Review of "I Love you, Man"

Many comedies these days, romantic and otherwise, are rife with cliches and quite honestly just aren't as funny because of them. While I do agree that some of these are necessary as a base from which to jump off but those comedies that rely on cliches are doomed before they even get off the ground. The cliches that I am referring to are such things as certain sight gags that are used over and over again or that character who shows up in every comedy with the same attitude and the same role. I think that the most nefarious movies that use these of late are the string of horrible movies that started with Scary Movie and has culminated with such atrocities as Epic Movie and one I just learned about today, Dance Flick. They even need to change the title to separate it from the rest.

Thankfully, "I love you, Man" seems to escape for the most part an over-reliance on these kinds of tactics. If you are beat over the head with the same joke over and over it just ceases to be funny! This movie follows in the footsteps of other great comedies that instill a sense of humanity into the comedy instead of strictly parodying that same human condition. There are several moments during the film where I could quite literally feel the movie slipping dangerously close to this over the top point only to be saved at the last minute by a scene that actually made you empathize with the character.

Paul Rudd is his usual self really, and as such he's quite good. He really does have a great ability to humanize his roles and make the audience feel sorry for him yet not too sorry for him. He is, in other words, the consummate lovable goofus. He is the main character, but he isn't left with the lion's share of the plot as Jason Segel and Rashida Jones play comfortably off of his character and create a believable triad. For anyone who has seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall or How I met Your Mother they really won't see anything new in his performance but his chemistry is quite good with Rudd. Rashida for her part avoids the ultimate cliche in my mind which is the significant other (usually a woman in these movies unfortunately) who is overly sensitive about ANYTHING that the main character does and turns her nose up quite frequently. Her character genuinely wants to see her fiancee find that male friend that he has been lacking for most of his life.

This brings me to the part of the movie that I was most impressed with. It takes a very critical eye on the difficulty with establishing male friendships in this culture. From my viewpoint it seems extremely easy for women to strike up lasting friendships but when men try to do this it can be extremely awkward. Perhaps this has to do with homophobic tendencies among males of this society but whatever the cause it is extremely prevalent. To this date, most movies and television shows depict relationships between two guys as effortless. Poker nights or drinking a brewskie in front of the football game are prevalent depictions. As someone who has for one reason or another always had better relationships with women I can certainly see how difficult it can be to establish a permanent friendship with a guy that didn't start in diapers or soon thereafter. Once we leave pubescense it can be very difficult indeed.

As a pure comedy I would recommend this movie to everyone. As an r-rated movie there is plenty of vulgarity and the all-powerful sexual innuendo but no nudity (which should appeal this puritanical society!). It's not an award winner by any stretch of the imagination but the characters are three-dimensional with few exceptions and the plot is believable enough. In the end the writing elevates this otherwise formulaic comedy to a good time had by all.

Lord of the Rings Online Review

I posted a little while ago about Star Trek online, but lately I've been much more enamored with another online roleplaying game: Lord of the Rings online. I don't believe that there are many people throughout the world who have never heard of this monumental achievement in literature. The books almost single-handedly established the modern genre of fantasy and I am hard-pressed to name ANY fantasy novels published since that don't have a core that shares elements with Tolkien's work. The amount of history that he was able to pack into his fiction is inspirational for anyone who has ever considered sitting down and writing.

Because of this insane amount of detail that Tolkien included in his writings, which include more than just the trilogy, the creators of the Lord of the Rings Online didn't need to stretch too far to find inspiration for this game. From the moment I set foot, figuratively of course, inside the world created on the computer I was mesmerized by the scale of it all. With the help of my new memory card, which finally started working thank God, it looks absolutely amazing on my 22" widescreen monitor. All I want to do is visit all the places that I loved from the books and the movies (though this game legally has no ties with Warner Bros and the movies) but this isn't possible right away except through pictures and clips posted all over the internet.

The gameplay is fairly standard for anybody who has played World of Warcraft, they borrowed a great deal of the mechanics from this industry giant. I was pleasantly surprised by the writing and the polish that seems evident throughout the game and I can only imagine that it gets even better throughout the rest of the game. There are a few technical issues that I have noticed that seem to make certain things difficult to accomplish such as finding one Quest giver out of a sea of NPCs (Non-player characters) and there doesn't appear to be an option to zoom IN on the little mini-map in the corner of the screen.

Another thing that gives me some pause is that the world doesn't seem as populated as I would have hoped with human players. However, I did see enough and from browsing the internet I have no cause for alarm as the game appears to be going quite strong and the latest expansion, "The Mines of Moria" sold quite well and even garnered a few awards with its content.

I have yet to meet anyone from the movies, with the exception of a brief appearance from Elrond, or interact with any scenes straight from the novels but I have been assured by many articles that it is only a matter of time. This brings me to what I think is the single greatest strength of this game: longevity in the market. So many people are knowledgeable about the books (thank you Peter Jackson!) and they know the plotline that Turbine's decision to have the game parallel the events is absolutely inspired. What is even more inspired is how they have chosen to do it.

