Easy Rider (1969)

Easy Rider (1969)


Whoa. What the hell did I just watch? I thought I had a good grasp of the sixties based on film and media througout the ages until I watched this film. This is just all over the place. Maybe I am old now, maybe I am frustrated that even in this day and age dirty hippies are irritating with their delusional concepts of how the world should be run, but this film was just, "Not cool, man."

I get it. I didn't live through the sixties. But many themes addressed in this film are easily relevant today. Themes of intolerance versus overindulgence, oppression and desire for personal meaning. These are timeless. But seriously though, what happened to narrative structure? The story is loosely about two men who smuggled some drugs in from mexico and are making a cross continent trip to get paid. Throughout the ordeal they explore/encounter free love, drugs, oppresive mid-west america afraid of change, more drugs and such.

I understand there were drugs in the 60s. there are drugs now. The lifestyle doesn't appeal to me, but a lot of great film has had elements of counterculture, so  I try to remain objective when it comes to material delving into such areas. Hell I knew the words to Rocky Horror Picture Show's Sweet Transvestite long before any of my peers "discovered" RHPS in University, but I digress.

I guess I just didn't understand the film. This is a film so jaded by America that both polar extremes (the uber hippies of the commune vs the uber intolerant middle america who can kill hippies with nary a concern) are frightening. If that is all that there is, should we all just embrace the nihilism of drugs, numb ourselves to death and let the world implode? I disconcur.

Still this film has gone on to become one of cinema's landmark filks ever. Crazy.

The good: A young restrained Jack Nicholson. The soundtrack alone is worth enduring the film.

The bad: Life as the world of the film suggests. Lame. Total buzkill man.

Final Thoughts: Not entirely sure why it is a classic, but it is. I guess I am just more optimisticthan I thought.

Add to the vault? Nope. I will likely not watch it again ever unless I have to.

Buried (2010)

Buried (2010)


Interesting movie. I appreciate Ryan Reynolds as an actor, not just for his abs. I also appreciate that despite some hits and misses film-wise, he seems to be constantly trying to expand his talents. This is a film that definitely tests his acting chops, which is a feat unto its own as he is essentially the only actor.

Buried is a feature film length narrative that explores the confines of a box buried in the earth and the man contained therein. You would wonder if a movie that is 90 min plus can be captivating when essentially you as the audience are trapped in the box as well. And rightfully so; the narrative is essentially divided into 3 chunks or segments marked by blackouts. The first segment finds our protagonist waking into his nightmarish confines. The second chunk deals with the essence of hope and frustration. The third is realization and despair. That's all without spoiling anything. There are many more themes explored and you will keep wondering to the end if our hapless hero will escape. Sounds titillating right?

Well yes and no. The film is engrossing and Ryan Reynolds holds his own under the weight ofit all. My problem is that for such a simplistic premise, there are a few too many narrative threads introduced. Some were just a little too ridiculous and if anything detracted from the overall tone. The premise of a man trapped in a coffin is sufficient enough to be claustrophobic and tense, that tangents about insurance coverage, infidelity are not necessary. If anything it is confusing. Are we supposed to be morally conflicted about this character, think he deserves his fate? To what end does that serve? You have a man confined in a box, the intrigue between conversations with his captors, efforts to reach loved ones, andhoping against hope to be found before air runs out (or worse) are more than enough to hold hus captive.

The good: Ryan Reynolds. Those who are naysayers about him should definitely watch this. The film for about 80% was great. The ending as well, is commendable but only 50/50 on great or excessive.

The bad: the agency rep conversation, the snake, the potentially contrived way of getting to the end. Mark White.

Final thoughts: Great little film to really showcase the fact you don't need elaborate sets and narratives to have a thriller. That being said it still is best ranked as a must-see once and not warranting repetition.

Add to the vault: Nah. I may watch it again in the future, but I don't feel the need to own it. Definitely check it out though.

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)


This movie had been sitting on the PVR for a while now. It's marketing didn't seem terribly original, and the plot synopsis didn't either. Quick breakdown: a sleazy(ish) but irrefutably charming defense lawyer gets a high profile case that threatens his life and loved ones... yadda yadda yadda.

