minjoe

Under discussion:

Iron Man  (2008)

...movie trailers are, without a doubt, the best part about going to a movie.  So the questions becomes, at least for this particular film, will the actual movie live up the splendor that is the trailer?

Let me first be perfectly honest:  The top superhero trailer, in my opinion, goes to "The Dark Knight" not Iron Man.  This movie looks to be a great action movie with a lot of amazing special effects and what seems to be a spot-on performance by Robert Downey Jr.  Though I enjoy the Dark Knight trailer more for giving me more of a storyline to go on--I believe the Iron Man trailer is one of the best in a long time.

The trailer has a lot of great things going for it.  First off, Robert Downey Jr. is perfect as Tony Stark (or so it would seem).  His mix of sarcasm, wit, and power make me very excited to see this film.  Furthermore, the choice of music in the trailer is top notch and every rock & roll fan out there should be jacked to see a movie thats trailer features such hits as Iron Man (obviously), Back in Black, and so forth.

Simply put, this trailer makes me very, very excited to see this film--I can't wait.... 

Under discussion:

Adventures in Babysitting  (1987)

Rent  (2005)

Let me come right out and say it:  I am a 23 year old man who owns this movie on DVD and I am not afraid to say it.  Some may call this movie a "guilty pleasure" film--I however, prefer to call it a damn fine movie.

Adventures in Babysitting is a roller-coaster ride from start to finish and the more ridiculous and campy it gets, the better the movie becomes.  What is amazing about this movie is that, despite the rather zany storylines, nothing ever becomes so overly convoluted that you can no longer take the film seriously.  Adventures in Babysitting walks a fine line that screams, "we didn't take ourselves to seriously" while also clearly stating "we still think we made one hell of a movie."

Elisabeth Shue is fantastic as "Chris Parker" the babysitter who gets herself into a night she is not soon to forget.  Also, who couldn't love the craziness of a young Anthony Rapp playing Brads best friend.  Oh yeah, thats right, the lead from the movie & play RENT plays an obnoxious, crazy teenager in this movie and he is perfect.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly--you can never go wrong with a movie in which a teenage babysitter shoves a knife in a gangsters face and delivers the line, "Don't F@$& with the babysitter."

Absolutely priceless. 

Under discussion:

Little Shop of Horrors  (1986)

The Ruins  (2008)

...my friends tried to convince me that seeing The Ruins would be a good idea.  Obviously, I disagreed with a passion and pointed out to my my friends that they may very well be considered "stupid" for wanting to see this film.  As it turns out, I was correct.

The Ruins follows the tale of 4 American tourists (and a random German) on their quest to find a Mayan temple to explore.  However, that would be far too easy and not mysterious at all.  Thus, a random German man stumbles upon the young Americans lounging around the pool, casually explains that his brother (and his lady friend) went to excavate a ruin not on the map (A two-person excavation?  Really?), and he thinks they should all go check it out because he's a day late coming back so he "must be having a really wild time."

. . . . . .

Once stumbling upon the temple things begin unravelling rather quickly--mainly because this movie has to scratch and claw its way to that honorable 90 minute mark. 

The deaths in this movie are not new, not creative, and not interesting.  Their entire plight had the audience chuckling throughout since they were being attacked by plants.

Thats right, if you saw the preview, you guessed it right--plants attack and kill people.

Now I know what you're thinking--Jon!  Plants killing people is an AWESOME premise for a movie, just look at the classic musical Little Shop of Horrors!   Unfortunately for me, and everyone in the audience, Rick Moranis never popped out of the temple to perform a little "Suddenly Seymour" action--though that would have been a welcomed reprieve from the monotony of this film.

If you're looking for a good horror flick--The Ruins is not for you.  I enjoy good and bad horror movies alike so long as I know they're not taking themselves to seriously.  The saddest part about this movie is that I genuinely believe they thought they had something wonderful.

The Ruins ruined my night.  (See what I did there!?)

