val Kilmer, Eva Mendes, Jennifer Coolidge, and Tom Bower are characters undevelop-able. Confining a drug addict, rapist, hallucinator, over-the-top, corrupt cop (Cage) to a plot within the confines of NYPD Blue or CSI is not only impossible but just impossible.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, is not about New Orleans or Hurricane Katrina. A weakened NOLA, formerly invincible 'city of legends', formerly more sinful than 'sin city' city is only a backdrop for a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop to be a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop. Thus, it is not about New Orleans.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is about everything else in the day-to-day life of a drug addict, rapist, hallucinating, over-the-top, corrupt cop. "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans, is about seasoning. Like New Orleans cuisine, it finds that you can put anything in a pot if you add the right spices and peppers and simmer it long enough." As I have mentioned before, only Nicolas Cage is capable of going far enough to simmer in a pot with a whole bunch of spicy crap, it takes balls; and for it to come out tasty, it takes a good pot.

Herzog matches Cage's discomfort with normal and raises him sustained, jazz-backed, shaky foreground shots of iguanas, souls break-dancing, and alligators. I am pretty sure that only Nicolas Cage could stare at an iguana for several moments in a movie in such a way that I like it. The thing is, there is only one director I can think of that has the guts to have his lead actor stare at an iguana for several minutes--Werner.

BL:POC,NO has leapt out of the darkness that sadistic plots were ushering all things 'film-nwar' into. William Finkelstein did not write a remake of Harvey Keitel's epic, Bad Lieutenant. He wrote a movie that is so sensationally dark, yet not depressing--not sure how this is done. I think it occurs when the viewer is lucky enough to see everything that a character does not in a sensational way. It is kind of really amazing literature in this way. I mean, 'pulp' movies were all about this and Tarantino and Godard and other writers attempt this and do really cool stuff with it. But this movie hid even less from the ridiculousness of making a movie in the first place. How can a movie begin with the devastation of an inmate trapped in the natural, rising waters that should have been held back by a man-made levy, and end with said inmate slouched even more helplessly on the ground in-front of natural water creatures, being successfully held back by a see-through man made levy? The only way is if every character is integrally dedicated to their naive existence as a character in a Herzog movie. This makes no sense. I loved this movie.

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - Melanie

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe this filmed was not universally panned. I've found undue comfort in reading blogs by other readers who agree this is the worst movie of 2009, or of their lives.

The adjectives thrown at this film: manic! disjointed! should be taken literally, not as irreverent faint praise. Herzog shows himself incapable of any restraint or cohesiveness. His quirky flourishes are so strained and obvious. The shaky iguana shots? please. Did anyone else notice that Cage acquired some strange accent about halfway through the movie and then lost it again? And why are people praising his performance? It's as though he reviewed all of his best subversive roles from the 80s and rehashed them here, without real heart, and without the benefit of a good director, script or supporting actors. The acting is uniformly terrible, did I say that? Did I say that it is clearly the fault of Herzog?

Did I state plainly enough that this was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever, ever seen in my life?

Robin Hood, Ghost, Polanski, Commercial vs. Independent

Click Here for link to download of new podcast on Robin Hood, Ghost (Ghost Writer), Polanski, and commercial vs. independent films. This podcast is not random rambling.

And here is a link to a trailer for a recent film to come out of the National Film School in Łódź.

Nollywood Babylon - Tim J.

A few weeks ago I attempted to order a copy of Nollywood Babylon, a documentary on the Nigerian film industry by a group of Canadian filmmakers. 'No problem, Mr Johnston, just transfer us €34.95 and the DVD will be with you within ten working days', came the swift reply. Those who know of my Judeo-Scottish background can imagine that that transaction never took place. All the more thrilled was I when my dissertation supervisor called my attention to a screening of the documentary at the British Museum ('Re: Nollywood - You MUST go'). With only three days to go before my trip experience Nollywood first-hand, I interpreted timing of the screening as nothing less than a sign from above.