The film isn't terribly original but it is enjoyable to watch. It isn't the "pulse pounding thrill ride" that some reviews suggest it is but it is okay. Ryan Phillippe has never done anything worthwhile in regard to film, and is just not terribly threatening. Matthew McConaughey is convincing enough as a sleaze, but in what is essentially a cat and mouse plot, he never really delves into any areas of vulnerability. It's hard to believe that there is really any risk, when he seems a little too in control of things. William H Macy, Marissa Tomei, Bryan Cranston, Josh Lucas and John Leguizamo are all sufficient but ultimately underutilized.

The thrill ride is ultimately predictable, and you would expect a few more twists in the plot, but instead it is a relatively straight forward narrative. There isn't even any red herrings to try and lure the audience into other directions of thought.

The novelty of being a lawyer who operates from the back seat of his Lincoln Town Car is ultimately a neither here nor there concept except for a unique title. If anything the casual acquaintances and assistants the guy has are a little tough to keep track of at times.

The good: As far as lawyer thrillers, this is an okay film. Not great but not terrible either. Seeing the actor who played Lord Nikon from Hackers was good though. Also seeing a bunch of bikers beat the crap out of a deserving schmuck was sorta gratifying.

The bad: Ryan Phillippe, guy has the acting chops of a 2x4.

Final Thoughts: If you are looking for a good ol fashioned lawyer thriller, this will be good for a one shot. If all you are looking for is ol Matthew McConaughey shirtless, you will be disappointed.

Add to the Vault: Nah, I will pass on this one.

BUNRAKU (2010)

Bunraku (2010)


Bunraku first and foremost is form of Japanese puppet theatre. Puppetry by nature requires audiences to suspend disbelief, use imagination and have open minds to appreciate the story that is to be told to them.

This film is that as well. The story is largely archetypical. Mysterious stranger on the hunt for revenge, dishonoured swordmaster looking to reclaim family honour, etc. The story while familiar is anything but ordinary, as the journey this film takes you on is unlike anything you have ever seen before. Just trying to describe it is tough. It is like a stage play meets spaghetti western meets japanese bushido epic meets swing kids meets Kill Bill meets Scott Pilgrim vs the World.

Succinct enough? This film was beautiful. I didn't even want to like it. IT was marketed very poorly, and the commercials made it look ridiculous. However, the story is wonderful. It simultaneosly manages to feel like an old bedtime story and yet refreshingly new and unique.

I don't even know where to begin. It was just an epic story. This was a film that explored the full scope of the film medium. This blurred the lines of video games, puppetry, stage, comic books and dance, all while maintaining status as a stunning martial arts epic. There really is too much and yet too little to review adequately. Other than dramatic hyperbolic descriptions this film would best be witnessed and then discussed and then re-watched again.

Josh Hartnett who some dislike, I have enjoyed thoroughly since Lucky Number Slevin is decent as The mysterious Drifter. Gackt (a japanese actor) is sufficiently deadly. Woody Harrelson is great in his role as mentor in a dystopian future (better than Hunger Games for certain), and the allegories throughout the film warrant repeat value alone. One major major standout was Kevin McKidd as Killer No. 2. Brilliant job, which shows that his talents are being wasted in the abyssmal Grey's Anatomy.

The Good: Everything described above and then some. This film is both a tribute to great films and stories past, as well as a visionary new way ahead for artistic expression.

The bad: Ron Perlman is not bad per se, just overused in general right now, and I wish it went to someone who could exude a bit more quiet menace and depth. Demi Moore is a wate of space and I don't understand how she was remotely important to have given the role she played.

Final Thoughts: Brilliant Film. Loved it.

Add to the Vault? Yes. those looking for a quick and likely cheaper birthday/christmas present ever, feel free to get this movie in glorious HD for me.

