It's catching up to me again; I'm lagging behind on the semi-latest releases that I can't remember what my initial thoughts were on these movies. And that sentence kinda sounds funny...



rating: **** outta ****

A celebration of childhood, but heavily divides critics and audiences... maybe it's 'cause many expected a simple, albeit expanded, storytelling of the literary classic. Instead, director Spike Jonze decides to go further into the vivid imagination of Max, and his emotional turmoil. I loved the film because it taps into the innocence, excitement and seldom isolation of being a child where many other films would often just play it safe and let their child actors speak like adults. Could be a tad heavy-handed with the portrayals of the wild things, in particular Carol and KW, both who are emotionally more complex even knowing that they're just figments of Max's imagination... but what an imagination the kid has. Although labeled as a children's film for adults, the filmmakers and parents should at least trust their kids to come up with their own interpretations. Too scary for the wee ones? C'mon... we 80s and 90s kids endured darker stuff like The Secret of NIMH, The Land Before Time, even Bambi and we've got the trauma to prove it! If there is a flaw, it's a minor one, and it's that the film kinda does drag in the middle, but it picks up pretty quickly that we forget it was even there. The creatures are awesome, as are their respective voice actors, in particular James Gandolfini as Carol. Emotionally complex, sure, but Where the Wild Things Are reaches out on so many levels that you just become involved in this grand display of... well, just being a kid. Haven't seen this level of depth in a children's flick since Lilo & Stitch.



rating: **½ outta ****

Tame and plays by the books, but this sure makes up for the depressing turmoil of The Break-Up, which I still admired but wished it wasn't advertised the way it was. Now here, we get exactly what to expect. It's both good and bad, but I still managed to laugh. Vince Vaughn does what he does best: talk really fast. Teamed with Jon Favreau once again, but this time adding a slew of others including scene stealers Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell... so expect what the trailers outlined: dysfunctional couples, although the premise is a tad clever, which really involved Bateman and Bell kinda serving as the plot devices. Both play a married couple on the verge of divorce, and think this couples retreat will be their last chance at salvation. But low on funds, they enlist the help of fellow couplings Vaughn and Malin Akerman, Favreau and Kristen Davis, and Faizon Love and Kali Hawk. These three claim to have no problems until their arrival in which everything is finally revealed. Hilarity ensues, especially when Jean Reno unexpectedly enters. So yeah... good flick. Plays it safe, but still worth checking out. Heh, I've gotten soft, haven't I? :p



rating: **½ outta ****

Our law abiding citizen is like the Joker meets the Jigsaw dude, only without hiding behind a mask. Instead, he's Gerard Butler taunting the justice system and its tools, in particular Jamie Foxx. The film starts off harsh and rarely lets up when it comes to the killings, but also interjects a few moments to ponder about the legal system repeated ad nauseum. The suspense comes when everyone scrambles to prevent Butler's next kill, and the fun is wondering how the hell he accomplishes it while behind bars. Sure he's killing, but not without explaining himself. As Foxx gradually becomes morally conflicted, so might the audience. The killings are gruesome; Saw-level of brutality (and demented entertainment). The ending is a tad disappointing... I guess when everything is out in the open, that's when the fun ended for me. So, it's an okay flick worth checking out at least once.



rating: **** outta ****

For a dramedy, A Serious Man is dark and seemingly nihilistic that I walked outta the auditorium depressed. Yet as I pondered more on the flick, I suddenly felt... enlightened. Usually films with this level of pessimism just festers themselves with that. A Serious Man towers over and laughs at the poor sap Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) while simultaneously providing insight on life itself. To the Coens, life seems to be a joke, and man's inept skills to grasp, explain, and understand makes it more hilarious to them. The joke's on you, the viewer, if your suddenly put off by the film's opening and ending. Heck, I didn't catch that until I read more reviews on the flick. But what to make of A Serious Man? Is it any good, worth checking out, etc.? For a roughly 100-minute flick, hardly anything goes on except Larry's constant struggles in his life; work, divorce, kids, etc. He seems to be the only person constantly seeking understanding whereas hardly anyone around him ever provide any insight; instead, they just go on living as if nothing bad would ever happen. It's like Larry can't find anything that assures him... not even the rabbis he visited were helpful. Noting his pretty crappy run-ins with life's unexpectedness and the mountains of questions that affect his life, I started seeing myself in this character; it was like a wake-up call. The film spelled out what should've been obvious: The more I know, the less I know. One viewing might've not been enough for me, however it did give more to think about than any normal flick that didn't fall under science fiction ever could. Might not be as exciting as No Country for Old Men or the Coens' other thoroughly enjoyable flicks, A Serious Man does pose some serious thoughts. I'll end with a little phrase written by another person which might be helpful should you watch this film: "expect to not fully understand the meaning, and in doing so you will completely get the meaning."



rating: *** outta ****

For your info: I saw this movie alone. Was it creepy? It could've had there been a smaller crowd turnout, but I still got a chill here and there whenever I forgot about the Nostalgia Critic's review of Alone in the Dark, a review that did kinda ruin the "boo!" moments this film heavily relied on. But regardless, Paranormal Activity was still a dern good ghost story. I dunno what else to add except: watch the movie and know that genuine horror films still exist.



rating: *** outta ****

What coulda been a shamless attempt at cashing in on MJ's death was something fitting. Jacko's final rehearsals of what was supposed to be leading up to his final tour isn't so much a documentary but just capturing the venue in its glamour both on and off stage, showing an artist at work. Jackson had everything down, performed his moves with ease, always showing he was in control (although his crew seemed like a bunch of yes men), and still had fun with it all. It may just be footage of different rehearsals, what's presented is so grand and such an awe that it may as well have been the actual show lucky fans would've attended. The movie audience were so enamored with the silver screen that they applauded and emoted several times, just like audiences at a live show would have. Thus is the stage power of Michael Jackson. He may have been near his end around the time this footage was captured, there's not a hint of him struggling nor exhausted. It is sad that the concert everyone worked hard on wouldn't make its proper debut. But This Is It provides what a good showman would bring to the table: entertainment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yep... hope this holds all y'all over until the next batch of sleuth arrives at our local theaters. Man, I can't believe already another year has almost reached its end. Not only that, almost a decade has already wrapped up... o_O

Why waste more senseless time typing up crap about movies that have long since come and gone? Well, fall break provided a much needed break, even though there are piles of homework and reading to do... plus, the break decides to arrive during the last two days of the regular school week, usually when most students have already finished with their regular weekly class schedules. So in a way, this so-called "fall break" is fuckin' useless! What break does it give when most students already have it in the first place?! It should be a fucking week long, like spring break! And why is there even a fall break?? It's so damn early in the year; what's there to take a break from?? Isn't the fall semester full of breaks to begin with? Maybe I'm exaggerating there...

...still, it doesn't make sense to have a fall break, especially when it occurs during the last two days of the week. Fuck fall break... fuck it up its stupid ass. EXTEND IT TO A WEEK LONG!! IT DOESN'T DESERVE TO BEAR THE NAME "FALL BREAK!"

My blood is boiling and I noticed I'm pounding on the keyboard now, so I should take it down a notch... by bitching and raving about the latest batch of movies our beloved cinemas have provided their potential audiences with. I'm aware a similar situation occurred last year when I fell so behind on my postings that they didn't really pop up until close to November. Don't want that to happen again. Man, I treat this like some big assignment or grade or something. Well, I'm sure y'all seen this batch already and have already made a judgment and told all yer friends and foes. But that won't stop me. Perhaps kinda dampen what little value my thoughts hold, but oh well. Some are olde, some are very olde, and some are kinda recent... well, they're all old releases, so lemme stop stalling and continue to continue.

MUTTON MAN WASTES TIME AT THE MOVIES




rating: **** outta ****

You'd think this would be an ideal date movie. A love story it is not, but a story about love it is, similar to Annie Hall, High Fidelity, or even Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Like these flicks, the film's outlook on love is told from the male's perspective, yet our male lead Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) differs from the likes of Allen's Alvy Singer, Cusack's Rob Gordon and Carrey's Joel Barish. He's just a regular joe, not neurotic, not fearful nor hindered under pretentiousness... just uncertain when he does feel certain. And that's where the film exceeds expectations, because that's how love and relationships are; very conflicting even when in your grasp. Being presented kinda out of order, it jumps between timelines (as Tom reminisces). It doesn't attempt to paint it with simple shades of black and white, even though at times it still does and it kinda wraps up nicely at some parts. But when reading the film's opening text, you're in for a whole 'nother take on this mind-numbing feeling. Through ups and downs, it still focuses on the faltering relationship between Tom and Summer (Zooey Deschanel), but again, these two give polarizing thoughts on the concept of love itself... the film's "conclusion" is indecisive, but it's good that hardly anything was resolved. Joe and Zooey are awesome, there are plenty of funny scenes, feel-good moments, bummer times, and contemplative moments... plus, a kickass soundtrack to boot. If it's still playing anywhere, watch it immediately. Laugh, scoff, and feel bummed, 'cause you know it's all true. Did I mention it's hilarious?



