Movies in 3D. When to see them.

Since about January of 2009 3D has been a pretty bid deal. In that Month My Bloody Valentine came out in 3D drawing a whole lot of attention to the format. Since then there have been lots and lots of movies in 3D. Some of them have been really good (Avatar, Up, How to Train your Dragon) and some have been really really bad. (Clash of the Titans, note this is a judgment on the 3D quality, not the quality of the film) There are some variables that make whether or not to go see a 3D film a good idea or not. First of all, the price is an issue. 3D tickets are more expensive that regular tickets. Secondly, as a matter of technical issues, not all 3D movies are created equal. Generally speaking animated films are better in 3D than live action, that is unless the movie specifically sinks a lot of money into creating the film from the ground up. Part of the reason Avatar was so good in 3D is because most of the really great 3D moments was during the 300 Million dollars worth of CGI. So when you are thinking of seeing it in 3D research the film a bit, and see if it was made for 3D, or if its just a terrible post-production addition like Clash of the Titans. Thirdly, it really depends on the theatre. Theatre screen brightness is measured in a unit called Foot Lambert units. A really good theatre will have its screens showing at about anywhere between 10 and 14 Foot Lamberts. Avatar showed at 4 to 4 1/2 Foot Lamberts on really good screens. Most 3D movies show at about 2 to 3 Foot Lamberts. Thats REALLY dim compared to the regular showing. When compared to the fact that unless a movie theatre is a really good one, (I.E. the only really good one I know of in Little Rock is the Chenal 9, and I have been to all of them, oh yea, and any Malco theatre doesn't count) they already have some brightness issues with their films. So when they play a 3D film it gets REALLY REALLY dim. Once again this situation doesn't apply nearly so much to animated films. So the general rule of thumb is to check your movies, see if it was shot with 3D in mind rather than added as an afterthought and also to only go to see them in a quality theatre or you will be disappointed.

Piranha 3-D Movie Review 5.5/10/

This is an homage film to the creature films of the 70's and 80's. Its not complicated, its not fancy, but it also doesn't take itself seriously. This film wasn't the result of some idiot guys going hey, people are stupid I bet they would like a movie about piranhas. (anaconda anyone?) Its the result of some guys going "hey remember those cool creature features from the 70's and 80's? It would be really cool if we made a tribute to those old films." As it is, its simple, gory, and filled with ridiculous over the top characters. Did I mention its gory? Really, really gory. Not Asian horror gory that makes you shutter and have nightmares, but American movie gory where its just so over the top and ridiculous that it just makes you laugh. If you enjoy cheesy old horror movies this is without a doubt the film for you. If you don't like that sort of thing, its 100% not for you. Oh yea, there are also a lot of nudity. And some really creative nude cinematography. And it has Jerry O'Connell and Elizabeth Shue (she is still hot) in it, so you can't go wrong really.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Movie Review Nerd Rating 9.5/10 Unbiased Rating 7.8/10

I decided to wait a week before I wrote my review of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. It was a movie I was really excited about, and my knee jerk reaction whilst coming out of the theatre was that it was an incredibly awesome movie and girls with pink and blue hair are really hot. But over the last week I have put a lot of thought in determining rather or not this is a great movie.

This movie is different than a lot of movies, honestly, I don't think I have ever seen a single movie that is so specifically targeted towards a particular sub-group of people. However, as someone who generally tries to rate movies with as little bias as possible, does that make this movie good, great, or bad?

For people in my demographic, this is an undeniably great movie. Its a film based off a comic series and is chock full of references to all those things that people that are "nerds" so to speak, find incredibly enjoyable. In my one and only viewing I counted over 40 direct video game and gamer culture references. Not to mention the fact that the overall style and feel of the movie is based primarily on things such as the Naruto anime and manga series. However, is that all this film was trying to accomplish? In direct comparison this film reminds me off another nerdcentric movie that came out a few years ago, Serenity. This film was an answer to some sort of conclusion for a very rabid fan base of the show Firefly. This film was targeted specifically to these fans, but nevertheless was a quality film regardless and was able to appeal to more than just the fan base. There is a difference in this two films though. Serenity was made for that fan base, and although it was a mainstream release there was not a very much marketing at all, other than the type of marketing that reached the target audience. Scott Pilgrim on the other hand had a main stream marketing campaign, although not expansive and ridiculous like a lot of summer films get. Its pretty obvious that although its a movie targeted for a particular group, it was also trying to attract a wide range of people to the theatre to see it. Did it accomplish its goal?