What to Expect When You Are Expecting

What to Expect When You Are Expecting (2012)

 Definitely not what I ever thought I would review, but with baby glubglub on the way, the missus was smitten with the ads and I will admit even i chuckled once or twice. So being the open minded chap that I am... we went to go see the movie. Which given the opening weekend numbers, means we were definitely in the minority.

 However, long story short, it was actually not that bad. "But Adam," you ask (whomever you are), "how did they create a narrative from a non-fiction book?" Who knows, who cares, the fact is they did and it wasn't as bad as one would imagine given the source material. Now that being said, is it going to appeal to teeny bopper girls, emo/hipster twenty-somethings, or the majority of youth out there? Not at all. This is a movie that has a very specific target audience. Namely expectant parents, or those who can find humour in pregnancy and childbirth but 'Knocked Up' this is not.

It is from the creators of Bridesmaids, and a lot of familiar faces show up in this film. The story itself, is broken up between a bunch of smaller stories. You have Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone as the couple who have been trying forever to get knocked up, you have Jennifer Lopez and Rodrigo Santoro who cannot concieve and trying to adopt, you have Cameron Diaz and Matthew Morrison who are a pseudo-celebrity couple with a surprise pregnancy, and Chase Crawford and Anna Kendrick who are a young couple who face their own surprises.

There are other peripheral characters (eg: the dad's club, the father and trophy wife, etc) and the stories intertwine periodically, but that's the gist of it. The better stories in my opinion are Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone's as well as the story with Chase Crawford and Anna Kendrick. The movie surprisingly acknowledges a lot of issues which explains the connection to the source material, and while overly sentimental at times, it does have a lot of humour. Unsurprisingly, is that all the stories end more or less how you expect them to, and everything gets neatly wrapped up like a wonderful new bundle of joy by the end. All in all, it isn't as terrible as the majority of reviews out there suggest it is, so long as you are the target audience.

The Good: A lot of the dad humour, but maybe I am biased. Alcide (for True Blood enthusiasts) is a particularly humerous addition. Elizabeth Banks and Ben Falcone were the real stars in my opinion as their story was the most complex. Anna Kendrick who many would recognize but few would actually know by name, is definitely going to be star in Hollywood methinks.

The Bad: The "easy" pregnancy and childbirth for Brooklyn Decker was a little ridiculous, Cameron Diaz and Mathew Morrision didn't really add anything to the overall story of the film either.

Final Thoughts: This is a very specific film, for a very specific audience. While humerous to appreciate as a one off, I don't think it is a classic in the making.

Add to the Vault? No. But it did make me appreciative that I am going to be a father soon, and look forward to all the trials and tribulations therein.

Your Highness (2011)

Your Highness (2011)

What a refreshing film. No seriously. That isn't some subtle attempt at pot humour. Though this film was advertised as stoner comedy meets Camelot, this film has a lot going for it. Yes there is T&A, yes there is stoner humour, and yes there is crude humour. But for all that, it actually is a pretty fun film. 

The film stars Danny McBride (Eastbound and Down, The Foot Fist Way, countless other movies), James Franco (who I really don't like despite liking a lot of his films), Zooey Deschanel (the latest "it" girl despite the fact she is rarely ever funny, and her quirkiness is more irritating than not) and Natalie Portman (interesting choice for a followup to Black Swan). 

Franco is the heir to the throne in this magical kingdom, and McBride in turn is the second son who just can't hold up against how fantastic his brother is. McBride's turn as the brother, is a slacker stoner type, who can't be bothered to make an effort in life, and is essentially shunned by the world over and is really quite hapless. Meanwhile, his elder brother and heir-to-the-throne is rescuing maidens, vanquishing monsters and completing quests. Not that it is terribly spoilerish, but Franco's rescued maiden (Deschanel) gets kidnapped by an evil wizard on their wedding day, and long story short, Franco and McBride hit the road to rescue her, meeting other characters along the way. 