rating: ***½ outta ****

More revenge fodder from the man himself, although it's a breath of fresh air to finally view a fully complete motion picture. It's been a long time coming, but for all us movie geeks, waiting for the next Tarantino flick is like waiting for Christmas to arrive. I'm sure you've all seen it, so why elaborate any further? It's awesome, it's epic, it's great to see that some filmmakers would still rather use regular film as opposed to the onslaught of digital, and it's gripping right from the moment Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) enters... total badass. Yeah, Inglourious Basterds plays out like a modern Spaghetti-Western or a B-movie version of last year's Valkyrie, however, I feel that it's still more of an homage rather than a stand-alone film. My only peeve was the constant references to movies. I know they're Nazis and Basterds, French and German, Jewish and English and Italian... all stranded in WWII, yet it seems everyone (excluding the Basterds) watched about as much movies as Quentin Tarantino. I guess I'm put-off since Tarantino's last two movies were also homages (possibly Jackie Brown as well, but it felt more complete and original). I mean, I know it's an homage, so stop rubbing it in our faces with the references! For a war movie, the real weapon here is movies themselves, even right down to the technical aspects. That bugs. Hence a half-star deduction. But, when the characters remember that there's a war going on outside, that's when the film is at its best. The dialogue remains amusing even when spoken in another language (the bulk of the film has subtitles). And the climax is one to remember... still sends chills even after a second viewing. Despite my peeve, Inglourious Basterds is still one of the best films of the year.



rating: *** outta ****

More B-movie fodder, this time taking notes from '80s slasher flicks. It's campy, it's corny, but it's still worthy. Despite the news of it being a huge flop, Megan Fox not being the main star, being a feminist flick, and plagued with a slew of bad marketing and indecisive audience members, Jennifer's Body certainly could live up to its B-movie status. I dig it because of its camp and stuff that doesn't make sense, from plot points which basically serve as MacGuffins... to Diablo Cody's wry attempts at quirky dialogue; a step-down from Juno, but still amusing nonetheless. So don't take this movie seriously... gotta ask those disgruntled audience members, Why so serious? Anywho, enjoy the camp, Megan Fox's precious screen time, and the potential in co-star Amanda Seyfried. I actually watched this twice and appreciated it a tad more, even for its faults.



rating: **½ outta ****

More cautionary tales on the prevalence of technology and all its supposed improvements for daily living. I could say this film is good, has plenty of action moments and a few things to ponder on, but the food-for-thought is simple and kinda underdeveloped. I kept wondering if these couch potatoes would soon lose the ability to walk, or get bedsores, or get some other side-effects from being immobile and underexposed to sunlight, food, real people, and exercise... but maybe those comfy recliners have something up their sleeves. Still, it was worth seeing, but I think it's best seeing if you absolutely have nothing else, or desire, to watch.



rating: **½ outta ****

It's unbelievable! But the results are kinda ho-hum... maybe it's 'cause we never know much about our lead character Mark Whitacre (Damon), even after this epic espionage journey he gets tangled up in, which is intriguing in its own right. Maybe the humor, complications and satire kinda don't mesh well at times, but some of it still does work by getting out a chuckle here and there, also by reminding us of real world complications like embezzlement and all that corporate greed people get involved in. But I guess that's the fun of the movie knowing that one joe manages to have this small white lie suddenly spiral out of control. The end is kind of a cop-out or a downer since all the while we're laughing and repeatedly second-guessing from the beginning, then alluva sudden it's like, "Oh," complete with this look:
(O_O)... awkward.
A slight disappointment from Soderbergh, who also released his otherwise brilliant short experimental drama The Girlfriend Experience earlier this year. Still, The Informant! was worth checking out despite some slow moments and noticing patrons slowly leaving during the show one by one...



rating: ***½ outta ****

What a year for horror flicks! Although there are hardly any scares in this one, it certainly takes the level of laughs and badassery up so many levels that you'd wanna watch it a second time. The characters are presented well with backstory, motives, and distictive/unique personalities that they immediately become likeable. The premise is simple: What to do when a zombie apocalypse is unleashed? Road trip!

Enjoy the ride and laugh your asses off. One of the year's biggest surprises, and certainly one of the best. Already watched it? Watch it again! I sure as hell want to...



rating: *** outta ****

It's cliche, safe, and formulaic, yet is still manages to be so darn charming. I guess it's 'cause all the characters are likeable and perhaps the oddest team ensemble to share the screentime: Drew Barrymore, Kristen Wiig, Eve, Zoe Bell, Juliette Lewis, and of course Ellen Page. Well, it's odd to me, but I guess it's 'cause this time they just act normal... y'know, real. And they're all tough and respectable in their own ways, even when portrayed as rivals. Outside of the roller derby gang, there's the overlooked Wilson brother Andrew, Jimmy Fallon, a surprising appearance by Daniel Stern, and Marcia Gay Harden.

The cast ensemble as a whole have just a comfy presence with one another. As a sports movie, it's a breath of fresh air to see something that doesn't involve football or basketball or a whole lotta star power; just feeling more down to earth, knowing how something so small makes the world for them. Yeah, it interjects the usual angles, friendship, family, romance, etc., but without being too forced. Excellent directorial debut from Drew Barrymore. Give Whip It a chance when possible. Might be one of the more overlooked flicks of the year.
------------------------------------------------------------
And there ye have it.

More adventures of the Mutton Man and trips to the movies coming soon...

............It's hard to make a new title using only words from provided movies I've viewed recently. Yeah yeah, these movie blogs will never go away unless I just stop going to the movies altogether. Perhaps then I'll be able to focus more on typing up past life experiences and finally que you all in on the mischevious days of Mutton the Man. Some of youse may have been waiting in anticipation after glancing at the last blog... well, maybe one of you at the very least. But honestly, even after viewing these five movies (actually six, but couldn't work the film's title in my blog's subject... err, title), I'm not sure what to say. Maybe I need to just type and type, see where this blog will take me. Who knows? Something potentially intriguing could leak, and it would no longer be just a rant or rave of opinions on movies.

Why bother doing this? Posting personal adventures and thoughts, that is. Because it certainly makes up for those vague, "Oh, I'm fine" responses people love to leave on their friend's page, followed by useless comments that are on-par with text messages. Yeah yeah, I type the same crappy responses too, sue me... but if thou art lucky enough to stumble upon these blogs, you'll be like, "This shit just got serious!" Besides, it's a lotta info to hand over to just one person. While informing someone of my journey's and knowing that there is another (or two) asking the same question, I'd have exhausted my comment posting duties and feel it's redundant. Maybe I'm just irate about repetition when I shouldn't be. Just 'cause I've informed one individual doesn't mean I should withhold informing another just because I feel lazy about repeating the same adventure. I'm weird like that. And that's not fair; one person knows something while the rest will be left in the blue. Maybe it's a selective identity? Kinda like, I'm acting differently towards other people. Nah, that's pushing it. I'm just lazy and waiting for the right time to indulge more journeys and other non-movie thoughts.

Besides, movie-going adventures and the rare profile updates seem to not properly inform anyone who was curious. It's not that I was busy with life 'n shit, I just felt they weren't interesting enough to even mention in the beginning.

There was a bonfire in front of my resident hall dorm place of living some nights ago (Thursday). "Umm, go Lobos, I guess," were my thoughts. Game was last night. I only attended because I got a free ticket. I'm not much for school spirit, but I think some other individuals would tell you otherwise judging from my actions back in high school. Well, I was in the school band, played trumpet which was more triumphant than the rest of the instruments (no offense), and somehow school spirit crept up on me, telling me that non-conformity was a load to hooey. I then chucked my unique individuality off to the side, and forced myself to actually cheer for our loser school team. My God, were they losers... you have no idea how much money I've lost betting on them. Who'd wanna bet on a high school football game in the first place? Someone who was bored once that school spirit subsided. I think my total losses were around 5 bucks... maybe 10. May not appear to be much, but back in the days of $1.34 gas prices, that was equivalent to 20 bucks. Speaking of band, the band from NMSU performed quite well. Grand sound that was well heard. UNM band, on the other hand, had a very thin sound. Maybe NMSU had a bigger band, or they were more spread apart as opposed to the close proximity of UNM's band members.

Did I place a bet on the Lobos? Feh! You think I'm stupid after enduring countless losses betted on the Scouts? Well... actually, yeah. I bet the Lobos would win, but they didn't. Losers, I tell ya... LOSERS! And how much it reminded me of the blandness bestowed upon the WR Scouts. But that's unfair and offensive. I guess like most compulsive gamblers, we bet just to make the game a tad more interesting. I wonder how many people in the stands made bets. I'm sure not very many. Everyone displayed some kind of faith in their home team, for better or worse. I think I may develop a gambling problem; it shall be my new habit after cigarettes kicked the bucket one year back. Or, it would've been, but a relapse came and went. I know, I know... some of you may be shocked and currently wondering if the Mutton Man will crawl back to cigarettes after smoking a few over last weekend and subsequent work days. (I'll cue you in on why that came to be when I feel it's appropriate.) But I'm-a quit... yet, how did my last smoke-less duration flourish for that long? Back then, I quit cold turkey but it was unintentional. I just went along with it to the point where I realized I haven't smoke in [this many] days. It would be problematic this time around; I think the problem is stating outloud to the world (of friends) that I'm-a quit; no one has faith or maintain a worrysome facade suggesting that I might fail this second time around. One year, one month, and three weeks was an amazing feat, and I am kinda bummed that I caved back into the habit just so recently. One friend maintains a level of faith that somehow seems reassuring... it's pressuring, sure, but I'd hate to see this wave of disappointment overrule her level of faith. It's always reassuring knowing people care.

