Bridesmaids Review

Rating: 4/5

It's not fair to assume that women can't be as crude and as raunchy as men. It's borderline sexist, but it's also not true. I think this stereotype really originates from the culture of terrible romantic comedies that are the norm in America. Those movies portray either strong women who give in to the hunk du jour, or women who need the hunk du jour to survive. Thank god for Kristen Wiig and Bridesmaids.

Annie (Kristen Wiig) is complicated. She's in a casual sex relationship with Ted (Jon Hamm) but wants more romance. She wants to just live but she gave up on her dream bakery business. She meets the nicest guy ever (Chris O'Dowd), but can't let herself be happy. One day, Annie's best friend (Maya Rudolph) is getting married, and Annie is the maid of honor. However, Annie enters into a rivalry with the beautiful, rich, caring Helen (Rose Byrne), and the spiral of hijinks begins.

Let me address my earlier statement, "thank god for Kristen Wiig and Bridesmaids." I say this because I think Bridesmaids might be the smartest female comedy I've ever seen. The cast of women, aside from the brilliant character of Megan, aren't especially quirky until they are developed, which they are wonderfully. Every character is unique, smart, and, with the exception of no-one, very, very funny.

Instead of the standard romantic comedy character arc of: 1) What a cute guy!! 2) Wow, it turns out this guy is deeper than I thought!! 3) I hate him! We got into an argument based on a trick/misunderstanding!! 4) 20 minutes of pouting!! 5) Happy ending!!!, we get human characters, especially with Kristen Wiig. While Annie is a complete mess, we can't help but love her and want her to succeed. By the end of Bridesmaids, I wanted something good to happen to Annie so badly, because I thought she deserved it.

Even though there are a bunch of gags girls wil get more than guys, Bridesmaids is one of the funniest movies I've seen in 2011. Its humor can be gross, but overall is very smart and in many parts, downright hysterical. Some people may be turned off by the apparent girliness, but Bridesmaids is really, really worth your time and money.

Hobo With a Shotgun Review

Rating: 4/5

Exploitation is a genre mostly associated with the 70's, but it's not dead, not by far. For those of you who don't know. An "exploitation film" is a bad movie that is made for almost nothing and relies on people who like naked girls and ultra-violence to make money. The most well-known examples of exploitation are 1969's Blood Feast and '75's Caligula. Modern exploitation movies include Friday the 13th, Kick-Ass, and Sucker Punch. And now, Hobo With a Shotgun.

A hobo (Rutger Hauer), rides into a new city called Hopeville, and it's name is certainly not true. Criminals and corrupt cops run amok, drugs are pumped through kids, and honest folk live in fear of the dastardly Drake (Brian Downey). Now the hobo must fight back with the help of a hooker with a heart of gold (Molly Dunsworth), and well, a shotgun.

Hobo With a Shotgun does something right that most movies fail to do: successful parody. By that, I mean that the movie parodies crass exploitation without becoming crass exploitation. In the case of Natural Born Killers or Kick-Ass, both movies attempt to be tongue in cheek parodies of mean spirited ultra-violence in media, but become mean spirited ultra-violence. As a result, Hobo With a Shotgun turns out great.

This is one of those movies that does everything badly on purpose. In one scene, there are naked women hitting a dead guy covered in blood. Why? Because it's naked women!! That is the essence of exploitation. All the violence is hilariously over the top, and the story is delightfully simple. The acting is campy fun, the script o insane, and it melds well.

Hobo With a Shotgun is the good type of exploitation. It knows exactly what it is and has fun with it. Bad exploitation is a movie that doesn't care, or tries to be deep but ends up having no story and sticks in violence and nudity for the hell of it (i.e. NBK or Kick-Ass). Overall, the movie isn't subtle or smart, but it doesn't care and just goes with it. Try it out.