The reason I gave a dual ranking for this film is because since I fit into the demographic and of course loved the film to a silly level. However, as someone who really believes in giving a fair critique I fell that I have to give an unbiased rating for those that don't fit into the targeted demographic. So how good a movie was it? It was a really quality movie, a good movie, but not really a great movie. It had a few flaws that, although still quality, kept it from being a great film. I spent some time questioning people that went into the film knowing there would be references to things that they would have no chance in heck of ever getting, or understanding even a bit of it. Generally they enjoyed the film but the entirely of the film was spent with a pervasive feeling that they were missing something. That there were so MANY references, homage, easter eggs, etc, that just the shear number they missed out on was a detracting distraction to enjoying the film to its fullest. Also, I would say that this film goes on for about twenty minutes to long. Its so frenetic, random, and aleatoric even, that its kind of exhausting. Its a pretty long film, and frankly with about twenty minutes left I was thinking "you know, I would be ok if this movie would end right now." These two things generally are a relatively minor negative. Overall, its a brilliantly shot, acted, and casted film. Kieran Culkin was actually my absolute favorite as Wallace. But these two negatives brings down the rating just a little bit. So I give it a 9.5 nerd rating and a 7.8 (still a very good rating) for the unbiased.

The Expendables Movie Review 7/10!

There isn't much that can be said about this movie. You get basically exactly what you might expect from this movie. Lots of explosions, lots of one liners, the general moral debate about losing oneself in a mercenary lifestyle, basically this movie includes every cliche from eighties action movies and really thats not a bad thing. This film is an homage to those types of movies. Its not a great movie, thats why I can't really rate it any higher than a 7, and frankly thats a bit of a stretch, BUT its not really trying to be a great movie. Its try to deliver exactly what it delivered. Nostalgia for the old action days and never before seen combinations of some of the greatest aging action stars in existence. The one liners were good, and they had about a 75% hit rate. Jet Li's character in particular was pretty funny. Yes, the plot was fuzzy at best, and yes the Eric Robert's villain made lots of decisions that made absolutely no sense (could be part of the whole 80's action movie homage) but that isn't really why you go to see this movie. If you like 80's testosterone laden action flicks, or if you like some of the major action stars that are in this film then you will love this movie. If you aren't into that then you would like it. There is no middle ground, this isn't the type of movie that will win over new fans, either you love it or you don't. If your have testosterone in your veins go see it, if not then go see Charlie St. Cloud.

Inception Movie Review 8/10

There will probably be a few *spoilers* in this so if you haven't seen it you might not want to tread any further.

Ok, as many of you know, I generally have an aversion to Leonardo DiCaprio, and rarely see his movies, and never, ever go to see them in the theatre. I decided to make an exception to this to see Inception, mostly because I really like Christopher Nolan's directorial style. Despite the fact the DiCaprio was in this film I was not disappointed at the quality delivered in this twisty, surreal dream of a movie.

Firstly, the reason this movie only gets an 8 is because, although it is a very good film, it is far from perfect. I will get to some of those issues later in the review, but first I want to discuss the cast. Mostly, this is an excellently cast and superbly acted movie. But there was a couple of misfires. Ellen Page is a talented actress, but she really didn't bring much to the table here other than the fact that she is super cute. Her character is rather bland, and she is far better at playing a snarky, sarcastic, 40 year old in an 18 year old body than she is the subdued and serious role. Also, Marion Cotillard is just a bit overrated, and really wasn't very good in this film. I know a lot of people love her in Taxi, (the original, not the crappy Jimmy Fallon/Queen Latifah remake) and a lot of people like her in Public Enemies, but she really just doesn't do it for me. Partially what bothered me about this film is her somewhat stony acting (kind of normal for her) and the fact that she couldn't decide if she was French, English, or American, oh she of the changing accent. Leonardo DiCaprio was what I expected, an above average performance, but hampered a bit by his limited emotional range and his fall back facial expressions that he uses as crutches. All in all though, he does do a good job. I actually like him better now that he is an adult, and I kind of respect the fact that he unashamedly keeps a bit of a gut. The rest of the cast is sublime. Joseph "Cobra Commander" Gordon-Levitt nails his part well as the less imaginative straight man Arthur. His brief but excellent interaction with Tom Hardy's Eames is excellent. Hardy himself does an excellent job in this film. Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, 28 Days Later) is good in his roll, and Dileep Rao (Drag Me to Hell, Avatar) is also very good. My favorite is Ken Watanabe who plays Saito. He is an excellent actor that is vastly under used in American cinema. All in all, the casting and acting in this film is rather excellent.