Well, the campus here has become somewhat smoke-free but kids (and yes, I was one of 'em) were/are guilty of parading around school grounds with a cancerous stick dangling off the sides of their mouths or stubby fingers. This ban hasn't been properly observed and I feel it was a waste to think, "Oh wow, the campus is smoke-free, so I won't be caving in anytime soon." Sure, there are like two designated smoking areas (the whereabouts of the second is a mystery to me) but just back then, I wouldn't have even dared to grab a cigarette. No, I'm not laying blame on the campus' level of unprofessionalism... the blame lays in me. Maybe I should change that description on my profile where it asks smoke/drink (change from "no" to "yes"). There shan't be any shame in that, should there? But ever since declaring to the world that I was smoke-free for this long, I feel like I should wear a bag over my head. One class introduction involved saying my name, major, and something unique. Of all unique things about me, I opted to declare "I haven't had a smoke in over a year." Some students had this express that suggested some kind of approval. Heh, one person even clapped. But deep in the back of my head, I wondered if I had jinxed myself... it's like I could sense that I will eventually relapse. Like a voice saying, "Soon..." but I didn't pay attention.

There's always a reason for a relapse. Some of youse might get a slight indication of what that reason may be, so for now, I'll leave it up to your little minds. Hopefully I'll follow-up on this. But that don't mean it'll be in the next blog. Still got a slew of movies to complain about, and gotta post some thoughts on tonight's series premiere of The Simpsons (maybe those other shows as well), not to mention the adventures through Denver and other parts of Colorado, and other random events I might encounter, or already have encountered.

:p

Wow, another month of blog inactivity. That seems to be a recurring theme; my hand-written journal also suffers this fate. "Oh, so the Mutton Man keeps a diary now, huh?" Yeah, something I've decided to try ever since glancing at a composition notebook and reminescing an ill-fated thought that handwriting may be a thing of the past, next to reading and our names which may be replaced by numbers... come to think of it, the latter is true nowadays. So is that diary any more different than what I initially post on my blogs? Well, if you ever glance at the earliest of blogs (a few hundred pages of backtracking if thou art interested), my journal writing is about on par with those entries. In other words, not so different... 'cept now my current thoughts outside of movies and other pop favorites are jotted down in scribbles and indecipherable fonts tainted on those precious loose leaf pages. Plus, my pencil writing isn't as intricate as how I type on a 'puter; perhaps both worlds of journalism reflect a split personality. Kind of an intriguing thought, is it not? I think NOT! Just kidders. You can already guess the differences. But it don't mean that I'm prone to keeping both worlds exclusive to each other. You dear readers and subscribers deserve more than rants and raves on pop favorites.

Hmm, I didn't even type up a birfday blog. Well, I'm not sure how often I've kept up with informing thee about birthday experiences of the past, but boredom and fear of aging tends to shed light on the subject. And yes, I'm exaggerating there. Constant self-pity remarks about getting old seems to be stale and even offensive in some cases. However, I've been told that I'm quite mature for my age. How they determine this with noting the few utterances that escaped my vocal chords is a mystery ("They say a lot, don't they?" "Yep they certainly do.") Appearances can be deceiving; they should know better. Look at me: 24 years old, and I'm still watching cartoons and laying around the pig pen (aka: my room). Well, the ol' pig pen has moved to a dorm in Albumquerque and is shared by a roommate. That's some news, ain't it? To put it bluntly, I'm currently out and about in Albuquerque, where the sun is arid and the rain is humid but thank God it ain't like Phoenix. New experience? Well, no more excessive driving between states. And instructors are so reliant on computers more than I would have guessed; loose leaf paper is now a precious commodity, and costly. And my roommate is cool.

And for my birfday, I caved into popularity and followed the masses: my iPod touch is the de facto listening medium. A whopping 16 gigs (compared to previous mp3 player's 20 gigs and big bro and nephews' 120 gig iPods) and hours of study time wasted on importing CDs and syncing, resulting in equal hours of frustration due to some fuck ups and extreme slowness of iTunes... well! My mode of listening time has gotten better, hasn't it? Geez, Windows Media wasn't this freaking slow (note: olde mp3 used Windows Media). It's a wonder why a lotta people use these shitty programs, shitty software and shitty listening devices. Fuck 'em... fuck 'em all! And fuck Apple for duping all of us, especially ME! But at least my iPod touch has a built-in speaker and wi-fi connectivity, so that kinda makes up for the shitty things I have to put up with. I think the bulk of the frustration results from the computer I currently use (lousy computer). So for now, my rant ceases to hold any merit... also, my other present was Season 12 of The Simpsons, so I think I'm set.

I think it's time for a break from movie-going adventures, which have been the de facto choice of blog entries over the past year or two (aside from dream descriptions or random ramblings and thoughts). I think some of you dear blog readers were waiting for a blog that wasn't about movies or had abstract writings from the insane; a blog that just described the Mutton Man walking around. Hell, I'm sure a blog describing a day's worth of exciting activities, such as sharpening a pencil, or going to Coal Street Pub, would've been most interesting to read. I need to get back in that mode. Remember them good ol' days that I actually described what was on my mind or what had happened? I'm sure a lot has happened since I last talked about a non-movie event. I should type them up before they're lost memories...

I'm not sure where to start. Maybe I've become too macho that I can't type up real thoughts anymore; I looked at an old journal from high school, which followed this method of writing: words that were so bored they couldn't wait to reach the end of the page. Hey, it got me some much needed points for that English class. But truth of the matter is, I guess since realizing that people actually read my blogs I've restrained from babbling too much. Yeah yeah, I know that I've typed up some excuse that nothing in my life is worth noting, I was lying. Lies, I tell ya. ALL LIES!

So... how was the summer of Mutton Man? Well, I think I could type up an epic of intriguing details and random events and journeys beyond the limited Gallup and surrounding areas... but that might have to wait. Or will it? Not that there's some spectacular thing to mention... okay, you may not think so but I think they're memorable in that they bring a smile. Such as working at ABE for the last time, biding farewell to KGLP, and an ill-fated attempt to see Sonic Youth in Denver (it was not meant to be, but they added Phoenix and Tucson shows). I'll get to those in a bitty bit. Before ending this brilliant introduction on a cliffhanger, let's briefly jump back to some of the movies I've recently viewed.



rating: **** outta ****

Summer 2009 was a stinker, but it started off with a blast called Star Trek, and it ended with an even bigger explosion called District 9. Talk about originality AND thought-provoking on its analysis of the dark side of human nature and the neverending speculation on humanity. Again, why is it that only science fiction films tackle this hefty subject? My guess is to understand the unknown, humans must venture into the unknown or face the unknown. Although that's more of a voyage into fear, it also strains the boundaries set by mere humans. Aside from that, it also gives a rather convincingly bleak hypothesis should visitors from outside space visit Earth. I was reminded of this Calvin and Hobbes strip:



Hard-hitting honesty. But if you don't like thinking, District 9 has some of the most impressive action scenes, fuckin' awesome special effects, impressive storyline that is intriguing as well as it is believable, and violence that isn't meaningless (although the exploding bodies reminded me of the arcade game Area 51). All this especially considering its micro $30-40 million budget compared to the gargantuan scales and low expectations pushed by the Hollywood fat cats. Aren't we all glad Neill Blomkamp gave the world District 9 instead of Halo?



rating: ** outta ****

It's about equivalent to when we used to play with GI Joes as youngins. Stephen Sommers captures this quite well since a lotta things defy logic, even going as far as having our Joes make impossible jumps (like the kid making Joes jump from the couch to the kitchen table in one leap!). Loud and obnixious, just like Transformers 2, yet somehow a tad more entertaining since it doesn't attempt to askew whatever storyline is present (maybe it does, but I don't care). It knows what it is. So how come a shitty movie like this is a tad better than a movie that appeared to be more thought-out but wasn't(Transformers 2)? Nothing seemed misplaced nor added in at the last minute, plus I was spared my frustration (insert absurd laughter instead). It's cheesy as hell, too. Heh, how does that make it a plus? I dunno what I'm saying anymore! There are scenes that make little sense (somehow, ice sinks), there's bad dialogue and a really cheap ending. Fact is: I was entertained by that much as opposed to my cringing boredom and frustration with Transformers 2. Action was loud and kinda cool, there were more babes that weren't named Megan Fox (P.S. can't wait for Jennifer's Body... sue me), and more action. This flick was just a good time at the movies, nothing more. I guess me being not frustrated with storyline made this movie a tad more bearable than that other flick... although there are plenty of times where we must suspend our disbelief. But same goes for Transformers 2... you know what? Fuck it:
GI Joe: Rise of Cobra = somewhat more entertaining than Transformers 2 for undisclosed reasons.