Nollywood Babylon begins with a history tour of Nigerian cinema, from colonialist so-called documentaries that brought home news of 'savages' and their quirky customs to the late 1980s and the artistic pinnacle of filmmaking in West Africa. Film only became an industry in 1992, after the financial success of Living in Bondage, a subliminally political feature film. When got about that you could make a living with a camera and aVW van full of aspiring actors, the number of films produced exploded: from a handful of films before 1992 to now 900-2,500 per year.

Lancelot Oduwa Imasuen is the Michael Bay of Nigeria. With 158 films under his belt (a figure, which will have risen considerably by the time of writing) the man in his thirties is the most prolific director in Lagos. His statement that 'the business of filmmaking is about making money' makes inevitable comparisons to the man who has been involved in at least one of the ten highest-grossing films every year for the past decade. But Lancelot personifies the comic relief in a film that offers more belly-laughs than most comedies I can recall. The poor special effects and overacting that are ubiquitous in Nollywood had the auditorium in tears time and time again. I noted that about half the viewers were Nigerian and therefore acquainted with these charming shortcomings that offer a quick fix to homesickness. Lancelot's insistence on praying before, after and during every film ('god willing, this camera will work to its full capability and beyond) and a cameraman's claim that his camera had stopped working due to witchcraft were met with hysterical laughter, no matter what the viewers' religious affiliation.

During the second half of the film, it switches from lighthearted report on the industry to critique of faith-basedfilmmaking as done by Helen Ukpabio, head of a 50,000 strong gospel church. Criticism of religion? Fine by me - and yet the producers' decision to make a political point during what hitherto had been a mere unbiased account to me seemed somewhat incongruous. That aside, the documentary is highly entertaining and, due to the amount of laughs, recommendable even to those who have never heard of Nollywood - who despite its recent rise still constitute the majority.

Cemetery Junction - Cage

Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant are just two dudes that usher 'funny stuff' into short moments of reality in a way that has been super successful, save 'The Invention of Lying' (see review by Buck). For me, 'Extras' and 'The Office' are two of the best television shows ever made. The way that Gervais writes every single character as a witty, quick talking, perfect personification of the person you want that person to be is why he is making so many dough stacks right now. This movie is a manifestation of Gervais and Merchant's ability to do that. I think of it as them recounting a story for some of their friends. Something really funny happened to them and they are telling their friends about the time their buddy did this or that and had this boss that was this way or that and he said this or that and no one could believe he did it. And this is how they write their shows and movies. This way, each character's line or action is focused on the thing that was most funny or meaningful. And the meaningful is where I think Gervais is moving towards more often. The slapstick, awkward humor of The Office was followed up by still awkward humor in 'Extras' but a bit more real. Ghost Town was similar to Extras in this sense. And now, just as Judd Apotow with 'Funny People' has dipped into the darker side of comedy, Gervais is becoming a bit more real with his stuff. I would like to make a generalization and say that most actors and writers that make so much money off of being funny are actually really serious and emotional and smart people. I think of Conan crying every time he talks about how much the Late Night show meant to him and Dave Chapelle getting so serious with James Lipton on Inside the Actor's studio or John Stewart making earnest political appeals. I think these people really 'get' their audience and are good at making their timing and humorous moments perfect because they know what it feels like to live on that line of funny and real or funny and sad. In this way, they are really talented because it is hard to write real and funny in a way that is not lame.

Cemetery Junction takes a classic theme and interjects super witty, sensationalized characters

into seemingly real situations. You want to hang out with the main characters, you want to

punch the butthead of a boss, and you want to marry the girl. The three main characters are each stuck in the suburban boringness of 1970s England which could very

well be an American suburb. They feel they missed out on the 60s and dream of hitch-hiking to National Geographic destinations to take pictures, cause taking pictures of their feet aren't getting them much. So this is the classic story of kids wanting to get out and 'experience the world'. In the way are drunk parents, abusive parents, the law and the prospect of getting or keeping real jobs and raising a family and living a civilized life. They finally plan their break, go to get the girl, she doesn't come, then she comes and they catch the last train out of town. It's definitely a feel good movie and as I said, you love all the characters. Gervais and Merchant are starting to reach out a bit but I feel they are repeating some jokes and sticking to some staples that people expect them to stick to. I expect in the near future that Gervais is going to get a bit darker and a bit more real. If he gets bored with his characterizations and patters of story telling I would imagine that people, especially in Britain, aren't going to like what he comes up with. Thus is the paradox that chubby comedians who tell piss, fart and dick jokes have to face up to. I suspect though that we haven't seen just how dark Gervais can get. I liked this movie and I'm looking forward to his post-rehab films.