The film itself is beautifully shot. The dream sequences were beautiful, in particular the second level of the dreams inside Fisher was magnificent. It was only basically in the hotel, but the twisting rooms, and the fight scenes with Gordon-Levitt were fantastic. However, that does bring us to some of the factors that brought the movie down just a hair for me. I didn't really buy there explanation for why the second dream level had no gravity because they were in free fall in the first dream level, but the lack of gravity and what was happening in the second dream level had no real affect on the stability of the third dream level, although all of this happening still had a tremendous affect on what was going on in limbo. At times it basically felt that he was sacrificing continuity a bit just so he could make his plot fit. I don't really have a problem with that, but it made the plot a little thin during this phase of the movie. These sorts of inconsistencies is why the movie gets an 8 instead of a higher rating. Also, it seems like limbo isn't that big a deal, didn't he just kill himself in limbo to get out of it? Why could't that have worked again?

As for the interpretation of the film, there are about a zillion ways in which you can interpret it. Firstly, the use of the totems as a way to separate reality from dream, particularly in the case of DiCaprio's top that he spins. The top failing to keep spinning is not a good way of determining reality. As they said several times, the dreamer makes the rules. And if you believe, truly believe or even really want to believe that your dream is reality, then the rules you set forth will make the top behave as the dreamer wants. So at know point is the top stopping its spin a 100% surety that the dreamer is in reality and not still in the dream. Secondly, there is quite a bit of symbolism to part of the dream being a hell of sorts. This could be interpreted as this is all DiCaprio being in his personal hell and seeking redemption. They refer to the bottom level as limbo, and essentially it does seem to be a sort of purgatory for him. He refers to that level as being "down there" and when he talks about his kids to Mal he says he wants to see them again "up there." Also in his memory vault in the elevator the memory with the most personal torment is on the bottom level, going down from the top to the bottom for the most torment. Also another parallel to hell. Thirdly, the most talked about part of the movie is the ending. Did the top stop spinning? Did it really matter? Is he still part of the dream? It doesn't really matter, he could make it fall if he wanted even if he was in the dream. It was I think, wobbling as if to fall more so that it showed in the other scenes when it was still spinning. In the end scene it was wobbling, looking as if it would fall. Some people will point to the age of the kids to say that it was probably a dream, I just don't think that much time has past, or he is projecting his kids as they are into his dreams. Me, personally, I am tired of movies that always have bad endings, thats kind of a trend in movie making right now. I would prefer to think that everything worked out for him and he was in reality. I actually do think that him just leaving the top spinning and the camera closing before it stopped had a different point that the obvious. The real point wasn't that he might or might not be in reality, it was that he had closure and absolution and just didn't care anymore because he was at peace. I really do highly recommend that anyone who enjoys good cinema go and see this film and go and see it in the theatre so that complete and full immersion into the dream is possible. Who knows, maybe we aren't in reality when we leave the theatre.

Why do we insist on remaking foreign films?

Recently I noticed that there was going to be an American studio version of "Let the Right One In." For those of you that don't know, its a Swedish film that is an absolutely phenomenal piece of film making that just so happens to be about vampires. For some reason, apparently being about the highest rated Vampire film on http://www.rottentomatoes.com isn't good enough. I mean really, we can do lots of things to improve on its 97% fresh rating and its overall 8.1 score right? The American version is called "Let me In" and already loses cool points with me for not only renaming it, but choosing an absolutely terrible name. This isn't like "Last Man Standing" or some other homage flick like that. This is a trend where studios see a foreign film, decide they really like, then boom, buy the rights to it and make a really crappy direct remake. Normally its with horror movies, The Ring and the Ring 2, One Missed Call, The Grudge, The Eye, (this one was particularly terrible) are all Japanese movies that were decent, but turned into lesser American remakes. However, Let the Right One In and maybe Funny Games, is the only time I have seen a really great critically acclaimed movie given this treatment. Its a truly great movie, why does it need a remake, why not just show it in American theatre's with subtitles? The answer is simple, and sad. American's won't go to the movie theatre to see a movie with subtitles. Its surprising the amount of people I have met that have never seen a movie with subtitles. Studios know, from experience, that making a whole new movie makes more money than distributing a subtitled movie to theatres. And that is just freaking sad. All these great movies, that deserve attention, just won't get it. This is actually pretty evident in the promotional material for Inglourious Basterds. This movie has a larger portion of the film subtitled than it does spoken in English. But watching the promotional material, there is never any real hints that it is subtitled. Why? One would have to think its in large part because many people would have been turned off to realize that most of the best scenes in the movie take place in German or French. American's are missing out on lots of really great films just because they don't want to read some subtitles.