Then a trip to the grindhouse (no poster visuals needed):

Halloween 2

rating: *½ outta ****

The Rob Zombie sequel... never saw the first one. What made me watch this flick anyway? I think friends play a key role in my visits to movies I'd otherwise wouldn't wanna waste time on; I just enjoy the company of friends. It provoked an interesting discussion afterwards describing the context of the film and its ending altogether, but doesn't save it from being any better. Perhaps I was lost considering I hadn't seen Zombie's previous [re]incarnation. Maybe I'm not too keen on slasher flicks anymore... but I did like the remake of Friday the 13th from earlier this year. This flick does have a gritty look and feel, diving into Michael Meyers' mind was interesting (note: never saw the original sequel), the killings were brutal, what the hell more could a person ask for?! I was bored, and the only time I perked up was when a rather cool song started blaring. I guess I just saw no real motive for Meyers' killing spree, and should I try to state a possible reason, I think of Jason following his mum's orders *cough*ripoff!*cough* I just find it to be bland. No purpose!

The Final Destination

rating: **½ outta ****

These movies are guilty pleasures. I must be a sadist, even when sometimes I complain about sadism of certain movies... but I can make exceptions for the Final Destination series. There's no originality up to this point, except for the 3-D which is pretty cool. Now blood, body parts, and words can come at you from the screen! Not much can be said for the deaths. They're humorous, they're excessive, they're gory ("Dammit, Mutton Man! You like this movie, how come you not like Halloween 2?!") You know the set-up: some random premonition prevents the opening scene from taking place (sorta), then Death has fun picking off the survivors, always managing to give clues which no one can decipher until it's too late, resulting in the most hilarious death scenes ever. Then we just sit back and watch blood and guts spill. My only complaint: some death scenes were tame compared to previous entries. Then there's other nitpicking, but I laugh about it just because it gives this movie a slight edge on the entertaining factor (ex: busted, chewed up leg results in bleeding from the mouth). Two-point-five stars is hardly a recommendation, but for just a good ol' time watching a movie in 3-D where boobs also pop out (aside from gore and other deadly appliances) should be the least bit intriguing... if you're willing to shell out extra bucks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So there ye have it.

Two hours of typing when I coulda caught up on some homework. Oh well.
^_^

No more work for me, so life is boring. One more check on the way, which'll be depleted in a matter of days, possibly all gone by the week's end. Gas 'n junk, y'know how these things go. I might as well start getting ready for the upcoming semester as well as finish reading select books currently put on hold and watch as many movies as I can.

It's been just a tad over a year since my last smoke. Since then, I've rediscovered that tasty things taste so good. Eventually I'll make my way to Bender's fat guy status after he became human.


(Mutton Man, The Last Bender)

^^^This is what happens after you quit smoking. No one tells ya these things. It's like, "Good! You've quit! Now let's get something to eat!" Cancer ain't the big problem anymore, now it's high blood pressure and diabetes. Food should have these kinds of warnings on 'em... but nooooo, they only warn to people who have allergies (peanuts) or others who don't wanna vomit (undercooked meat). Like those are as life-threatening as diabetes. At least those are avoidable and minuscule. Whoo...

In the meantime, still in the process of catching up on some classics so I shall brag about whether they live up to their status or nah. And here's a new flick I happened to have caught; I think some of you already have seen it by now.



rating: *** outta ****

"I'm trying to make a very serious movie that is twice as funny as my other movies. Wish me luck!"
- Judd Apatow

From watching the trailer, one can sense that this film could possibly be a tad more "dramatic" than Judd Apatow's two previous flicks. Taking note from (500) Days of Summer's tagline, the description for Funny People should be "This isn't a comedy. This is a drama about comedians." At least I knew it would be even though the trailer seemed to be sugar-coated to lure in more unsuspecting souls. I didn't really expect more drama filled with lewd humor but I think Apatow reached that point when he made Knocked Up which also had its share of realism. Funny People is pretty deep or tries to be, even though it may not look like it. Additionally, it's grounded in hard-hitting reality when it touches on self-reflective themes and/or how each character goes about on screen; these actors may just be comedians but damn, can they act and dammit can the audience relate (if they can get past thinking, "Where's the comedy??" or looking at their watches). Personally, I think the film is a tad self-indulgent; the lengthy time which I think tried to illicit responses Apatow wanted and to retain every scene he loves. BUT it's also quite a risk taker because it explores.

Funny People might not meet everyone's expectations. The laughs are there, so that should reassure thee some, and they usually result from those "it's funny cuz it's true" situations and the typical dick joke inserted. Most of the complaints would center on the film's length and having more drama instead of comedy. Maybe the term dramedy should be used to describe Funny People. It's quite a change of pace to see these comedians all depressed 'n shit and having real problems (possibly alluding outcry from the Hollywood elite). So when Adam Sandler's character is a dick, suffering inside, and can still generate a laugh, you know he's reaching his full potential as an actor. Heck, even Seth Rogen kinda veers toward a different field and not just for the weight loss. He ain't so much a slacker like before, but just a shlub working hard for his big break. And as you all know from the spoiler-filled trailer that we've all seen over the past few months, Sandler plays George Simmons who has a blood disease and goes through the period of self-reflection and mistakes of the past he hopes to mend. These moments, especially between George and Ira (Rogen), are perhaps the film's best. It's basically a struggle for what each comedian wants as both try to guide each other, but not too much as they must remain professional to their respective lifestyles (Ira is hired by George to pen some jokes).

Around the time George gets better (we must kill whoever created that trailer), the film shifts toward more involvement with his ex Laura, played by Leslie Mann, mother of two kids (the same two girls from Knocked Up whom also Mann and Apatow's real-life offspring), and wife of Clark, played by Eric Bana, who can be intimidating and funny at the same time. This is where the complaints come from, usually regarding its overlong stay or misplacement. And lemme kinda once again say that yes, the film is long, nearly 2.5 hours in length (about 6 minutes shorter than The Dark Knight), but it held my interest and I think it helped get the film's point across. Yet, even for an epic length some parts appear to be dragged out while others are left underdeveloped or rushed. Kinda irksome.

Good attempt at going a different route but Apatow needs a better editor or be willing enough to either chop a few minutes or expand (in hopes of better development). Still, Funny People is a complex and fascinating film guaranteed to make you laugh some and ponder a bit during and even afterward. Again, the film is funny but not "twice as funny" as Apatow's other movies, both of which were able to balance comedy and heart. Here, everything is stripped to its raw core with no embellishments whatsoever. It's a rather unconventional move, very bold and perhaps even brutal. The last half of the film also adds a new element to its theme which in turn made the film darker than originally perceived. I guess this also adds to the confusion about what the film is trying to convey since the film is jumbled enough as it is. Some viewers tend to think around this point that the film didn't know what it wants to be, but I think it's perfectly clear, leaving a deeper impact than I would have even thought.

Note to the Academy (like they'd ever read this): give Adam Sandler a Best Actor nod for this film.

Planned road trip through memory lane. Everyone packed their things, brought plenty of water, and awaited the day we all would be traveling to the past. An undisclosed location, possibly southwestern given the dry heat and desolate sandy locale; Memory Lane (though it wasn't called that, in retrospect, it should've) ran through the desert, through the canyons, and making its way deeper into the Earth. What fun and mystical adventures to relive once again. Maybe make a few wrongs right, or to experience a wave of nostalgia through first-hand (or second?) experiences.

The trip was canceled on short-notice, or post-poned, which really just means it was axed regardless of word choosing. Probably for the best so as to not be doomed to repeating history. Treasured moments lay rest in memories, occasionally retrieved for cheap thrills and interesting conversations yet they're the blueprints to our continuing existence. Not all are easily accustomed to changes since they can't evoke the same genuine feeling. It's a unique experience but is universally upheld. Call it a comfort zone, and all we're really doing is looking for our security blanket. 

Still, time traveling is a fascinating thought, and for it to be expressed that literally is kinda cool. One can only continue to dream...

THE SUMMER AND YEAR SO FAR



The 2009 movie year is moving slowly, but somehow it found its way at the halfway mark. Actually, now that I'm barely typing this sumbitch of a blog up, it's well past the halfway mark... but just by that much. My rather pessimistic output from a previous blog suggested I was in for a bore knowing that there wasn't really anything to look forward to, even though I mentioned the possible greatness Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds might bring. Well, forget about my Debbie Downer moment, the year still looks worthwhile and has been up to this point, although really can't say much for the summer (which probably accounts for my bleak outlook on movie-going adventures). I've yet to see some of the grandeur surprises that lurk within such flicks like Moon (experimental 2001-ish science-fiction madness) and The Hurt Locker (American soldiers addicted to war). Coming very soon is (500) Days of Summer starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and cutie Zooey Deschanel, although just in limited release at the moment. They'll milk the current new releases until the next batch of blockbusters are released; rinse and repeat. That's what I hate about these local theaters, never bringing out quality films unless they're controversial and/or popular enough (example: Brokeback Mountain), and if they do, they don't stay in theaters for long (example: Zodiac). The big news is that Harry and the Potters are breaking box office records, and NASA and them space freaks are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.