Thor Review

Rating: 2.5/5

Superhero movies have changed for me. I don't get exited about them like I used to, I'm not sure why. Maybe it was Kick-Ass, maybe Green Hornet, maybe the Green Lanter trailer, I just don't care that much anymore. In my opinion, every superhero movie these days is just out to make money, and aren't in it to please everyone, nerds and movie fans alike. When a movie like the Dark Knight comes along and pleases everyone AND makes a billion dollars worldwide, AND becomes one of my favorite movies, am I being unreasonable by holding it as the standard?

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is the Norse god of thunder. His dad, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is getting older, and it looks like the title of king is going to Thor very soon. However, Thor is a pompous, arrogant, self-centered jerk who cares only for himself. After Thor starts a war between Asgard and the Frost Giants, Odin banishes him to earth to learn some humility.

Thor is a movie that only had to do one thing: not suck. And it did manage to accomplish that, but not much else. The 3D is pointless and makes the otherwise cool-looking CGI look like a PS2 game, which isn't good. In other words, don't see Thor in 3D. Anyway, how's the acting? Fine I guess, Chris Hemsworth is good, Loki might as well have a "I WILL TURN EVIL" sticker on his shirt the whole time, and Natalie Portman is bland, but endearing.

Ken Branagh does a decent job with with a mediocre script that doesn't resolve anything really, and the story just sort of plods along. Thor is a very funny movie, but it feels like the sense of humor is just covering up the bland plot and low-scale action scenes. The action scenes were definitely disappointing, even though every time someone farts in this movie something explodes. The only really "bad" parts of Thor are some gaping plot holes and the forced romance.

Thor kept me entertained, but I won't see it again, and despite an awesome cameo by a character I won't name, it doesn't really add to the Marvel Movieverse, besides introducing another Avenger. And yes, there is a scene after the credits, but it really isn't worth it. Overall Thor isn't horrible, but it isn't really good either. It's just ok, and for some people, that's a deal-breaker. It's up to you if it is.

13 Assassins Review

Rating: 5/5

What is it about the Samurai that fascinates America? People buy samurai swords, have film festivals, and hell, the Oscar for best Foreign Film was created FOR a samurai movie (Musashi Miyamoto, 1956). Personally, I love samurai movies. The Japanese historical film, or Jigadeki, is my favorite genre. I am so glad Takashi Miike added 13 Assassins to this genre, it is really worth it.

The Shogun has adopted Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki) as his little brother, and plans to put him on his high council. As it turns out, Naritsugu is a depraved sadist who tortures and rapes on a whim. Rather than wait to see what would happen if Naritsugu was put on the high council, Lord Doi (Mikijo Hira) asks Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho), an aging samurai, to gather 13 men and assassinate Naritsugu.

Everything about this movie is great. The acting is great, the cinematography is great, the writing and directing are great, and you bet the action is great. Takashi Miike proves that he can show restraint and make things violent, but tasteful, and every character is fleshed out wonderfully. The action choreography is some of the best and most realistic I've ever seen, and it all culminates in a completely mind-blowing 45 minute battle at the end.

13 Assassins really has the feeling of a classic samurai film. Everything about the way it's shot and composed is reminiscent of a Kurosawa or Ichikawa movie. I was really dragged into it, and I didn't want to leave, even after the movie was over. 13 Assassins is probably the best movie I've seen this year so far, and will definitely end up on my top 10. It's beautiful, engaging, disturbing, inspiring, and just wonderful in every way. I highly, HIGHLY recommend renting it on iTunes, or trying to find it in the theateres.

Your Highness Review

Rating: 1/5

Danny Mcbride is one of my favorite comedic actors. His way of getting laughs just really hits me in the funny bone. On whether it is on Eastbound and Down or in Pineapple Express, the man steals every scene he's in. Even when paired with people like Seth Rogen, he's amazing. Too bad his monumental talent is completely wasted in Your Highness.

Thaddeus (Danny Mcbride) is the younger brother of the great hero Fabious (James Franco). Where Fabious is a stoic, strong, and mighty hero, Thaddeus is always pushed to the side and doesn't have much self esteem. When Fabious' bride to be (Zooey Deschanel) is kidnapped by Lazar (Justin Theroux), the two brothers must embark on an epic journey to save her.