Under discussion:

Rounders  (1998)

21  (2008)

Not since the hit gambling film Rounders have I found myself looking forward to seeing a movie of this nature.  While I enjoy playing cards, I usually find blockbusters about any form of gambling to be riddled with cliches and usually pretty boring.  With a cast that included the likes of Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth, I expected 21 to be different...

...I was wrong...

This movie revolves around a group of MIT students who learn how to count cards and spend their weekends in Vegas racking up cash.  In theory, this sounds like an action packed, solid idea.  However, the movie is painfully long and takes a great deal of time to get going.  About 45 minutes into the movie I found myself already losing intererst wondering why I should care about their method to counting cards when it was incredibly obvious the director of this film had no desire to actually try and make the audience understand how that works.

Thus, for around the first hour you are treated to some of the most trite and over the top dialouge I have ever heard from someone playing a college professor, courtesey of the usually great Kevin Spacey.  In fact, as a whole the dialouge throughout this film was laughable at best and downright embarassing at worst.  The problem is that the plot of the film is also flimsy and is therefore reliant on the actors to save it and they fail miserably in their attempt to do so...

As the film "picks up steam" it does have redeemable moments, but they are far outweighed by the negatives.  So much of what they do is never fully explained, their trips to Vegas are filled with gaping plot holes, and their time at MIT is so cliche at times that you will laugh out loud with the rest of the audience.

At the end of this film, which runs a touch over 2 long hours, you will be very happy to be leaving the theatre.   

Under discussion:

Halloween  (2007)

Hi, my name is Minjoe and I have a problem with this movie.

"What's your problem with it Minjoe?"

Ummm, you remember the original correct?

"vaguely."

Let me refresh you.  Michael Myers is institutionalized.  We know he kills his sister in the original but we don't know what led up to that night other than him apparently being an evil kid. 

"Ah yes, I recall.  But the remake filled in the gaping plot hole by showing you the man behind the mask and why he became the killer he was."

Right, and in theory, that sounds like a good idea.  However, you didn't show us the man behind the mask, you showed us the boy--and when you take a character that was great because he was essentially the incarnation of evil and turn him into an angst-filled kid who doesn't have the best home life it takes something away from the film I think.  In the original we are left to let our imaginations run wild with why a small child would knife a family member, in the new one we are to presume its because he was a kid who led an incredibly difficult life and snapped.

"Yes and that turned him into the evil killing machine that is Michael Myers"

...which brings me to my next point.  In the original, the man behind the mask appeared to be an average sized guy who moved and killed completely without sound or mercy.  The white mask adequately conveyed the emotionless character who lurked behind it.

"Yeah...but isn't that a bit...strange?"

Yes.  It is a horror movie.  Strange, unexplained things are supposed to happen.  But apparently in your world, that is not good enough, everything can, and must, be explained.  Which is why the unstoppable killer in your remake appears to be a 7 ft tall monster who is anything but silent.  Every 5 seconds you could hear his heavy breathing or his grunts--it was wildly distracting.  in the original the only time you hear him is when he is breathing and the camera is portraying a first person view point through the killers eyes.  Furthermore, the scenes of him showing his long lost little sister pictures and trying to empathize with her behind an emtionless mask came off as, dare I say it, stupid.

"Well you're more than welcome to have your opinion, but aren't you glad to have the back story of this invincible killer!?"

Ah yes, that brings me to my final point.  Michael Myers is invincible.  Throughout the original, and countless sequels, he is shot, stabbed, and brutalized in pretty much every way possible and yet he never falls and always comes back for more. 

"Absolutely, its part of the horror of the character"

So would you mind explaining to me, now that you gave us your wonderful back story, how an angsty kid who grew up to be 7 ft tall is also invincible--where is the back story on that one?  You seem keen on having an explanation for everything except this, why?  In the original the answer was that he was pure evil stalking the earth and we could think about that in any way we choose.  After seeing some 12 year old actor picking through candy in the opening scenes and crying about his terrible life, the idea of him becoming invincible for unknown reasons seems a bit--strange...

"Well....ummm.....we.....backstory...umm....remake..."