"No way!"

Way. Reminds me of my good ol' space madness days. Staring up at the stars through a telescope I worked hard for, flipping through astronomy books, reading about Nostradamus' predictions, worrying about aliens 'n shit, flipping through Egyptian history (somehow they was tied with astronomy and aliens), checking out crazy conspiracies, or using our old ass computer to find out a bit more on the far-reaches of the universe and beyond via this limited encyclopedia that's about 15 years dated by now. That stuff always fascinated me, sometimes even scaring me silly. Fascinating because it fell within the unknown, scary because most of it fell within the unknown and apocalypse. Weird how that affects me even to this very day. Logical thinking is my curse. Now the big new conspiracy, or at least one recently brought to my attention some years back, was whether Neil Armstrong and co. actually landed on the moon. Ahh, them crazy conspiracy theorists and their Inter-ma-nets, seeing things that aren't even there.

And... this just occurred to me; it seems that our friend Jim Carrey has a fascination with the moon, from discovering that we landed on the moon, to becoming the "man on the moon," to discovering that the moon in the sky was a big fat fake TV station, to putting a lasso around the moon and reeling it in for Jennifer Aniston to see in all its moony glory.



Anyways, getting back to the movies (geez, I ramble on, don't I? I'll bet you wished that I was like this in person, hehe). Speaking of Harry and the Potters...

Yes, I did watch Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince... and yes, I did watch the midnight show. What did I think of it? Well, I'll save my thoughts 'til later (psst! It's posted all the way at the end of the blog).

And in conclusion, the summer has reached its peak. It did last year around this same exact time when The Dark Knight was released, so it's only natural for Potter and the gang to take the spotlight once again... and I'm flabbergasted about how much attention this latest flick has garnered. Maybe it was always there and I had never noticed. Or maybe people knew the summer of movies sucked this year, and were duped into thinking Potter could be this summer's saving grace. Yeah yeah, it had a great start with Star Trek, Drag Me to Hell and Up, along with a few things in-between, like Terminator: Salvation. As disappointing as that flick was, it still had some redeemable merits. The Hangover was actually the best June had to offer, along with The Taking of Pelham 123. That might not say much, but it's true. Sadly, they started off so early in the month resulting in a four week drought. And don't lemme start with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen...

Yeah yeah, I like to be "intellectually stimulated," but that doesn't rule out just going to the movies and leaving my brain at the front desk. I wonder why subject myself to such torture? Why do we all? Just finding escapism, or looking for an excuse to be with that special someone, pulling the ol' yawn-then-put-arm-around-the-date trick.



Ahh, youth... always managing to take risks. And that's what going to the movies is all about: taking risks. Like that title card says: "Get more out of life... go out to a movie."

While 2009 has already reached the halfway mark (geez, time goes by fast), what's the rundown for the kind of movie treatment thus far? Certainly hardly any Oscar-worthy features to be released, but what would the Academy know? Even with the recent implementation of 10 Best Picture nominees, there's no doubt that the roster will comprise of flicks released during the last few months of the year. That's what I call taxation without representation... and that's not FAIR (It's wrong! It's wrong!). But in any case, such releases are usually the better ones overall, so I shan't be too peeved. And before the year-end list is filled to the rim with nuttin' but the fall/winter flicks, let us remember a time when movie-magic struggled, but the surprises kept things afloat.

The year-end list usually contains ten movies, and this being the halfway mark, it's only fitting that the "Best Movies of 2009 (so far)" list contains only the five best releases up to this point. Besides, it wasn't as awesome a year like 2007 was, which did get a top ten... come to think of it, the 2006 halfmark list also did, with She's the Man finding a spot there at number five, heh. How the hell did that happen? And how did I remember that? Just backtracking olde blogs; you may proceed if you will. Anyway, been backtracking too long, time to snap back to the present...

THE BEST MOVIES OF 2009 (so far):

#5


rating: ***½ outta ****

Director Steven Soderbergh's experimental drama starring pornstar Sasha Grey is amongst the year's surprises. Both break barriers; Soderbergh casting a pornstar in a lead role... in a drama, nonetheless! And Sasha Grey actually displays some acting skills that differentiates herself from other pornstars who have crossed over into mainstream, shattering that typecast bimbo and/or sexy cliche who has to be nude. Don't get me wrong, Sasha is nude, but just for a few seconds, and not in sensuous, provocative, Megan Fox-type shots (which is more R-rated than the material present here). Only running at a brief 77 minutes, character study moves it along at a steady pace, getting only the necessary scenes. It's got a fragmented chronology, but nothing too weird and compulsive that you get lost.

Kinda self-reflective in presentation. The economy is in the shitter, and these rich New Yawkers are worried about their funds slowly depleting... yet they're able to shell out $2000(!) to spend some time with our escort named Chelsea. Reminds me of me shelling out a coupla bucks just to go to the movies despite the low funds. Anywho, can't really say much about the economic/political backdrop, but I guess it gave these characters distinctive motives. Chelsea obliges to her clients but on certain terms; with a price tag of $2000, there had better be. She's an escort, not a prostitute, so these guys aren't always looking for sex; maybe just someone to talk to. Or unload their problems on (beats paying a quack of a therapist). Or to just go out on a date with. Or maybe just to experience what it's like to be with a girl (nerd alert). But Chelsea always remains professional, not letting anyone in on a personal level, including her boyfriend. And with Chelsea being distant, thus the movie is presented as.

She goes about the movie with a mask, as she suggests and a few people she talks to point out. Still, she's a classy gal, sophisticated even. Sounds cold, even the movie is, but only subtleties reveal much more, exposing the humanity within Chelsea near the end of the film. It's the only time she attempts to even reach out. Anyone would wanna reach out if they're trapped in this world of make-believe, which we all are at one point or another (maybe even right now). Chelsea had this mask on, but once she "felt" something, just a little feeling of connectivity, it was the one time she let it slip. She didn't know what to do with it, it was something new. Something that provocative can be the world to us, or tear everything apart. Just gotta ask that question again, but in a different context; why do we subject ourselves to this? The answer: maybe it is all about taking risks. Shame that Chelsea has to subject herself continually to this fake world she and everyone else had concocted. We see this sort of thing in everyday life, but usually from a distance. Too bad we can't do anything about it. Still, just wished it went a little deeper with secondary characters, maybe even with our lead but I guess this works with the film's distant approach...

Excellent film. I dunno why Soderbergh is whining about seeing the end of his career due to the failure of Che. Every good director has at least one of those. Available to view ondemand or at Amazon.com...

#4


Old school horror, Sam Raimi style! Certainly a welcome especially in a period of grueling and lacking "horror" released nowadays.

#3


rating: ***½ outta ****

Overwhelming, yet simultaneously underwhelming. Mann puts the audience right in the middle of everything, having a bunch of talking heads meant to convey what's happened so far and what will happen, kinda like what he did with 2006's Miami Vice but only better this time around. And like that flick, most people don't like this approach 'cause by the end, we know squat about John Dillinger, his crew, and the Feds; history buffs might go on a rampage as well due to the inaccuracies. Public Enemies has pretty much an "in the moment" approach to story-telling, but if you're excited as the movie opens with Dillinger escaping, then by golly you're gonna be suckered into this picture from start to finish.

Like your typical gangster picture, he experiences the fame, the glory, pretty much soaking up the gangster lifestyle and the public loves him. He's in the moment, engulfed by his never-ending search for thrills, guns, fast cars, whiskey, and women. Public Enemies is ever so glamourized and stylized we buy into it and look up to our "hero," whose time of infamy is slowly passing as his gang and affiliates slowly kick the bucket or turn their backs. We know how it'll turn out in the end, like Bonnie and Clyde's ill-fated escapades as shown in the Arthur Penn film. And like that 1967 classic, Public Enemies reaches out and remembers a time when infamy was the coolest thing (which I guess accounts for its fudging with history just a tad). Rather than becoming engulfed with just the characters, we're overwhelmed with their place in history, their peak and how it affected others. Works best when I look at the movie this way, but as a regular crime drama, kinda falls short with its dodgy depiction of the characters, but I guess Dillinger being the main focus, I can dismiss its short-comings.

You could say Public Enemies is cool to look at, but not much else. Yet Michael Mann's choice to shoot on hi-def video didn't distract (which I feared), but enhance, especially during the shoot-out at Little Bohemia. Possibly the greatest shoot-out since... hell, Michael Mann's very own Heat.

