One of the benefits of writing these reviews without being beholden to a strict deadline is that I can distance the hype surrounding a movie from the movie itself. With the phenomenon that is the Twilight series (excuse me, the Twilight SAGA), waiting this long to see New Moon is highly necessary to attain some level of objectivity. So what happens when you subtract the crazed fangirls, the massive marketing machine and tabloid rumors from this pic?

You get a movie that wasn’t worth seeing in the theater.

The story is told decently enough. Bella and Edward have some semblance of normalcy in their relationship when suddenly he has to leave, driving Bella to depression, reckless acts and Jake, a local Native-American boy who turns out to be a werewolf. Meanwhile Edward, believing Bella to be dead is driven to a reckless act of his own which leads to a race to set things right. Romeo and Juliet is referenced very early on in the movie and even derided a little bit before the characters find themselves making similar choices that Shakespeare’s characters did. The parallel was a bit too obvious, and the previously mentioned distance between film and frenzy laid much of that obviousness open to sparkle. The twists and turns of the story are not hard to predict even if you haven’t read the books. Enough to keep me following the story, but not enough to make me invest in it.

Also, it’s not fair to point out the outlandishness of the vampire/werewolf/love story combination. Fantasy and sci-fi are designed to take feelings and issues and blow them out beyond normal boundaries to see them in a different light. However, one thing I noticed is the movies the characters watch are so far-fetched (a romantic comedy is called “Love Spelled Backwards is ‘Love’” and an action film is called “FacePunch”) that I pondered how cartoonish those movies had to be to make the Twilight world seem believable by comparison.

The direction on this film is an improvement over the last. Although montages are used to denote the passage of time more than once, there were actually done quite creatively. There were some excellent action sequences as well, especially the fights between vampires and between vampires and werewolves. The were very interesting and combined wirework and CG to show a supernatural conflict that was really enjoyable. Having said that, some shots, particularly some on the cliffdiving sequence felt a bit fake. I think even someone who isn’t versed in special effects could find those shots a bit fake in their composition. It would have been nice if care was taken to keep the quality of the effects consistent overall.

The acting was good overall, but I must say the Volturi (the highest authority of vampires) were a too over-the-top and ended up looking more cartoonish-B-movie-villains than creepy vamp-Illuminati. Except for Dakota Fanning. She seemed to get her part just right.

New Moon is a good rental, maybe even a decent purchase, but that’s about it. It’s a decent story and if you watch it at home and avoid the crowd of people getting worked up over Eclipse (Forgive me again, “THE TWILIGHT SAGA: Eclipse”).

TheJoe, DJ and I saw this Friday at the AMC in the Santa Monica Promenade.

Movies about video games suck. They’re either lackluster and disappointing adaptations of a game or a half-hearted attempt to ‘connect’ to the gaming culture by dropping a few gaming terms that Hollywood hopes will be enough to connect with the gaming crowd yet not be so alien as to confuse the average viewer.

Nothing about Gamer struck me as something that was going to impress me, either. The main plot about an inmate fighting for his life in a violent game against other inmates (It’s MORE than a game! It’s REEEAAAALLL!) has been done in other movies and games before, and the idea that the main character is being controlled in the game by someone else has also been explored before (and seems to be the trendy story hook used in upcoming movies like Surrogates and Avatar).

This is the mindset I had going into this movie. The most exciting thing I was looking forward to was checking out this theater I’d never been in and whether the popcorn was any good.

The story concerns a very dystopian world where the opiate of the masses is in the form of games where real people are willingly placed under direct neural control of a gamer with enough money to make they’re character do whatever they want. This takes the form of two games: “Slayers”, a massive first-person-like shooter where violent inmates use overpowered firearms to survive and make it to through enough matches to win their freedom, and it’s predecessor, “Society”, a very Sims/Second Life-like MMO where lower-class people fortunate enough to be pretty enough earn a living as ‘characters’ that follow the (usually) sexual whims of whatever gamer is in control.

