Day 7: May 7th, 2010

In The Loop



Political Satire Done Right.

Simon Foster, the British Minister for International Development accidentally states that war is unforeseeable. This ignites people from both the United States and the U.K. to bring out their political strategies for pro/anti war projects.

That's the best I could come up with regarding this film. I had a hard time following who was responsible for what, how much power they had and what was actually being done. Despite this confusion, the film was still funny and very well written. This is a smart comedy, maybe it was too smart for me, but I was still able to get the jokes because they were at a certain level of just the right amount of crudeness.

The humour is mostly dry, the typical British stuff you would expect. The film doesn't really have any laugh out loud moments, but there is enough smirking and smiling that I was happy with it. To describe the film, I would have to say it felt like Dr. Strangelove mixed with The Office. In content, style and even humour. I can, to an extent, include This Is Spinal Tap. I read one reviewer saying that what This Is Spinal Tap did for heavy metal, In The Loop will do for politics. I completely agree with this statement.

Despite your political views, you will still be able to enjoy In The Loop, although some people always have to find something and complain. It's relatively fast paced and if you don't pay attention, you might get lost in the plot. I got the end game, but how they get there was a bit muddy for me. I don't really reflect this in the writing, but my grasp of politics in general.

The cast is great and work well off each other. It was nice seeing how hectic the British side of things were. From clueless at some points and downright belligerent at others. I really dug James Gandolfini square off against Peter Capald. The whole scene was a who has the bigger pair of you know what.

If your looking for a smart comedy that doesn't involve sex jokes, teens or poop humour, then In The Loop is the adult sophisticated comedy you should check out. It sure has it's crude moments, but it feels appropriate in a weird way. I liked it, I just wish I was able to grasp it more so I could love it.

7/10

DAY 6: May 6th, 2010

Dead Snow




The second half of this film is brilliant.

On a trip up to a cottage in the snowy mountain tops a group of friends encounter some mean nasty Nazi zombies. That's right Nazi zombies. Can they survive? Will we care? Why are we watching a film about Nazi zombies?

There was a lot of hype around this film, simply for those two words. Nazi Zombies. The only other film I remember having hype around it based on a few words was Snakes On A Plane. Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film that plays up the comedic aspect of actually having Nazi zombies in the film. The entire first half of this film is rubbish, but I couldn't help but have a smile on my face once the sh*t hit the fan.

The film falters on many accounts. Let's see, the acting is atrocious, the characters are dumb and clichéd as hell, some aspects of the film scream low budget, the story is non- existent, some characters exists for expository dialogue, and don't even get me started on the outhouse scene. All of these things exist in campy, crappy horror films. This is a campy crappy horror film.

If there is one thing I hate about recent horror, it's when they reference older horror films, as if to say to the audience "Hey kids, we've seen these older films, so that means we know our stuff". It is so obvious and lame that I want to hurl. Evil Breed did it and Dead Snow does it. One character is a film buff and there are many obvious horror references, such as The Evil Dead and Friday the 13th. He wears Braindead t-shirts and tells the characters not to get bitten by zombies. Vomit.

All of the night attack scenes are boring and hard to actually see. Nothing new yet, it's not until it's actually daylight does the film begin to get where it needed to be 30 minutes ago. This is where the film is having fun and the audience can too. This isn't your typical zombie film, these guys run fast and they actually fight you. Like, throwing punches and dropping elbows.

The make-up work on the zombies is adequate as are the costumes. They really do look like Nazi Zombies. The story never tells us why they are zombies though, they either forgot or they want you to fill in that blank. There is a small bit about the soldiers stealing gold and jewelry while they were alive. It seems that if you take one they come after you, but this plot point is really inconsistent. There is a character who randomly shows up, tells us everything we need to know about the history of the Nazi zombies and then he leaves. Thank you very much for this riveting character.

The gore is great, even if a lot of the blood is obvious CGI. The moment I had the biggest smile on my face was when two characters arm themselves with a shed full of weapons. Yes, even the obligatory chainsaw. The comedy really hits its stride in the rising action of the film. Intestines flying everywhere, machine gun snow-mobiles, amputation, it goes on and on.

I can only recommend this film if you dig what it's selling. Nazi Zombies, if that sounds like fun, join in. If the thought of it makes you wonder why people bother with this trash, obviously skip it. It's not the best horror comedy, but it's something that will put a smile on your face.

Number of times the words Nazi Zombies is mentioned: 8.
The Film: 6

6/10

DAY 5: May 5th, 2010

The Amateurs




If Only It Were That Easy...

Andy (Jeff Bridges) is a guy who doesn't do a whole lot with his life. He comes up with these extravagant ideas but none of them ever lead to anything. His wife leaves him because he can't go anywhere in life. Years later he comes up with the idea to make a porno film and he gets the townsfolk to help him.

For one thing, if only it were that easy to get women to agree to do pornography and for another, to make a film. The Amateurs, or The Moguls, whichever you want to call it, makes it seem like it is incredibly easy. Sure the characters have their problems on the sets, but in my experience it would never happen like that. Its all played up for comedic purposes I know, but it's just my one little nit pick.

The film has an all-star cast. Jeff Bridges leads this crazy cast of characters and it was really the characters that made the film work for me. Ted Danson is Moose, the gay guy who thinks he's straight. Tim Blake Nelson is Barney, a guy who's been in love with this one woman who always turns him down. Joe Pantoliano plays some idiot (that's his characters name) who gets made fun of a lot, but he wants to prove himself as a writer/director. William Fichtner is Otis, the guy who knows how to get things done and Patrick Fugit is the whiz kid who knows how to film everything. There are two other characters who are always together, they go by the names of Moe and Ron. Everyone calls them moron.