Public Enemies might be a mixed bag to some, but there was a lot more than meets the eye ("pfft! Pretentious self-indulgent crap!"). And despite each character being kept at a distance, they still had his/her moments that showed each actors' potential.

#2


Unfairly overlooked and criticized for all the wrong reasons, but we should blame the guys who advertised this as some R-rated comedy romp like Superbad. Far from it, but still funny regardless, just going one step beyond with its story.

#1


The first animated film to open the Cannes Film Festival. Also, the first 3-D film to open the Festival. Imagine that. Simple storytelling at its finest, and my pick as best film of 2009 so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so there ye have it.

In truth, I had a hard time deciding between Up and Adventureland as both seem to thrive on the nostalgia factor. Why must I bother with ranking anyway? I should just alphabetize... maybe I will come the end of the year. Overall, not bad of a year despite my whining that the summer sucks balls, but I'm being unfairly judgmental in comparing to last year just 'cause it had The Dark Knight. Well, I'm tired. Until then, see ya in the next blog...

...

...oh wait, I forgot about two, no wait -- THREE movies that I've watched recently; actually it's five if we include The Girlfriend Experience and Public Enemies. Ho boy, it seems like this big ass movie blog just doesn't wanna end. It's like a parasite leeching on to me, like how that big book in Wonder Boys never let go of Professor Grady Tripp.



...just imagine if we still used typewriters.

But anyway, thoughts on the three other movies that I watched. I'll try to make this as short and painless as possible because, y'know, we all have lives to live, plus I think this blog is way too long as it is.

Anywho, on to the theater! Hi diddle-lee day! An actor's life for me...
------------------------------------------------------------------------


rating: *** outta ****

Predictable like most movies of its kind, but it's still pretty damn sweet and funny. The bickering between Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds is enough to keep the movie rolling along amidst cliches, sweetness, cute puppies, and the occasional humorless comedic timing (but there are some funny moments). It's been a while since Sandra Bullock has starred in a flick that's probably worth your time. She's as bitchy and goofy as ever while managing heart to heart moments with her on-screen partner Ryan Reynolds, who also can create a balance between hilarity and seriousness. Both are a perfect match for each other, especially as they are the unlikeliest of duos to grace the screen, at least for the sake of this movie. Their bonding issues are the most fun to watch.
--------------


rating: *** outta ****

I wasn't really looking forward to a new Ice Age (haha, this statement sounds funny). The second flick wasn't really anything too special. The first one was pretty good, about as involving as some of PIXAR's pre-Finding Nemo films, and it probably should've been left at that. But while each respective animation studio outside of PIXAR tend to milk their golden franchises to death, thus FOX studios carelessly concede to this malpractice. However, this latest outing is well worth it. Y'know the usual stuff that goes on: the gang is all back from the previous flicks, they embark on another grand adventure, but this time, dinosaurs have come back... in 3-D! But like PIXAR's Up, the 3-D doesn't call attention to itself much, so I'm pretty sure it'll make a nice transition to the small screen. Still, it's nice to look at, definitely worth the extra bucks. And even though it may appear as more of the same ol', I like that each character seem to reflect on changes and their purpose, really making them more involving much to my surprise. Still, they have their distinct personalities that hooked us from the start. Even though I didn't like the second flick so much, Ellie and her possum buddies shine as much as our original trio composed of Manny, Diego, and Sid do. Usually the problem with introducing new characters is that they're simply a nuisance. I'll admit they weren't a huge obstacle in the second Ice Age (haha, I made another funny), their latest inclusion justifies their presence and I welcome them more than ever. Also, props to Simon Pegg voicing our maniac of a weasel Buck, and Scrat is always fun to watch. And who doesn't love dinosaurs?! Forget the inaccuracies, their presence is a mystery to even the characters who thought they had gone extinct as well. ^_^

Simply put: funny and just as involving as the first Ice Age (hahaha, I dunno why, but the context sounds funny almost every time. Ha, I make myself laugh... lame).

And lastly...
--------------


rating: ***½ outta ****

Yes, that rating is typed correctly. I did like this latest Potter flick. While Order of the Phoenix hastily unraveled, pretty much being a teaser in the end, Half-Blood Prince is... pretty much the trailer! One title that made me laugh was one enraged fan calling this Harry Potter and the Half-Done Movie. Yeah, this new Potter flick is just as rushed, underdeveloped, and choppy as the previous entry was (and it's damn near 2 and a half hours in length!), but it brings back the mystery our gang love to get involved with, Quidditch, and Ron and Hermoine into the spotlight (I can't remember what they did in that last flick), among other things, the major being Michael Gambon playing Dumbledore to his full potential, the most this character has been involved in a Potter flick since I dunno when (note to self: watch all Potter movies again). Double goes for the Malfoy kid who finally does more than just bully Potter. This is the film where each character finally acknowledges their place in the world (theirs, not ours, mind you). Granted, each film previous always ran on this idea, it's suddenly realized in this film, possibly the darkest and mature of the series up to this point. Scoff all ya want at its PG rating (compared to the last two being PG-13), it completely festers in the dark side from story to it's bluish, blackish overcast. On a flipside, this has got to be the funniest Potter movie yet. Yeah yeah, it might be a bad thing to purists, but I can't remember laughing so hard... probably not since Potter's broken arm fiasco from Chamber of Secrets. But who says audiences shouldn't be treated to a laugh or two, or more?

Long it is, yet breezes by so fast. Both might be bad for those who dread sitting for long, or those who need every single page put on-screen. However, I'm glad this wasn't the disappointment I had expected it to be. Even though Half-Blood Prince feels rushed and choppy, it still had characters with motivations that helped keep this movie flowing. Yet, like how Order of the Phoenix was, it felt like audiences should have been required to read the books beforehand. However, I think director David Yates finally managed to see that book and film are two different mediums, and kinda creates sense out of an epic book. Focusing on characters helped, elevating its themes a tad more, no longer creating this impending danger as just a tease and fodder for cheap thrills, but a real threat. Potter isn't just the center of the baddies' attention; not like how cliche bad guys go straight for the good guy, but to everyone around him. Like what a good villain does, they go after his heart, and they plan this carefully. Since Prisoner of Azkaban, critics noted that the Hogwarts circle have been maturing, and I think it's only fair to say this film finally captures it, albeit at a price. But I shouldn't completely dismiss the story has being total hogwash, it's engaging from start to finish. I haven't been so intrigued since Prisoner of Azkaban despite some of its short-comings and jumpy narrative. The action is excellent, the CGI is very cool, and each actor... well, who's to speak ill of them up to this point?

Maybe I'm speaking outta my ass. I'm merely looking at Half-Blood Prince as a film, not a book, unlike most Potter fans. And no, I haven't read any of the books. But I know a trusty Potter enthusiast or two who'll cue me in on some key facts (thanks Amber).

You'd think I'd be saying this is my favorite Potter movie so far. Only time will tell... Prisoner of Azkaban rules too much, though. I actually can't wait for Deathly Hallows.
--------------
- The End (finally) ^_^

Jacko and Fawcett bit the dust simultaneously, at least by way of news reporting. Somehow it slipped under my nose during my entire stay at the campus and subsequently the radio station. But I guess that reveals how egocentric I can be at times. And besides, the radio station is only public radio, so we can't always be on top of the latest upcoming and incoming reports of famous events. Naw, we strive for the obscure and local, that's how hip we are! *insert smiley face*

But may the King of Pop rest in peace, and may one of Charlie's Angels rest as well. But that's not the case for the media now that each news anchor is trying to see which death outdoes the other. While Jacko is the top headliner, Fawcett's television specials are drawing in more ratings... how low can this country go? Reminds me of The Devil's Rejects, that Marx brothers fan who was irked that Elvis Presley's death overshadowed Groucho's demise.

I can hear those Michael Jackson enthusiasts now: "Son, if you ever say another derogatory word about Michael Joseph Jackson in my presence again, I will kick the living shit out of you!"

In another interesting turn of events, the Oscar weiners (ie: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) decided to bring back some olde school techniques in that they will now expand the Best Picture nominees to ten. Ten! Doubling the original nods! Good or bad, whatchoo think? Kinda makes the balls of the other categories shrivel. I mean, come on, just recently they decided to cut down on how many original songs can be nominated, but now they're expanding the Best Picture category?! Hey, I'm just as irked that both WALL-E and The Dark Knight didn't get nominated, but that's all in the past. And even though me and countless other movie-goers waste their time on compiling top ten lists that shout the credibility of our opinions, I'm hard-pressed to find that ten worthy nominees are released yearly (save for 2007, which I gradually found out had the greatest releases of all that I coulda made two lists, or have expanded it to 20). Could this be a trend? Maybe then the other categories will expand in response. They will fight for it. They will march D.C., they will gather signatures and sit on Capitol Hill with that one unsigned bill...

Just as such, now any movie will be nominated. The Oscars have much credibility as the American Film Institute (or simply, the AFI, but because of the myspace demographic, I'll refrain from using that acronym), who, in 2006, thought The Devil Wears Prada and Inside Man were better than, say, The Departed and A Prairie Home Companion... but they had Half Nelson there, so that kinda makes up for it. Plus, The Devil Wears Prada was an interesting choice altogether.