Kick-ass - Tim

Kick-Ass is 'morally reprehensible' and a 'twisted, cynical crime against cinema' that 'sells a perniciously sexualised view of children'. At least that's what Christopher Tookey and Rogert Ebert, two of the most important film critics in Britain and the United States, respectively, think.

One thing that can be said without doubt is that Kick-Ass is a mosaic, a sheer conglomeration of film references. Some of these homages are quite obvious and concern plot points or quotes from The Matrix, Leon, Scarface, Taxi Driver andKill Bill. Others are more subtle and draw on 28 Days Later, Silence of the Lambs and Kill Bill. Not to mention the similarities to today's archetypical superhero films, most notably Sam Raimi's Spiderman, Iron Man and The Dark Knight.

Does drawing on - not to say plagiarizing - so many other films mean that the films is unoriginal by default? Not one bit. In fact Kick-Ass is one of the most original films the genre has recently produced. Although the term genre should be used with caution here as Kick-Ass is impossible to place in just one. Whenever a new superhero film comes out - which frankly is not too rare an occasion - I ask myself what does this picture (or usually remake) have to offer that has not been done before? Let's be honest, aren't all superheroes to a certain degree the same? Sure, some of them turn green when you take their parking spot, others are constantly in pursuit of Mary Jane (whose name cannot be accidental) and some don't have any superpowers at all but just inherited their folks' arms corporation and took ninja training. But at the end of the day, all of them are holier-than-though, chivalrous and righteous bores, who are by default ten times more competent and stronger than their nemesis. Kick-Ass finally does away with some of the myths that surround our heroes.

1) Superheros are (always) virtuous.
Peter Parker kicks his habit and gives up Mary Jane for her own good. 'I love you but you are not safe when you are with me, the Spiderman', or something like that. Aaron Johnson AKA Kick-Ass on the other hand pretends that he's gay just to be around the girl he fancies and shamelessly indulges in the privileges that being someones BBFbring: Applying tanning creme to her naked body, sleepovers, the works. A fellow vigilante, Red Mist, convinces Kick-Ass to give away the hiding place of Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit-Girl, other (you guessed it) vigilantes.

2) Superheroes are strong.
Perhaps Kick-Ass didn't get the memo on this one. Invisibility to girls being his only superpower, he thoroughly gets his butt kicked (not to overuse the word ass) and is in danger of getting a second beating, only to be saved by Hit-Girl and Big Daddy whom he, ungratefully, rats out as mentioned above. Kick-Ass frankly has no clue where he is supposed to come across these crimes he is fighting. He just sneaks around aimlessly at night and, while trying to secure a cat from a tree, by chance saves a man from three gangsters which is filmed and posted on YouTube, bringing him instant fame.

3) Superheros don't joke.
Batman's stern look when he cruises through Gotham in the Batmobile, Spiderman's solemn pledge that 'with great power comes great responsibility'. The assertion that these guys never kick back and just have a good time is as unrealistic as a spider's bite enabling you to shoot wads of web from the wrist. The only time I have seen Batman have a blast was when, in drunk stupor, he ordered an orange juice and did the twist, including the Thurman/Travolta dance in the 1960s series. Kick-Ass on the other hand is silly most of the time and. Let's face it, running around in a diving suite at night to teach baddies a lesson is intrinsically a pretty darn thing to do. So why not have a laugh while you're at it? When cruising around in Red Mist's Mustang, the duo spontaneously starts rocking it to Gnarles Barkley, including a lame attempt at choreography.

The reason why I have always had trouble proclaiming a superhero film as 'great' (yes, even The Dark Knight) is that, at the end of the day, it's a guy running around in a costume for heaven's sake. Does the superhero ever pause to note he is wearing underpants over tights? Kick-Ass for one acknowledges this epiphany and indulges in it. Calling the film morally reprehensible Roger Ebert fails to understand that it never raises the claim of teaching you a moral lesson. If only this could be said of more films, which fling their so-called morals in your face and rather alienate you than change you.