The Amateurs works on a few levels and comes just underneath on others. The cast is great and really help the film. The writing is fine, the comedy is there and some of it is funny. One scene in which two characters discuss the logistics of the size of a black man's penis is interesting. Unfortunately the film never feels like the comedy it should be. To compare it to another film in the same area would be Zack and Miri Make A Porno. Both involve porno films, both involve porno jokes and both seem like they could have been so much funnier.

Jeff Bridges narrates the film much like Robert Downey Jr. does in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. He knows this is a movie and he address the audience as such. His character Andy, tries to prove to himself he can make something of his life. He wants to be able to have a relationship with his son. His wife has remarried and the guy is stinking rich. We've seen that before. What this film does differently is that Andy doesn't seem to care about the new husband. He is never jealous and doesn't try to win back the heart of his ex-wife. It was interesting to see it play out like that because 90% of the time it would go the other way.

Lauren Graham and Jeanne Tripplehorn are both in the film and both are severely underused. Specifically Graham, I still do not know why she exists in this film. She is suppose to be the romantic interest of the lead character, but none of that happens until the last 5 minutes. She is completely useless. To sum up, the cast really makes the film better than what it actually is. There is a good movie here, but it just falls short in too many areas for me to be able to recommend it as a comedy.

6/10

Day 4: May 4th, 2010

How To Train Your Dragon



One Of Dreamworks Better Efforts



Hiccup is a viking, the only problem is he doesn't seem to fit in with everyone else. He's scrawny, scared and can't kill a dragon when given the opportunity. Instead, he makes a unique friendship with the one dragon that people never seem to see. He learns that everything he knew about dragons was wrong and he must stop his father and the other vikings from killing more of them.

How To Train Your Dragon seemed like another animated film that would come and go at the snap of a finger. Yet, it somehow managed to be the best review film of the year (so far) and rake in the cash. Word of mouth spread and along with the critical backing, the film has managed to stay in the top spot for awhile. So I decided to give it a chance. While the film is not as emotionally engaging as other animated films of recent years, it still manages to have fun and entertain.

The voice acting from all was really well done. I had fun spotting who was who and each one gives their character that unique little bit of spice. Jay Baruchel has whiny brat down to a tee, almost to the point of annoyance. With the exception of America Ferrera, I was able to point out every voice actor, yes even the guy from Cloverfield. Her character, Astrid, who isn't in the book, is the love interest of our lead. She is the tough one who is jealous of Hiccup when he starts to get the spotlight for knowing how to handle the dragons. This relationship is never the focus point and seemed rushed, but I can live with it.

The animation at times looks marvelous, the fur the vikings wear looks great. At other time it looks a bit weak, specifically the lead dragon. I don't know if it was the stylistic choice of making him look like a cat, but it looked like the weakest part of the animation to me. Which is funny, because the dragon was the best part of the film. Toothless, as he is called, was funny, cute and kick-ass. The scenes in which he is flying with Hiccup were really well done and added the sense of excitement and adventure the film needed.

It has laughs here and there, but never did I find it overly funny. Instead it plays out the family friendly adventure spin. The story itself is nothing new, young outcast needs to win the hearts of those around him. Finds an unfamiliar friendship and uses it to his advantage. The setting of dragons and vikings was the new angle the film gave us. The relationship between Hiccup and toothless is a nice addition to a spew of films in which the lead character makes friends with an animal.

While How To Train Your Dragon doesn't go leaps and bounds over anything else, it is one of the better films Dreamworks has managed to kick out recently. Both adults and kids will enjoy this film.

8/10

Day 2: May 2nd, 2010

Revolutionary Road



The American dream is actually a nightmare


A young couple living in 1950's suburbia think they are different from all the other families living the American Dream. Although, they soon find out that not every dream comes true and they fall exactly into the situations they didn't want to be in. Their marriage is falling apart, they have trouble raising their children and they want out of this lifestyle.

Sam Mendes is a filmmaker who knows exactly what he wants, which is why he would want to work on this film. Revolutionary Road is probably his least interesting film, story wise. After-all, it's just about two people who try to cope with their lives. There is no motivational plot to it, but the thing about this film is that it doesn't need one. We are getting a glimpse into the lives of two people who had big dreams and realized that they had to sacrifice them in order to live their lives. It's sad, but it also rings true.

The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, as the married couple who constantly fight. Everyone called this film the "What If Jack and Rose Ended Up Together" movie. Yet it is so much more than that. They give powerful performances, which unfortunately were overlooked during the Oscar season. Another Titanic star, Kathy Bates, gives her support to the couple as the real estate agent who thinks the world of them. She has a son, who is mentally unstable and asks to bring him over for dinner one night. Michael Shannon plays the son and he steals both scenes he is in. For a guy who is deemed insane, he is the only one who speaks the truth.

I watched this flick because so many people told me how depressing it was. While it was depressing I didn't find it to be that bad. The most depressing aspect of the film is how relatable it is to real life. This story happens everywhere and that is the sad part.

The cinematography is great, the 1950's feel was spot on and really gave the film more of a cinematic sense of wonder to it. Roger Deakins seems to know exactly what is needed for every film he takes on. The look and feel of the film here is so simple, yet so beautiful at the same time.

Finally, I can see why people may not like this film. It's definitely an acquired taste. I was not in love with it by any means and for those involved it's not their best work. Instead it's a film to enjoy once. I wouldn't bother watching it again because the pace is long and I feel that I won't be as engaged a second time.

On a final note, why do guys from the 1950's only last about 15 seconds?

7/10