When I got out of this movie I wanted to give it no thumbs up. As I was talking to TheJoe about the movie I talked about how gamers really weren’t put in the best light in this movie. There’s the cocky young gamer who controls are protagonist who talks trash and has a bloated ego from being the top player. There’s the wife of the protagonist working in “Society” that’s really controlled by an overweight male shut-in. There’s the juvenile, nonsensical names characters are given in “Society”. When I was complaining about all this to TheJoe, his response was basically, ‘isn’t that what gamers do right now?’ I realized that I was taking the material too personally. I also realized that this movie was made by people who understand the gaming world and I was giving a lot of thought to the concepts presented by a summer action movie.

This movie was written and directed by the team of Neveldine and Taylor, the same guys behind the Crank movies, which I thought of as movies about a video game character that had yet to be created, never mind the numerous video game references in the movie itself. These are definitely two people that understand the gaming culture (and the internet culture) and have more accurately portrayed it onscreen than anyone has done lately, giving it a future-tech sheen of 360-degree surround sound screens and ‘the-computer-just-translates-my-movement-into-action’ controller schemes. I wasn’t bored by this movie by any means. The story moves along OK, and it goes beyond it’s action movie shell to make statements about control and class. These people indeed DO behave the way gamers and internet surfers behave these days. The act of giving those actions real consequences to real humans tends to expose a mindset that some would consider very ugly. Like I said, I had to step back from this part of the movie. I play a LOT of first-person shooters.

I had no complaints about any of the acting in this film. Gerard Butler delivers as the top Slayer Kable trying to get out of the game and back to his wife (Amber Valletta) and daughter (Brighid Fleming). Michael C. Hall plays Ken Castle, the mastermind behind the technology driving the games and richer than God and Bill Gates. He plays him with a full evil and cockiness he doesn’t get to flex in his role as TV’s Dexter. Ludacris works well as the face and leader of the underground hacker group Humanz. An unexpected cameo is made by Milo Ventimiglia as “Society” character Rick Rape. Despite the name, his turn is actually amusing.

Not everyone is going to ‘get’ this movie. Although many more people play games now than in the past, some people might still get lost in the use of concepts like ping, mods, and memes. For those people this is a one thumbs up movie. For those that game like me, this could very well be a two-thumbs up. I’m glad I saw it in the theater and will definitely download it upon release. It’s one of those few movies that, for me, will actually be different upon repeated viewings.

Video game movies suck. But then comic book movies used to suck too. Then people who understood the culture of comics started making movies that took it as the legitimate art form it is and realized that there were real stories to be told from this medium. I don’t think this is the turning point for game movies, but it is a step in the right direction.

District 9 at the Mann's Chinese Theater

An interesting campaign for this movie was launched in Los Angeles. On busses, benches and billboards, graphics declared areas as “humans only” with a phone number to call and a website to visit should one spot any alien activity. It was a very simple design that brought one of the issues of the movie to the attention of the passerby. This campaign is an excellent match for the movie, which takes racism and other issues and uses sci-fi to twist to these issues into new perspectives for people to examine. Those people who wished the recent reboot of “Star Trek” had more allegory with its’ action will find plenty to like with this film.

The tribe and I caught this at Mann’s Chinese Theater on the main screen and we enjoyed it very much. It was a very well-done movie with a lot of over-the-top sci-fi action. The big screen really showed off the crisp digital picture (this film was shot on high-end RED cameras) and the excellent digital sound. I was very entertained by this film.

So why only two thumbs up? You really have no idea how close this film was to getting the full three. Really. It’s soooo close.

Neil Blomkamp has spent more of his career as a visual effects artist (Dark Angel, Stargate SG-1, Smallville) and he definitely puts as much of the budget onscreen as he could and it shows. The aliens and the spaceship look amazing and the interaction with humans is very realistic. Great care was taken to blend the CGI with the real world as seamlessly as possible. There is no no doubt of Blomkamp’s skill in this area. He is also the writer and director, though, and for all of his creativity in the visual effects field, the story is very pedestrian. I could see the plot progression coming a mile away. I’m usually able to let myself go along for the ride in a good sci-fi movie and not notice these things but the story was very obvious. However, Blomkamp’s talent as a director really helps make up for this weakness. While the story is nothing new, it is told excellently. I could guess what happens next, but I was certainly not bored waiting for the next thing to happen.