So, to wrap this up... umm, that's a wrap...? Okay, I watched a movie, then I'm gonna watch another one or two on DVD.
------------------------------------------------
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

rating: *½ outta ****

Maybe not a hundred times lamer, but you could sense the disappointment from my latest movie-going experience, especially with my rating. Massive fan hype made me think that this flick might actually be worth it despite the criticism from critics, notably Roger Ebert who did like the first film but sadly seemed to dislike this one immensely. But what do critics know?? Word of mouth was mostly positive, from the news media (they would never show negative comments, though)... to people around my lil' circle, the most trusted of movie criticism. Sadly, I might fall in the minority with these Joes as I put my foot down and say, "I was a tad disappointed. It just leans around being 'okay'"... nah, fuck that. This movie licked balls! Gigantic, dangling metallic balls!

Let's blast to the past: I liked the first film. Should you flip back a few pages to my blogs from early July 2007, you would find my "glowing" critique and a 3.5/4 star rating (look very closely: just half a star away from a full four stars), along with this raving quote of mine: "It's a chaotic epic that outdoes even At World's End and Spider-Man 3... the chaotic mind of Michael Bay [...] can still create dazzling chase sequences and have characters/objects tear shit up without any remorse while keeping fun, humor and action all intact." This sequel has all of that and much, much more... but wait! Why doesn't that apply to this movie in return?? It's just as chaotic and obnoxious as before -- err, even more so that the humans are tossed aside to make way for epic robotic rumbling that hardly ever gives Sam Witwicky a chance to experience the college life. Thus is the dilemma of the negative feedback.

This sequel doesn't wanna increase creativity, it just wants to expand on explosions and gargantuan robotic showdowns. Story-wise, it opts for a new origin that pretty much destroys anything and everything established in the first flick (as if X-Men Origins: Wolverine wasn't bad enough), substituting instead a bunch of MacGuffins to move this "plot" along (geezer Decepticons, some death ray gun, symbols, Egypt, the Sun, etc...), gags that're so childish they fall flat on their faces almost each and everytime (Year One is looking funnier), gratuitous Megan Fox shots (seriously, was there a point to see her stripping? I know it's hot 'n all, and I'm a dude, but it was so random, especially when it's in contrast to Even Stevens trying to calm Bumblebee) and, you guessed it, more action that is no longer dazzling nor suspenseful, but tiresome, boring, repetitive, and possibly vomit-inducing (poor motion sensitive viewers).

Kind of a stretch, enit? Like an olde saying goes, this movie makes the first one look like The Godfather!

You know what the first movie had? For one, a story with next to nil sense, but believable enough to sustain my attention. Two, a sense of awe, wonder, and amazement, especially considering there are freaking robots running around with technology light years ahead of us, but a few years behind the Japanese. And three, characters to care for. And I like how the movie kinda showed the primitive side of us humans, even to go as far as having Megatron dare ask Optimus Prime why he'd fight for them/us. Kinda makes the lil' guy feel grandeur. That's looking deep into the movie, but I happen to enjoy it, and still did after my last viewing a few days ago. It's a big dumb action movie, but still has a bit o' Spielberg magic in it. Not Bay, Spielberg. You might remember such films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and even Jaws. Aliens are fascinating, and less is better... Michael Bay may have tried to incorporate these elements, which made Transformers all the more engaging amidst the barrage of action and dick and fart jokes. Subtle, but it worked. Of course the fans are like, "Uhh, where are the damn Autobots?! Who are these people?! Fuck them! Lemme see Optimus Prime in all his CGI glory! But I don't mind Megan Fox, huh-huh, huh-huh..." and so he had to sell out some more and give us, well, more of the same, but with the volume and mass cranked to 11.

Is Revenge of the Fallen terrible? Well, not terrible in that Steven Spielberg reportedly said "That is fucking awesome!" when he first laid eyes on Devastator. Exceeds some in the special effects department, even though some of the CGI looked jerkier and cartoony even when there's no robot rumbling going on. Some parts were kinda funny, and Devastator was pretty cool... and despite its random inclusion, Megan Fox stripping was a nice touch. I'm a guy, what're you gonna do? But that's it... other than that, everything and everyone was just a checklist for Michael Bay. And what's with Megan Fox's lips?

But how much more terrible can a movie be? When a child falls asleep, as I've reportedly heard... yep, that should say something. But I'm guessing just about all of youse have already endured this movie. I have failed by not watching the midnight show and telling the world before it was too late.
:'(
I think I'll stick with the first Transformers flick and pretend this one never existed, kinda like how I handle Pirates of the Caribbean and its unspeakable sequels.
------------------------------------------------
So what's the next disappointing act to witness?

Michael Mann's Public Enemies, which I'm hearing/reading is quite the bore Miami Vice was. Will it live up to its negative feedback? We'll see... we'll see.

I had concocted this epic of a blog, possibly could've doubled for a term paper. Due to random power outages, it was all lost in an instant. I would like to make it up, start over, refreshed and anew... would it be up to standards? What are my standards? Incoherent ramblings of a lost soul. Haha, that's all Debbie Downer. Maybe I should stick to radio and leave the writings all up to my subscribers and those bloggers that draw in a few thousand readers daily. See, here I go with the nonsense.

Anyway, the date is father's day, the 2009 edition, but in about a coupla minutes, it'll all be another chapter and completely tossed aside. But that's all personal shit for you and I, so I shant speak for all, and neither should those who ever-so proudly declare "Happy Father's Day to all," prancing around joyfully and sprinkling glitter with gumdrop smiles. Seriously, they're worse than Cupid and sounding so self-centered, and I'm one to talk when it comes to rants and raves for the latest motion pictures to arrive at our doorstep, or more appropriately, the nearest cinema or dollar bin.

However, this summer seems a bit lonesome. There's no purpose to carry out, feeling as if I've come to the end of my movie-going adventures. The past two summers I held dear because of the releases of The Dark Knight and The Simpsons Movie (2008 and 2007 respectively). This year... nothing really. Just... nothing. Okay, I'll admit I was really looking forward to Terminator: Salvation, even going as far as to attend the midnight premiere only to be a tad let down. But this was in freaking MAY. What about June? July? August, even?! I feel like those Shire followers who didn't know what to do after The Return of the King came and went. I believe it went: "Oh God! What're we gonna do NEXT Christmas?!"

Say, what about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? Okay, maybe I haven't been watching the right movies or a lot of TV, but I hardly saw any previews for this flick. Actually, just one... ONE! And I think it was a teaser rather than a full-blown trailer. Yeah yeah, I did like the first Transformers flick with its hyperactive visuals and story. Am I psyched for the sequel? Sure, I guess, but the lack of publicity worries me some. Okay, that's a potential one, but a minor one compared to my giddy anticipation for Terminator: Salvation.

Number two question: surely the Mutton Man must be stoked for the new Potter flick. After the crap that was Order of the Phoenix, you really think this flick could make up for it? Y'know, I've seen a lotta movies, meaning I've seen a lotta trailers, so I've seen previews to the new Potter flick a bunch of times. It looked generic... plus, my biggest peeve is that they've all been the same fucking trailer!! Luckily, a view to Angels & Demons showed one trailer that differed from all and actually made this Potter flick look... worth checking out. Since then, I'm always irked that post-Angels & Demons releases lack this awesome trailer. I hate that prevalent one we're always subjected to see (the one where Dumbledore says something about some memory "is a lie," Potter is the chosen one, and Ron is all infatuated for some reason)! Find this trailer; it looks pretty badass. Although my anticipation is marred by the last Potter flick, I'll still give in to see what Harry and the Potters get themselves into... okay okay! This is another flick worth checking out, but it wasn't on my countdown of must-see titles to see in summer 2009. If anything, I'll be just as disappointed. Why? For one, I think these movies are strictly for fans of the book. Haven't read 'em? Tough shit, but directors and screenwriters are supposed to make the film accessible to the general audience so that none are left out of the blue! Book purists might be pissed, but at least the average joe will be somewhat grateful. And for a second flaw, same director from Order of the Phoenix is here. Even worse: he'll be finishing up this series with Deathly Hallows (which'll be split into two parts, Kill Bill style!) If only Alfonso Cuaron would come back... speaking of Cuaron, some Internet freaks shed some light on something. Today, June 21, 2009 marks Baby Diego's birth. Now society will gradually collapse as depicted in the film Children of Men.
^_^

Anything for August? Probably District 9, although after seeing the unblurred trailer complete with subtitles translating what the bug is saying, looks like this flick will be one preachy bastard. But seriously, I like to be "intellectually stimulated." Looks pretty fascinating.

BUT, we shan't forget Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds... okay, maybe that's the one movie I'm really looking forward to all summer 2009. Too bad it arrives at the end, and at the beginning of another semester, no less. Can't wait!

Then there's Bruno... eh, I might check it out.