Yeah, thats what I thought.  But hey, don't get to down.  The movie was still filmed pretty decent and the kills were ok I suppose.  Chin up buddy, I won't give you a 1 star rating--you'll get a two star for when I "lost interest" over the backstory of Michael Myers.

"Thanks for doing that for me, we'll try to come up with better ideas next time..."

Thank you.

Under discussion:

Sideways  (2004)

I remember when the trailer for Sideways was first introduced to the public back while I was in college.  For those of you who have not seen the trailer, it is available on the DVD and is possibly one of the best trailers I have ever seen for a non-action movie.  Upon seeing the trailer I was anticipating a great film and Sideways did not dissapoint.

First off, let me start with a brief acknowledgement that some Sideways fans do not care to admit.  The movie in question moves very, very slow and moves from drama to comedy (and back again) so quick, and so frequently that it is often hard to keep up.  After seeing it the first time I told all my friends and family to check it out only to have them scold me for reccomending something so "boring."

However, the reason many people hate it happens to be the reason I have such a passion for this film.  Alexander Payne directs this film to play out with all the grace and power of a fine opera.  It certainly is slow moving, but life can be like that sometimes, and is certainly so for the characters of this film.  We see depression and happiness standing side by side, constantly battling for supremecy over the lives of Jack and Miles.  Such conflicting emotion takes time to play out properly and therefore the pacing of the movie, albeit slow, is perfect for showing the evolution of how our main characters are going to find happiness.

This brings me to the second critique people often have about this film and that is:  What is this?  A drama or a comedy?  So many people I know were put off by scenes which started very funny only to end with a crushing and depressing moment.  For those Payne fans out there, you may remember such techniques being used in the film "About Schmidt."  Again, Miles, who suffers from severe depression in the movie has moments when he is funny and uplifting, but that is how life goes.  Giamatti, Madsen, Church, and Oh work together incredibly well to put forth this masterpiece of what it means to age in this country alone.

Finally, the mirrors and symbolism between the plot of this movie and the aging and harvesting of grapes was remarkable.  Payne did not feel the need to shove the parallels down our throat as an audience, despite the fact that wine was such a prominent role in the film.

Just like a fine bottle of Pinot Noir, Sideways proves that subtlety and great care during its making can produce a very satisfying, and haunting, finished product.

Under discussion:

Gladiator  (2000)

Alexander  (2004)

Upon watching Alexander, I found myself with a lot of questions, and very few answers.  In fact, it has been almost four years since I saw this film, and yet I remain haunted by the many inconsistincies and poor choices which were displayed in the film.

I had the unfortunate privelage of seeing this movie in a sold out theatre where I was forced to take in the action from the front row.  From that vantage point I watched one of the most uninspired, miserable films I have ever seen.  If the constant comments by the audience throughout the length of the film were any indication--I was not alone in my feelings toward this movie.

Alexander, as you may recall, was a heavily anticipated movie and rightfully so with its ridiculously large budget and star studded cast.  As the film opened, I have to admit, I was hoping for an epic of Gladiator like proportions.  Unfortunately, Collin Farrell is no Russel Crowe, and the film did not take very long to unravel.

Rather than discuss the plot, which apparently Director Oliver Stone felt was an optional part of making a movie, lets discuss where this film went so horribly wrong:

• Collin Farrell is not convincing as a conquering hero.
• Angelina Jolie is not convincing as his mother, and she makes the choice to talk with an accent that can only be described as "bad."
• The bi-sexual subplot revolving around Alexander and his right hand man was never developed and therefore came off as forced and awkward in every scene.
• The shots during the battle scenes looked as though a camera man was told to run around in circles with his camera on his shoulders and occassionally shake the device wildly for added effect.
• Actors were apparently told that "intense" dialouge meant you were supposed to "scream or "bellow."

Thus, it was no surprise that, when Alexander died in the film, uproarious applause echoed through the theatre.

The greatest failure of Alexander was squandering a $155,000,000 budget on a film that never came close to living up to the epic nature of its content.  Once again, it is proven that money does not necessarily make great art.

Alexander, as it turns out, was not so great...