What follows is a series of gross and unfunny scenes the likes of which I haven't seen since Epic Movie. Every single joke falls flat, and the actors look embarrassed to speak the dialogue. I get that it's poking fun at Krull and the Beastmaster movies, but it doesn't work. Like Green Hornet, the movie centers around one joke: Danny Mcbride is in a fantasy world.

As a result, the terrible, TERRIBLE script written by Theroux stays completely tethered to that one joke, and the actors are given nothing to work with. Instead of being the Danny Mcbride or the James Franco we know and love, the leads end up being dumb archetypes and their signature humor can't shine through.

Your Highness is more of a tragedy than a comedy. It had so much promise to be one of the funniest movies of 2011, but the filmmakers ended up making a forgettable stupid action-comedy. I don't think that this will be too much of a blemish on the actors' resumes but it was disappointing nonetheless. The only people I can see liking Your Highness are 13-year-old boys who love penis jokes. Now, I'm going to re-watch Eastbound and Down so I don't lose hope.

Insidious Review

Rating: 4/5

When it comes to horror nowadays, it's usually bad. Horror films are always either remakes or sequels, and the rare original ones rely way too much on jump scares. For me, there is a huge difference between a surprising movie and a scary movie. For example, The Unborn is surprising, and Insidious is scary.

Renee and Josh (Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson) have just moved into their new house with their three children. Things are off to a bad start when their oldest son, Dalton, falls into a coma. Three months later, Dalton is still unconscious, and scary stuff starts happening. The family tries to move away, but they start to think that the house isn't the problem.

As I said, what most horror movies are missing completely nowadays is atmosphere. When scares happen in films like Darkness Falls, all that happens is a loud noise and something pops out. In movies like The Ring, there's a buildup of a feeling of absolute dread. The feeling is necessary to have so that people are scared of what might happen rather than what they know will happen.

Insidious accomplishes this magnificently with dark scenery, great sound design, and the fact that we don't see the scary stuff for most of the movie. As a result, when the ghosts and demons haunting the main characters show up, we're more scared than if they just dragged people into the darkness every three seconds. Of course, there are silly scenes, especially once the psychic comes into the plot, but most of it works very well. Of course, without good acting it's all for naught, and all the leads do their job well.

Insidious does the job of proving that the Saw guys weren't only good at gore effects. This movie proves that they can sculpt real terror in their audience, and do it well. Next time you want to be scared, go see Insidious. It's a lot of fun.

Source Code Review

Rating: 4/5


Science fiction is a genre that is really hard to pull of well. Not only do sci-fi writers have to come up with a good story, but they have to come up with a story that has some sort of crazy science to it that makes it unique. Time travel is usually a good place to start, but the story won't work unless there's a creative spin on it. Then, you need to make it plausible, so that it's not too fictional. Good thing Source Code does this stuff.

Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up and finds himself in the body of a complete strangers, surrounded by strangers, and on a train. The woman in front of him (Michelle Monaghan) somehow knows him, and after eight minutes, the train explodes. Stevens then wakes up in a strange capsule, where he is told by Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) that the army is making Stevens relive the last eight minutes of one of the victims of a train bombing, so that he can find the bomber and prevent further attacks.

Ok, the "science" in this movie is absurd. Assassin's Creed level absurd. There is no way that anybody could ever relive and control the experiences of someone who was burned up in an explosion. And yet, the movie is smart enough and well written enough that I just went along with it. Even though the ending is a stretch and quite hokey, I could still buy the whole "genetic memory" thing. This of course is helped by the great performances. Gyllenhaal, Farmiga, Monaghan, and Jeffrey Wright (a brilliant actor who plays the creator of the machine) are all great. The characters are well developed, which really adds to the atmosphere of the film.

Because Captain Stevens gets to know the characters in the simulation, we do as well, and each moment waiting for the explosion we know is coming is tough. The editing is also of note. Source Code never stops moving, and it's really really cool how Duncan Jones and his team put it all together. Overall, Source Code isn't groundbreaking, but it's good. I recommend it.