Peter Jackson’s name was hyped the most in the movie’s advertising even though he’s a producer and not a director, which makes sense business-wise, but the influence on this movie is not from the Lord of the Rings fanatic most of the public knows. This movie has more in touch with the guy who splattered his way through “Bad Taste”, “Meet the Feebles”, and “Braindead” (“Dead Alive” in the US) and if you’ve ever wondered what THAT Peter Jackson would do with a bigger budget, this is the answer. One scene in particular paid homage to the grisly opening of “Braindead”, putting the protagonist in an almost identical predicament.

Speaking of protagonists mention must be made of Sharlto Copley who plays the lead role of Wikus van de Merwe. According to my research, he is more of a writer and producer and had no plans or even aspirations to act or have any type of part in front of the camera, PLUS he improvised most of his dialogue. Coming from this background, I have to say he does an amazing job taking an unlikely wimp like Wikus and making him a sympathetic character. Part of this is probably due to the fact that many of the other human characters are very UNsympathetic and out to get Wikus for reasons that I’d rather not venture into spoiler country to explain, but Copley does a good job of making sure we like this guy. If he didn’t want to act before, he’d better learn to start turning down offers.

Maybe it’s the shifting of roles (effects artist-turned-writer/director, producer-turned-actor) or the fact that the story doesn’t take more risks (including setting itself up for an inevitable sequel), but there’s just a small amount that separates this very good film from a great film. It was well worth seeing in the theater, maybe even twice, and it is a solid digital download. If there is more from this story in the future, I really hope they step it up a notch.

I went to the opening midnight showing at the Arclight with the Technochubby tribe.

This movie shares kinship with Transformers in being based on a toy line (The same company, Hasbro, in fact). It’s also based on the 80’s cartoon incarnation, taking the origin-story route. It follows Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) as they discover and are inducted into the secret that is G.I. Joe while tracking weaponry that ultimately marks the (as the title says) rise of the Cobra organization and its key players. Charting the beginnings with a property like that is a real balancing act between a multitude of characters’ backstories and the main story. I think the writers got a little heavy on the characters origins to try and satisfy the fan base. While I didn’t feel like anything put a drag on the pacing, I do think some things could have been trimmed out and saved for a sequel, particularly the flashbacks about Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee). Their backstory feels like it’s supposed to lead up to their big conflict in the big battle, but it really doesn’t have a payoff for either character. Again, if the writers are holding back for a sequel with these two, I think it would have been much cooler to keep these two martial artists’ conflict shrouded in secrecy (Or at least saved for a director’s cut, as the young actors playing these two in the flashbacks made some enjoyable fight sequences).

The leads on the file, Channing Tatum (Duke) and Marlon Wayans (Ripcord) are competent and compelling as the soldiers who stumble on this (somewhat) secret war. I was actually surprised by Wayans, who actually gives a more grounded and subdued performance in his sidekick role. I actually found him to be funny without being annoying. The actors for this movie run a very international gamut in keeping with the more global flavor of this version of G.I. Joe. The overall movie follows this route, leading to a more sci-fi, action route than a war movie.

It’s this last point that seems to perplex some people. The tribe and I attended a midnight showing of this movie with a lot of people some would classify as geeks, including a few wearing G.I. Joe T-shirts, all looking forward to the film. At the end of the film I could overhear many of these same people trashing the film and making fun of it for being basically like the cartoon. And this movie is that: a big-budget, live-action version of the cartoon, and it doesn’t pretend to be anything more than that. It doesn’t provide some deep insight into the horrors of war or why we fight. Going into G.I. Joe expecting to see “Apocalypse Now” is like going to Transformers expecting to earn a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence and robotics.

This is a popcorn movie with lots of cool, advanced-looking weapons, armor and vehicles getting into big fights. Air battles, undersea battles, laser fights, hand-to-hand combat, giant global landmarks in peril. All the stuff anyone playing with G.I. Joes as a kid imagined was happening, and aside from a couple of effect shots that, to my eye looked horrible, the effects and setting were well-done.