Kick-Ass is about instant fame and the wish to be something more than just a an 'average nobody', to use Henry Hill's term in Goodfellas. It's not telling people to become vigilantes and those who draw that lesson from the film might want to watch something more and-here's-the lesson, perhaps Avatar. Kick-Ass' take on the instant-fame era that Andy Warhol prophesied about when he coined the term '15 minutes of fame' is as unpretentious as it is accurate. Then again film critic Ebert is the guy who gave Brazil a two-star rating and thought Godfather III was better than Godfather II. Christopher Tookey from the Daily Mail meanwhile accuses the film of depicting childish violence as sexually arousing. As I was not once even remotely sexually aroused, I beg you to speak for yourself, Mr Tookey.

Kick-Ass is one of the few films where I am actually looking forward to a sequel and, for the first time in 2010, give the maximum rating: Five stars for this ass-kicker!

Empathy for the Ectoplasmic - Buck

We ‘ve all seen him. Up in the attic or down in the basement of some somber structure. Wearing his white sheet, peeping out of his eye holes, rattling the Dickensian chain that binds him to eternal suffering. Thanks to countless movies, it seems a given that ghost are at best pathetic and at worst evil. But like the clown that laughs to mask his tears, the ghost moans for want of a song and rattles his chain to show his spirit unbroken.

Contrary to popular belief, horror movies are not the natural habitat of the ghostly. Horror movies are built around violence and, by nature, ghosts abhor violence. Although by definition a ghost is born of a turbulent end, it does not mean that they enjoy or propagate violence—especially all of that accompanying blood, guts, and gore. It seems obvious that a ghost would want to forget it’s untimely and traumatic end and instead move forward into a new, excited life (afterlife) of materializing through walls, playing lovable tricks on new home owners, and transcending space and time. But, unfortunately, we are all too eager to keep these poor creatures out of comedies, romances, and dramas, and instead limit them to the company of serial killers, vampires, monsters and other Horror movie beings of questionable repute. Like a person looking for paradise and realizing that it is all around, let’s enable the ghost to realize his exorcism in the here and now through good movie roles.

To understand the need for correcting the injustices inflicted on the undead, we will look at examples of both offending and praiseworthy ghost-based movies.

A Haunting in Connecticut, or any of the other identically offensive movies of its ilk. Based on a true story that occurred exclusively in the toxic flora and fauna of the writer/director/producer’s brain, A Haunting in Connecticut tells the story of a teenager stricken with cancer (too serious a topic to be in a film this bad) who moves with his parents to a house that formerly happened to be a funeral home/Séance Club/gruesome murder site. As his condition worsens, our teenage hero begins to teeter between the lands of the living and the dead, and before long, he and his family are battling evil spirits with the help of a kindly ghost occupying the house. Like any standard Hollywood horror movie there are two kinds of ghosts: the good ghosts and the bad ghosts. Simply put, the evil ghosts only care about initially unsettling and then eternally damning their living victims, while good ghosts are sadly creatures (typically past victims of said evil spirits) who provide assistance to the living and our rewarded at film’s end with a release from their ghostly state. The most often cited example of the “good ghost” is Grandpa from Troll 2. At the moment when the trolls’ clever use of Nilbog (goblin spelled backwards) milk finally has rendered our heroic family vulnerable to supernatural digestion, Grandpa materializes to stop them with bolts of lightening—a trick, he explains to his worried grandson in one of Troll 2’s many classic lines, that he did not learn in hell, “but from someone I knew who had been there”. Whew! Thanks grandpa. The good ghosts remain completely good and the evil ghosts completely evil. With such a boring trope, it’s no wonder that filmmakers feel compelled to fill any movie involving ghosts with blood, sex, and special effects.