When the game first came out about two years ago the epic storyline (which loosely follows the plot of the trilogy) ended around the same time period as the council of Elrond. Through a series of free updates (nice!!) and larger expansions to the game, the developers would seem to have a very long timeframe in mind. For instance, they just released "The Mines of Moria" which sees the Fellowship into Lothlorien where they meet Galadriel for the first time which is still within the first book of the trilogy and it has been out for two years!! At this pace, they won't get anywhere near the conclusion of the saga for at least a decade which is simultaneously scary and really fun to consider.

In the end, I really like this game and am looking forward to being able to feel a part of this preeminent fantasy epic. Anyone who likes WOW should at least try this and get away from the potty-mouthed children who always seem to play World of Warcraft. The people playing seem more mature and willing to help a noob like me.

Watchmen Review

I've heard many different people saying many different things about the Watchmen movie and I am quite frankly confused. I went in having never read the book, intentionally, and having no idea really of the plot, also intentionally. I think this gave me a good perspective of the movie and allowed me to view it free from preconceptions. This is something I did not have when I went and saw the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I sometimes wonder how my take on those movies might have differed.

Watchmen is indeed a difficult story to tell with its emphasis on different time periods being interwoven. As it is a piece of graphic fiction, it is an extremely visual movie that Zach Snyder (of 300 fame) used quite well. Again, I hadn't read the book before seeing the movie but I could certainly tell that certain scenes were most likely pulled straight from the novel as they weren't your traditional cinematic camera angles. For the most part, and I'm discussing this first because it is such an integral piece to the movie, the visual style of this movie is flawless. There are some less than desirable shots that sometimes pull you out of the movie a bit but they are so few and far between that I simply didn't care.

The acting in the movie was overall a mixed bag which is par for the course in a movie that employs relative nobodies in the lead roles. The standouts in my opinion were Rorschach, the walking talking Rorschach test, played deftly by Jackie Earle Haley and the Comedian played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Of all the onscreen personas they made me the least aware that they were acting. They became these characters to such a degree that it was truly a sight to behold. Going briefly to the Lord of the Rings parallel I drew before I would hold this up to Sir Ian McKellan's flawless performance as Gandalf (with one small irritating moment at the Mines of Moria aside!). The rest of the cast were adequate individually. As a whole, however, I truly felt they all did a commendable job for such a difficult piece of fiction.

Now, some of the detractors for this movie have made such a fuss over showing Dr. Manhattan's anatomy a little too much. I agree that it was onscreen much more than most fans of American cinema are used too but with his character it made no sense for him to cover up anymore. He simply doesn't care anymore. The book may have been better at hiding this particular feature of his anatomy but those camera angles wouldn't have made as good of a film cinematically. You can't handicap the cinematographer simply to deal with our over-sensitive take on nudity. I certainly didn't hear many, though there were some, complain about the amount of female nudity in the movie.

The other big complaint I kept hearing about the movie is that it is difficult to follow the storyline. Again coming from the point of view of someone who has never read the book I must say that I didn't have a problem understanding the plot. Is it intricate? At times it is but the movie does a very good job at leading the audience through the plot to its conclusion. Perhaps if people would quit texting during the movie or checking box scores they might come to the same conclusion. The problem here isn't the movie, I feel like the problem is that we as a society have such a small attention span though I think that may be the topic of another blog posting entirely.

The success or failure of any movie is tied in with how the movie comes together as a whole. Small miscues here and there can be forgiven if the core of the movie is strong enough and if the audience gets sucked in. At 2 hours and 45 minutes the movie is long but other than the strong urge to pee I couldn't say that I was completely aware of the length. I was mesmerized by much of what was going on, though I was surprised at the level of violence. There were times where I felt like a little boy looking out into the vastness of the universe and truly beginning to comprehend it. This may seem a bit out there but most of these times have to do with Dr. Manhattan who is a truly unique character in cinema.

If I am forced to distill this experience into a five star rating I would have to give it a four, which many websites say means excellent. You may go to this movie and have a completely different experience which is one of the great achievements of this particular medium. I would caution, however, against taking negative reviews at face value as they are misleading and will keep you from judging for yourself.

Review of The Dark Knight

I must first admit that I have never been a huge Batman fan, at least not over any of the other Superhero movies. And yes, I know that Batman is a Vigilante and not a Superhero (thank you Roger). Anyway, I never craved that I love Batman or anything like that. It was a good story with an interesting character but I was never a huge fan of Tim Burton's original Batman or any of the others that followed it. That all change when I saw Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins starring Christian Bale. I'll admit that most of the reason I saw it in the first place was because I am such a huge fan of Christian Bale thanks to Disney's immortal classic Newsies.

Beyond that, there were so many great things about Batman Begins but also some drawbacks. There were some problems with pacing at times, which plagues any genesis story coming from the world of comic books. The film maker must contend with the 'Batman faithful', those comic book afficionados who have been following the stories for many years. In this case, the director and screenwriter must decide how much to leave in the story to remain faithful to the source material as well as how much to change to appeal to a broader audience to rake in more money. I can confidently say that the sequel, The Dark Knight, has found a very good balance , at least I assume so. I have heard some rumblings that they didn't follow the storyline of the comic books but I have never read them.