Sounds familiar right? No real new ground broken. That is probably what works so well for the story to be honest. It is familiar territory. We know the conventions, we know how the world is supposed to work, and despite the "modern" humour the reality offered is accepted right away and we don't have to establish superfluous exposition. And further to that, the reality shown on screen is actually quite beautiful. This could have been a quite visually entertaining movie played serious and not suffered at all. The makers wanted to clearly show their love of fantasy and despite low-brow humour, still take us, the audience, on a wild adventure. 

You know the story, you know how it is going to end, but if you watch this film, just rememberit is meant to be fun. The stoner humour is thankfully kept mostly to a minimum, and while there are crude moments, there will definitely be times you find yourself laughing inspite of yourself. 

The good: McBride is great as non-conventional everyman. He is probably more indicative of most geeks in the world than the archetype of some acne covered basement dweller. He's boastful, self-involved, a little overweight, and at the core a dreamer but just can't escape his slacker nature. Franco is sufficient, and if anything a little sympathetic as the naive innocent older brother, who despite being the worldly adventurer, doesn't quite see the world for what it is. Again, the real standout moments are the world itself. The snake creature is genius, the minotaur hilarious (ashamed to admit that), and at the end of the flick you'd be hardpressed not to find yourself rooting for the heroes.

The bad: Zooey Deschanel. I just don't understand her appeal and her stupid bangs. Her only remotely good turn was in Elf. In a weird way she and Natalie Portman are "eye-candy" in this film, which is odd unto itself. 

Final Thoughts: There is no denying that for as dumb as this movie was it was fun. A shame it didn't reahc a broader audience but I blame the marketing. It was too stoner-centric. You should definitely give it a gander if you are sure you have a sense of humour that doesn't take itself too seriously. The makers of the film clearly had fun, enjoy the ride. 

Add to the vault? You know what, I have felt like I have been a bit of a negative nancy lately. If I were to be gifted this film in hard copy, I would be honoured to add it to my collection. There is repeat value for sure. 

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)


Wow, what a film that had so much more potential then what the final product was. I think I went into this wanting more of a drama with a romantic angle, than a romantic comedy with some dramatic elements; so it may be more fault of my own than the film's for not living up to expectations.

Don't get me wrong, it was still a reasonably enjoyable film, just some really disjointed moments that I feel detracted from the film rather than add to it.

So what's it about? Well, it is a pseudo-ensemble film about a loveless marriage between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore, their kids, Ryan Gosling's terrible life as a playboy bachelor who just wants a hug, and the peripheral characters loosely connected to one another; somewhere in all that is also Emma Stone. I am avoiding spoilers obviously, but that is the gist of it. Ryan Gosling's character Jacob, essentially serves as foil to Steve Carell's cuckolded Cal Weaver. Oh and pretty much every reason to have Ryan Gosling nude or shirtless is explored.

The film does explore the complex emotions of separation and divorce between a middle aged couple, but skimps on the complex relationships of how separation really affects family.
Instead the film falls into familiar romantic comedy territory, making leaps of logic for the sake of situational irony and comedy. All the drama goes out the window in favour of grandiose scenes of eye-rolling farce.

But I still grudgeonly chuckled, so I guess it wasn't too bad.

The good: First and second acts, where you thought you may have a Love Actually, type Dramedy - Romance. Baby goose will undoubtedly be worth the price of admission alone for majority of people out there (male and female I am sure). Steve Carell's everyman schtick is finely honed and his brief stint with debauchery is sufficiently cathartic for all the pent up frustration he undoubtedly has in his character.

The bad: Marisa Tomei, Kevin Bacon are wasted here. The flimsy "plot twists" were painful at times, and I am sorry, but the antics of Cal Weaver's son, requires an impossible degree of suspension of disbelief, as there is just no way any remotely normal teenager would do the things he does for "love".

Final thoughts: Watch the film with the expectation of a romantic comedy in similar ilk to any classic Meg Ryan movie, and you may be pleasantly surprised. Go into it with expectations of a smart dramatic Love Actually type flick, and well... just enjoy Ryan's abs.

Add to the Vault? Man I am harsh on movies or what? Unless you are so enamoured by Ryan Gosling that you must own the film, I would say this is suffice as a one off.