Ghostbusters and Ghost

In the hit movie Ghost, however, Patrick Swayze plays a good man whose good spirit seeks to save his true love, Demmie Moore. Thankfully in this film, the ghost has escaped its “proper” role in the horror movie across the lot and materialized in a romantic drama. Here the ghost is not exploited for mere shock value but plays a role both poetic and compelling. You only have to see the “Unchained Melody scene” to know the emotional depths of which I speak. From Ghost, we realize that spirits aren’t all that different from the living because fundamental to any life or afterlife is a need for meaningful connection. The very human need to communicate or touch or be known by another provides the impetus of any good ghost story.

It’s important, however, to remember that ghosts are not just humans lacking breath. In fact, they have a psychological complexity unique to their supernatural state. No one speaks more eloquently of this than Ghostbuster’s Slimer. Aside from the occasional hotel cake or sliming, Slimer wants nothing to do with the world of the living. He acts on his own unique desires and motives. Not only does he appear different than a typical human turned ghost, but also from other ghosts in the same film! It took a comedy to reveal that ghosts can act, think, and look different, as well as be unconcerned with what the living think of them (“No more Dana, only Zul”). Wizards (Harry Potter), vampires (True Blood) and others have finally gotten their creative due; it seems only fair to give the sophisticated and versatile ghost a try too.

Ghost, Ghostbusters, The Sixth Sense, and a handful of other movies reveal that the ghost has outgrown the haunted house. They are ready for candle-light dinners, car chases, sweeping epics, cast-parties with Tracy Morgan, and anything else that the bright lights of Hollywood have to offer. Contrary to the movies you’ve seen, ghosts have nothing to do with vampires—let them into the light and give them their close-ups.

Box-office futures: Land of the Lost, for once Hollywood is right to oppose innovation

As Tim and I commented on in an earlier post, there is something going on with the release of films world-wide. Hollywood is indeed, on hard times financially. I realized this recently while seeing a full-screen advertisement for 'Avatar on DVD' after clicking on a link to the box score from the Cincinnati Reds vs. Pittsburgh Pirates stitch-ball game. How on earth does Avatar need to completely consume my computer screen while I'm trying to check RBIs and ERAs? Then it hit me, Hollywood executives had already paid for that advertisement, years ago, back when James Cameron walked in their office with the script of Ferngulley and uttered the words, "Picture this dudes, things floating around in-front of the movie-goers face while shit is being blown up in the background."

I am often really torn while I'm enjoying a 'blockbuster'--and I do enjoy them (I even enjoyed Land of the Lost). I believe in a simple life as a good thing. We probably shouldn't rely on natural resources being processed on the other side of the world for our own consumption. That is, if we believe that our earth is on hard times. As it is, a blockbuster is probably not the most 'sustainable' thing--on many levels. First off, the sheer existance of a blockbuster implies and necessitates a lot of 'not-simple'/'un-sustainable' stuff. Most likely, going to see a movie means that you live in a city. That city probably has a lot of concrete. It probably has fruits and vegetables year round. It probably has internal combustion engines in it. Most likely, you did not walk to the theater. You probably checked movie times on your computer. The theater probably has air conditioning. Depending on if you purchased drinks and food or snuck them in, you are going to throw them away or leave them on the floor for a zitty 16 year-old to pick up after the movie. The theater probably does not sell compostable-only foods. The studio responsible for producing the movie probably are in Los Angeles which is ruled by cars and highways and has no immediate water source for it 17 million inhabitants. In other words, sustenance farmers in Costa Rica are not putting on a community play for you after a hard days work of harvesting fair-trade coffee beans.

So, as one who, in theory (definitely not in practice), supports the idea of sustenance farming and simple agrarian living I have to sqaure my own ridiculousness with enjoying a multi-million dollar movie. Afterall, if I did not pay £16 to see Avatar in 3-D then the movie producers and executives that predicted I would, would not have received funding from the banks and investors that paid for Avatar to be made. And so when I saw this full screen ad for Avatar (which btdub, the DVD will have to be in 2-D because I have not dropped three grand on a 3-D flat screen yet and Avatar in 2-D is just not worth it) I realized that the inter-connectivity of ESPN, ABC, FOX, Ingenious Media, Foreign release dates, my computer, MAC, the internet, Al Gore, Ford, and 3-D comic books; is really complicated.