My rationalization for saying they have a good balance comes from many personal and professional reviews that I have heard in the short time this movie has been out. Comic book fans and those new to the series appear to like it in equal measure. Having just gone to see it last night, I can completely understand why. There is so much going on in this movie, that it is hard to critique it all so I'll start with the acting.

Any discussion of acting must inevitably start with the late Heath Ledger, who will definitely be missed after this oscar-worthy performance. He managed to completely reinvent a character that was so iconically portrayed by Jack Nicholson in the past. His characterization was a perfect way to bring in a new kind of criminal into the slums of gotham city, one that seems more interested in the anarchy involved than in any kind of personal profit. Without giving anything away in the movie, it is well portrayed by the filmmaker's throughout the entirety of the movie. Remember this: how do you make a pencil disappear? Keep that in mind, and you'll like the movie better for it.

The rest of the actor's are equally good throughout the course of the movie. Christian Bale brings a believability to the character that I feel was missing in the other movies. Maggie Gyllenhall and Aaron Eckhart have a believable and necessary connection. Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine are predictably excellent in their respective roles and bring a weight to the movie that only seasoned actors are capable of. The plot of the movie can be somewhat formulaic at times, but never brings down the overall rating of this movie.

In the end, I would recommend this movie to all who like a good yarn. Be forewarned, however, that this is a very violent movie but not in the gory sense necessarily. However, it has more violence than I would have assumed in a PG-13 movie. Other than that, everyone should go see it. You won't be disappointed.

Review of "Perfume"

"Perfume: The Story of a Murderer", based off of a best-seller written by Patrick Suskind, was a very strange movie. I'm not sure that I could really say that it was bad as far as movies go. I could definitely tell the care that went into the acting and the cinematography, and there are a couple of well-known actors who are in this movie: Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman. However, there were many times where the aberrant behavior (as the ratings disclaimer claimed) was just a little too much for me.

Part psychotic killer, part soft-core pornography, and part strange. As such, "Perfume" is just too difficult to really nail down and put into one specific genre. The story, as far as it goes, revolves around a young man born into squalid surroundings in eighteenth century Paris who just so happens to have the best nose in the world (or at least in London). This is claimed by the protagonist himself at one point in the movie. The psychotic, and rather innocently naive, tendencies soon begin to manifest as he is determined to duplicate every single smell in the entire world and he begins to take scents of young women, which unfortunately for them resolves in their deaths. I can't give much more away without spoiling parts of the movie that might not be immediately obvious from the title or the description on the back of the dvd.

Suffice it to say, this movie is neither horrible or great. It is an experience in and of itself, and for that I cannot say that I regret watching the movie. Indeed, I do seem to keep going back to the movie trying to make sense of it. It is not traditional storytelling at all and as such may be difficult for most to stomach. Additionally, I can imagine that many people would become uncomfortable with the blatant sexuality in evidence throughout the movie. If you are looking for a deeper movie than most at your local video store, then I would recommend this. If anything, you should be talking about it with anyone you watch it with.

Review of "Sunshine"

This movie, directed by Danny Boyle, is a very striking example of story-telling. At times during this movie, I was suddenly made aware that I had been holding my breath and that my heart was beating at thousands of beat a second!! (A bit of an exaggeration here, but you get the idea) When Jess and I went to go see it, all we knew was that it was some kind of a space movie. Even the online summary, which includes something about insanity in the depths of space fails to do this movie any justice at all. I've never written a movie review before, so I hope I can avoid any spoilers as I hate it tremendously these days when reviews and previews of movies seem to give away half of what happens.

Editing is really the name of the game when it comes to just exactly how this movie so viscerally effects its audience. From specific audio cues, or lack thereof, to the musical cues which in this movie are so slight that I sometimes forgot that there was really any background music to speak of. Similar to other great movies of the past, the sound in this movie just becomes another element in the story and soon becomes indistinguishable from it. There are scenes in this movie that may be considered to be barren of much emotion, but when sound is added and edited just right it all of a sudden becomes an amazing experience to behold.

The acting in this movie, while playing second string to the visuals and editing techniques discussed previously, does a great job. Every actor has their own part that they play with very convincing realism. Cillian Murphy is good as the enigmatic and shy physicist but shoulders his responsibilities (essentially saving Earth) with much courage. This is definitely a much different part than his turn as the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins". Chris Evans, known from his work in "Not Another Teen Movie" as well as most recently in "The Fantastic Four" really showed another side as well and proved to me that he isn't just another pretty boy getting roles for his appearance only. Rose Byrne shows her own acting chops, and reminded me of her sometimes creepy role in "Wicker Park".

The visuals, though expertly done with the use of CGI, are never too flashy for the sake of being flashy. Instead, scenes of the vastness of space are interspersed very expertly with other scenes portraying the extremely claustrophobic interiors of the spacecraft. Lacking many of the extremely visceral and gory scenes from Boyle's other well-known movie "28 Days Later", "Sunshine" manages to pull off similar anxiety by the careful use of editing and musical cues. In the end, this movie is well worth seeing.