All in all, this summer is kinda meh but at least it garnered a whole new wave of Trekkies such as yours truly, shows that PIXAR still gots it, and proves horror can still be chilling and effective without excessive gore. There are other under the radar releases coming soon, but since no one seems hyped for 'em, it's only plausible that I remain silent and slowly await these coming soon events.

We're gradually approaching the halfway mark. Excited? I'll save the halfway mark for when the early days of July rolls around and give a short retrospective look on what we've been treated to by that point.

In the mean-time, seen any new movies? I have; just one.

Year One
rating: **½ outta ****
Two-point-five stars if fair because the movie managed to make me laugh some. But like all us observant ones, I'm irked by the fact that this movie's trailer practically gave away the entire movie! What's worse (depending on the viewer), it showed just about all the funny parts! Good or bad, the general consensus is that this spells a recipe for disaster. Even more blasphemous is that Harold Ramis is the director.

Relying heavily on piss, poop, gay, dick and fart jokes, the flick is pretty dumb that it's kinda hard to imagine Harold Ramis churned this out. Or maybe he was just workin' on something created by the Apatow gang. Whatever the case, we'll end this blame game for now. Yes, the film is dumb, but aside from every good joke being exposed in that two minute trailer, there's still a few chuckles lurking in this mess. Think of it as a string of gags flowing nonstop. Some work, others fall flat on their face, but one is bound make another attempt and possibly succeed. It's not the worst thing to come out all year. It kept its consistency and didn't deviate far from what we'd expect (unlike Next Day Air). However, I sense most of you will think, "What the hell is the Mutton Man thinking?! This movie is a piece of shit!"

What did we expect from a flick containing anachronistic characters like Jack Black and Michael Cera running around in this time period? It's like 10,000 B.C., but at least everyone knows they don't belong there... at that time, that is. Again, the flick made me laugh several times, and that's something worth mentioning twice. ^_^

I wonder how much has changed since my last previous few days' worth of absence. Maybe not a whole lot, although there's the obligatory graduation ceremonies and year-end specialties that unite then, ultimately, divide. I guess I really never see the whole picture as I continuously sulk within, and await, the unknown. Not taking action possibly resulted in an unintended consequence, or two. Looking far beyond the computer screen, I do not seem to make any sense. Instead, I go about asking questions to which I already have the answer to. Is it the uncertain result? A few baby steps have been taken, yet not once passed that barrier. I wondered why I made it out to be so complicated. It's not. It never is, and this is a childish position I've placed myself into. I'll reach the age of 24 soon, and there'll be so much more... :p

Aside from that vague statement, what has the Mutton Man been up to and what has he seen? Same ol', same ol', while his paycheck goes to the movies, the occasional noise-filled compact discs and frequent overpriced meals that he can't finish.

Quickie features:
------------------------------------------------------
Next Day Air
rating: ** outta ****
I went to go watch this instead of Star Trek opening weekend; just thought I'd do something out of the ordinary, plus it seemed funny. Not that this flick was a complete waste, but it may have well been. Starts off promising with a few gags, delving into a Guy Ritchie-esque caper of cause and effect, but the laughs die as people start dying. The filmmakers should've taken a page from the Coen brothers as well (see Burn After Reading instead).

Star Trek
rating: ***½ outta ****
Summer film, reboot of a franchise, but easily amusing. It might fuck with the timeline (so it ain't necessarily a remake), but me being unfamiliar with it, I was immersed from start to finish. I'm sure you all have, so no need for me to go into detail ^_^

The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
rating: **½ outta ****
Not as bad as most people say it is. Maybe I’ve become a big pussy lately. Sure, it’s based on A Christmas Carol, I mean hell, the movie even acknowledges it very subtly in one particular scene. And yes, it is formulaic and cliché and predictable and everything else in-between. It’s just too damn sweet to hate. Shoot, I think I am a big pussy... :p

Fighting
rating: *** outta ****
Better than how it was marketed, but that would depend on what you expect or didn’t expect. For me, I expected some formulaic underdog tale with pointless fighting scenes choreographed way out of each actors' potential. I didn’t expect the movie to have such interesting characters, including our mumbling Channing Tatum. Methinks any flick that also stars Terrence Howard has to be the least bit interesting, and if his presence lurks, you can bet the film will be worth checking out. And hell, the film is/was, yet becomes just a tad more when it comes to storytelling and establishing its characters. Yes, there is fighting, but it doesn’t hinder the build-up; it’s part of the story. While the big pay-off is rushed, and a few back stories are vague (Tatum's hotheadedness and his love interest), I was still pleasantly surprised by how good the film actually is. Certainly overlooked, so check it out at the dollar theater or whenever it hits shelves.

Angels & Demons
rating: *** outta ****
Tom Hanks is back in this prequel-turned-sequel, now aiding the Catholic church from an ancient olde tyme “terrorist” organization in the good ol’ Vatican City. Taking place in one evening, the action and thrills rarely give audiences a breather, kinda like when we all read The Da Vinci Code (I've never read Angels & Demons, sadly). Worth it? I'd say so. I actually prefer this one over The Da Vinci Code flick.


Terminator: Salvation
Rating: **½ outta ****
Stuff gets shot to shit, and everything goes kablooie at every possible moment. I’ve noted that a few viewers were/are mildly disappointed by J.J. Abrams’ recent take on Star Trek, many of whom think it’s all style and no substance. That flick is flashy, full of action, but still delivers a solid storyline. Reboot, though it may be, one can sense there’ll be a new timeline to look forward to. With Terminator: Salvation, I can safely state that this flick is all style and no substance. I can’t help but think Skynet and John Connor are still stuck in the past despite the film being set in the future.

I was keen on that new Terminator which eerily thinks it's human. Probably the most chilling moment upon viewing the first full-length trailer as Connor briefly "interrogates" this new machine. At this point, I think McG and co. gained a bit o' influence from Blade Runner, and I wished this film really went into depth with that mind-fuck of a concept. Alas, they just scratch the surface of this topic and opted for explosions and a rather weak pay-off with the only saving grace being a "cameo" of sort, and a barrage of action scenes that hardly offer a moment’s rest. Explanations serve no purpose but to undermine characters' actions and the entire story. Quite a disappointment, especially for a midnight premiere. Well, in the past, never really had any luck with 'em ('cept The Dark Knight, obviously).

Drag Me To Hell
rating: ***½ outta ****
Terrifying, petrifying, mortifying, and above all, totally badass and fun. Pure old-school, B-movie stylized horror from Sam Raimi himself. If the trailers didn't grab you, nor Mr. Raimi's resume (the Evil Dead trilogy, to reiterate), then I don't know what else to say except to get your butt to the nearest cineplex and watch this movie. Full of twists, turns, and tension to keep thee glued to your seats (or jump at the right moments) with a satisfying payoff that'll make you feel truly rewarded. Scoffing at the PG-13 rating? This film proves that horror movies need not rely on excessive blood and gore, but simplicity drawn out from a madman, like Sam Raimi.

Up
rating: **** outta ****
PIXAR are master storytellers, never treating their audiences for ADD-inflicted movie goers looking for cheap thrills. Up may look simple after their slew of dazzling, breath-taking visual adventures that culminated with WALL*E from last year, yet it still retains the true heart of movie journeys, and that is good ol’ fashioned storytelling clashing generations and ambitions. PIXAR knows how the real world is, and doesn't attempt to embellish it; there needs to be more animated films that take themselves seriously as opposed to just making a quick buck. While the film is being advertised as PIXAR’s first 3-D flick, I really don’t think it matters whether you watch it in 3-D or not as it doesn’t call attention to itself like most flicks do. Looks nice, sure, but I’ve read the 2-D is more colorful (plus, that version has the trailer for The Princess and the Frog, whereas this one has a teaser for a pending long-awaited sequel -- your choice). Anyways, Up has a heart and plenty of hilarious moments.

The Hangover
rating: *** outta ****
Missing tooth! Fucking tiger! Hangovers! Mike Tyson! A baby! If the trailer looked funny, then see this movie asap. 'Nuff said.


The Taking of Pelham 123
rating: *** outta ****
The only new feature recently observed. Yes, entertaining and engaging from start to finish. The banter between John Travolta and Denzel Washington were handled well, especially by Travolta who, perhaps, manages to steal the spotlight from his leading co-star. And being a Tony Scott film, the camera work and editing were frenetic and dizzying, possibly to give the film the tension it kinda lacks but to also breathe life into a city full of energy. Compared to Scott's previous headache-inducing action flicks like Deja Vu and especially Domino, both of which I do enjoy immensely, his remake kinda falls short of the exciting factor that tends to obscure logic and story. Perhaps Scott is finally trying to take it down a notch... I guess this makes me a sucker for flashy action and over-the-top delivery, which is still prevalent here with gratuitous bloody shoot-outs, silly humor, and explanations that seem weak. Remake it may be, it's got Tony Scott's signature, and like any of his flicks, sit back and enjoy the ride. ^_^
------------------------------------------------------

Yep, worthy features, most of which may be so-so or a big no-no to youse.

R.I.P. David Carradine