I can summarize this way. To prepare to see this movie, I took a nap as soon as I got home from work so I wouldn’t nod off after midnight (as anyone that knows me can tell you, this is a herculean task), woke up, showered, assembled with the whole tribe to travel to the theater together, get parking, get some food beforehand, and got our seats. I can say, that while I wasn’t highly-impressed with the movie, I didn’t feel like my time was wasted. I enjoyed myself. Everybody had a great time. I’d say at least see it as a matinee and it will make a solid home purchase. Don’t let any overblown expectations get in the way of a good movie.

When I got the tickets for Transformers 2 in IMAX, the only tickets I could get were for 8:45AM on a Saturday morning. Something clicked in me when that happened: I realized I was once again watching a Saturday morning cartoon. I immediately hit up the local 7-11 for a couple of mini-packs of “Lucky Charms” to sneak into the theater to complete the experience.

That was the attitude I had going in to see this film. I had seen the first Transformers movie and saw it for what it was. A big dumb action film. And that’s what I got. Big robots battling big robots on our world and causing big property-damaging explosions.

I’m actually trying to decide if the sequel raised the bar or if it was just more of the same. They blatantly return some things that changed in the original movie, from Bumblebee losing his voice and talking again in song samples, to Megatron coming back from the deep. All the original actors are. Megan Fox does her job very well, which is to look like Megan Fox. Shia LeBeouf plays his part well too which is a feat considering he has to play a kid who is somehow in a relationship with Megan Fox. For the rest of the cast, I actually found Julie White who plays Sam’s mother a bit of a comedic scene-stealer that had some pretty great bits at the beginning of the movie, putting her up there with John Turturro’s Agent Simmons and well beyond Rainn Wilson’s turn as an egotistical professor.

The voices of the Transformers are all excellent as well. The original Optimus Prime himself, Peter Cullen, returns and I can’t think of anyone else who could voice him. Hugo Weaving also returns as Megatron and he is quite good in this role, but the filmmakers correct the appalling error of leaving out the original Megatron, voiceover legend Frank Welker, by giving no less than three roles to play: Soundwave, Devastator and Reedman.

The action, being a Michael Bay film is well done. There’s some very cool robot fighting sequences (I hesitate to use the word small-scale. These are giant robots after all) These scenes were probably the scenes that took me back to a younger time and really fulfilled a dream of any kid who collected these toys. What kid didn’t take these robots and make them fight each other? Sure there’s big all-out battles with planes and weapons and gunfire, but those scenes with the robots just fighting and punching the hell out of each other were some of the most satisfying.

Plot? Easy enough to follow, but not intrusive enough to get in the way of the action. Ludicrous moments? For sure. There were some robot characters that were downright corny. Consistency? Probably the biggest inconsistency was that the IMAX showing had only some scenes filmed in full IMAX so that when it switches from those scenes to the letterboxed regular print, it’s a little jarring, but not a movie-killer.

I have really avoided reading any reviews on this movie in order to have a clean slate in my opinion, and the fact is, I really enjoyed watching this movie. It was fun. It took me back to Saturday morning watching cartoons. Totally worth seeing in IMAX. I’d pay to see it again, and I will definitely be looking the HD digital download when it’s released. This movie is firmly focused on what it is and does it well. If you have the same frame of mind, then this well worth watching. Just don’t forget the cereal.

Went to see The Taking of Pelham 123 this weekend, partly because it was showing in a theater I haven’t checked out yet and wanted to see what it was like.

The story, if you don’t know is about a subway train hijacking in New York that mostly focuses on the interactions between the lead hijacker Ryder (John Travolta) and train trafficer Garber (Denzel Washington). I found no real surprises in it. The most unique and original thing I noticed was how the ‘New York’ attitude prevailed over the whole movie. Sure, there’s the scene with the mayor (James Gandolfini) talking to the press to try and quell rumors and insipre confidene, but that doesn’t stop the reporters from grilling him about a rumored affair. While the story was predictable, the overall attitude made it slightly unique and a bit amusing to boot.

The only performance that stood out for me was Travolta. Although he’s a more well-rounded actor that many aren’t willing to admit, he can play very engaging antagonists and this one follows that trend. I almost ended up rooting for him as he shuts down all authority and bureaucracy that try to take control of Ryder and the situation.