This being so complicated makes predicting the success (or not) of a movie really interesting. And then today I read this article about America’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). They approved the second of two exchanges that would allow trading of contracts based on films’ box-office takings. What is interesting about this is that trading on the 'risk' of a movie being good or not relies on movie executives like the Weinstein Brothers projecting how good or bad a movie is going to be. If they, or Disney, or Fox, or whomever decides that it is going to be good then it is going to get good press and lots of rights to advertising. And, in theory, the movie will be successful for one of two reasons, either 1) the media told the mass public that this movie is good, or 2) It really was 'good'.

And so this is where I get even more frustrated with the idea of movies being 'good' or not and this is why I started this blog. The indie world and the blockbuster world are often at odds with each other. My point here, and I don't think I made it very well, is that both worlds are kind of ridiculous and rely on one thing that no one can control: talent. And when it comes to 'talent' I think we should be the judge; we being those that make up this blog. It is only in a community of friends that a film should be enjoyed and judged. It is my escape from the extravagance of movie making and Hollywood and all the jumbled mess of our capitalism. And this important, I think. It is worthwhile to me especially as I see my neice and nephew enjoying movies as much as I do. The ability of Disney to make stuff that kids love is as phenomenal as the happy meal. On that note, I recently read about an evangelical christian group that is making films pro-bono as a protest to the ill-values dominating current flims--as they see it that is. But this is really interesting. In a way, it is kind of what we are doing by blogging about movies, we are just doing it as a post-script.

I got nothing.

Here is the link to the Economist article on projected movie revenue trading.

Kick-Ass - Jeremy Levan

I had big expectations for this movie and I am still not sure (after a night of sleeping on it) if they were met or not.

I think the question: why are there not super heroes? is a good and hilarious question. This question is the premise for the movie. From this question there is a lot of cool stuff that an ensuing story can do. You can dip into classic comic book lore and create a character that goes from nerd to hero. Have a group of nerd friends that toe the line between keeping the story going and adding some funny lines. You can develop the characters that have real vengeance and take the movie to the surreal level. You can give shout-outs to a lot of classic stories and make fun of them at the same time. You can basically just have a lot of fun with this question and that is what this movie is--fun.

I love Nick Cage! He was the absolute perfect choice to play 'Big Daddy'. Sure, he makes movies that are claimed to be lame but they are all lame movies that I love and watch over and over. I mean check out this list of just great movies: Raising Arizona, Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds, Adaptation, Grindhouse, Face Off, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Rumble Fish, Honeymoon in Vegas, Kiss of Death, Leaving Las Vegas, The (freaking) Rock, City of Angels, Snake Eyes, Adaptation!, Matchstick Men, National Treasure. And these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head. He takes a lot of crap in Hollywood, I think. In my opinion, he should rule Hollywood. He probably won't ever be invited to do the Newsweek Oscar Roundtable, at least unless he some how fools everyone with a Blindside-esque performance, but until then he'll have to remain one of the best of all time in my book only.

So back to this movie, he plays the real super hero that kicks ass way more than Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson) does. He is cast as this guy that has been blinded by revenge and has possibly pulled his child, Hit-Girl, into a life of vigilante crime. But he is just so dang likeable, and the culminating events of the movie pay tribute to the rightful elevated status of super heroes, human or not. They get a pass card for all things that dictate societal norms. And maybe this is what the premise question begs. In a world where everyone is normal and boring, why do only athletes and movie stars live the perceived life of super heroes? On this level, I think my expectations for this movie were met. I really wanted the movie to be about this question and then to answer with a bunch of blow-em-up, shoot-em-up scenes. And these scenes were great.

The only thing that kept me from getting super jacked about this movie is that it dragged along for a while. Aaron Johnson plays Kick-Ass and sifting through his transformation into a super hero took a while. Christopher Mintz-Plasse's evolution into Red-Mist also took a while, but when it did, it was really fun. Clark Duke also seems to be getting his deserved parts. Ever since he and Michael Cera made their on-line episodes about life in L.A. I though he was funnier than Cera. He wasn't that great in Hot Tub Time Machine but I thought he was really good in this.

Overall, I think I really liked this movie. I think I'll like it more the next time I see it. Definitely check it out though if you want to see a movie that is fun and not The Hurtlocker or Avatar.