Audio was really good. The biggest standout for me was the opening sequnce that was cut with a very extensive remix of Jay-Z’s “99 Problems”. It’s one of the few instances where using music in a movie went far beyond just licensing a track and sticking it in the background of a scene, and I’d love to see more uses like that in the future.

All in all, though, I can’t really say I was glad I saw this in the theater. The unique takes on the standard story were not enough to justify a movie ticket. It will most likely be a digital download.

I saw this with the whole clan at the El Capitan, complete with opening live show and full digital 3D presentation.

The thing is, with a the bells and whistles attached to the screening I attended, I felt it was all the kind of things that would be used by marketing to help hype the audience for a lesser flick. And I feel that speaks highly to the ability of Pixar’s “Up” to stand on it’s own, and hints at its ability to stand the test of time.

The story concerned grumpy old man Carl Fredrickson (Ed Asner) fulfilling the wish he shared with his late wife of traveling and making a home by a waterfall in South America. This path has him run across characters like annoying ‘Wilderness Explorer’ Russell (Jordan Nagai), ‘talking’ dog Dug (director/writer Bob Peterson) and a large bird named Kevin.

No doubt you’ve seen the trailers or billboards with the house being hoisted by about a million balloons. The start of the story deals actually deals with Carl’s life and times with his wife in a very touching and almost wordless sequence. Pixar did an amazing job with this sequence and took a risk, I believe. Some people had concerns with the wordless tale-telling at the beginning of Wall-E, but personally, I say it works. Why? Because it’s a MOVIE! A visual story medium. Many other studios would have simply stuck a voiceover describing Carl’s history, but in showing Carl’s life the way they did, it actually made you sympathetic to a supposedly ‘unmarketable’ old man, couple with the fact that you are more than willing to go along with the totally insane idea that someone can fly a house simply because they attached a bunch of helium balloons through their chimney and stuck curtains outside the house to steer.

As much as the characters of this story are well rounded and interesting, the humor of the film is excellent. I can actually say I laughed out loud at this film.

Pixar has shown once again that they are masters of the computer animated movie. All the visuals and animation are incredible. This was made in 3D and some of the visuals are quite impressive when seen in a digital-projection 3D theater, but again this movie could easily stand on its own without it.

That being said, I’d definitely recommend seeing it in the theater. In 3D. I’d see it again that way. This is a very well done film that I believe anyone can enjoy. Go see it.

Someone REALLY wanted to make “Heroes: The Movie”. I went into the theater expecting that from the trailers in the first place. It’s a world where people with powers don’t wear capes or costumes and have ambiguous nicknames like “movers” (telekinetics), “watchers” (can see the future), “pushers” (can implant thoughts in your mind), and “sniffers” (can track someone by touching or smelling an object the person has touched). It’s a very gritty world with a secret government agency attempting to turn these people into war weapons. In other words, not much surprise in the way of the plot or the characters, from Chris Evans’s reluctant hero to Dakota Fanning’s smart-alec kid with mission for reluctant hero to Djimon Hounsou’s evil agent who must foil plans of smart-alec kid and reluctant hero.

OK, so most stories have to have some familiar elements to get the audience in on the ride, and there was an interesting story element about how to get the jump on a watcher, but it felt like there were some decisions made about the movie in post-production, most notably a few obvious voice dubs that wrapped the story up instead of extending it to a possible sequel which was more likely the original intention. This tended to water down the movie’s impact as a whole. Nothing in the movie was really bad, but nothing was really good either. There was no ‘push’ to it.

Having said that, I wasn’t bored watching the movie, but I would wait for a rental or buy when you can see this at home with friends. It’s defenitely better than the movies SciFi Channel airs. This is something you can watch when they re-run “Dungeons and Dragons 2″ and pretend they got a hold of a decent movie, for once.

We decided to see this movie on a whim and caught the late show. I did not know much about the movie except that it was about a guy who aged backwards. I did not know that it was almost 3 hours long. I probably would not have seen it when I did if I had known this. However, I must say, that it did not seem so long as I was watching it.

I enjoyed how they brought the story together from two differing time line perspectives. One where Cate Blanchett’s character is dying and is sharing the story with her daughter. The other from the perspective of Brad Pitt’s character Benjamin Button.

Overall, the story was better than I expected. It was refreshing, moving, and very enjoyable.