The Art of the Steal Review

It's nice to see Canadian cinema making some real strides into the mainstream.  Many of the films that come out of Canada have this artsy vibe to them as if to say that we're either above making a Hollywood style movie or we're just not ready yet.  The Art of the Steal breaks away from that and proves that Canada can make a decent quality movie and make it distinctly Canadian and not one big stereotype of lumberjacks and maple syrup.

I'll start with the story.  It's a fairly basic heist movie that has a lot of the same elements of the Ocean's franchise.  There's a big score, a twist or two, and clever dialogue that keeps it light.  Unfortunately, the writing is a bit inconsistent as there are a few spots where it slows down quite a bit.  But, for the most part, the dialogue is engaging enough for a 90 minute movie.

The movie is also helped out by a very good cast.  Kurt Russell, Jay Baruchel and Matt Dillon are not the biggest stars in Hollywood but they are all competent at what they do.  It shows in this film.  They play off of each other very well and all seemed comfortable in their roles.  Even Baruchel who seemed comfortable playing someone who seemed to always be uncomfortable (which is his forte).  Baruchel steals every scene he's in and keeps the audience laughing throughout.  The same can be said for Jason Jones.  He provides terrific comic relief as the witless Interpol agent.

But what I liked the most was the feel of this movie.  It had a lot of bleak shots which is not surprising seeing as how it takes place in Canada and Detroit in the winter.  Rather than stylize the lives of the criminals and have them be these suave and cool people like Clooney and Pitt in the Ocean's movies, they made them out to be regular people.  While the story is a bit far fetched, it still felt real.

See it.

The World's End Review

The third instalment of the "Cornetto Trilogy."  But it isn't really a trilogy because the three movies (this, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz) really have nothing to do with each other.  The stories are completely different and so are the characters.  In each of the three, you don't even have the actors playing similar roles to the others.  But they are a trilogy in styles.  There are similar jokes, shots and gags that run through all three.  But, most of all, they all place significance on seemingly insignificant things like colours, names, etc.  Because of that, these are more than just action comedies.  You really have to watch and pay attention to get the whole effect.

The World's End had a bit of a different feel than the others.  While there were some of the same gags, it felt more formulaic than the other two.  This is probably because the basis is a set out pub crawl that the characters have to wind their way through.  It made the flow seem a bit choppy and episodic.

But that is overshadowed by some very clever dialogue writing and superb acting.  The film is excellently cast with each of the five guys in the group playing the role that is perfect for them.  It was good to see Pegg as the clueless one and Frost as the level headed one in a bit of a switch.  Add in Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan and there is a terrific chemistry in virtually every interaction.  They keep it moving very fast with some superb comic timing.  They also do a terrific job of showing all of the characters' progression into a continuing state of drunkenness.

While it does feel different from the other two and has what seems to be a tacked on ending, it still entertains all the way through.  I laughed out loud a lot and it never felt forced.  It's another home run from what is, for my money, the funniest group the film industry has to offer right now.  See it.

RED 2 Review

I liked the first one.  The premise of quirky, past their prime spies running around and blowing stuff up while delivering witty dialogue appeals to me.  But, I knew when it was over that there would be a sequel and that it would be an ill-advised venture.  I was right.  This had all the potential to be quite good with a good cast.  But it ended up being very disappointing.

I've said before that a good sequel has to take the things that were successful in the first one and build on them.  After all, you should want to give people more of what they want.  It's what made The Empire Strikes Back better than Star Wars.  People wanted more Darth Vader so that's what they got.  In RED 2 I can see that they were trying to give us more of what made the first one good.  In RED, it was all John Malkovich.  He stole every scene and was hilarious.  They did give us more of him but his character went from being delightfully insane to just a bit quirky.  He still delivers it well but it isn't the same character that we wanted to see more of.  The same goes for Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker.  Their characters were off from what we saw before.  I'd say that Bruce Willis might be losing his edge but it only seems to happen in sequels (A Good Day to Die Hard, The Whole Ten Yards, etc.).  And Parker played inconsistently between sassy, badass, and demure.  It was just all over the map for both of them.

Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins both deliver but they could phone it in and still be the best thing on any screen.  Catherine Zeta Jones is what she is: very average in every way.  Finally, I liked Storm Shadow.  He fit the role quite well.

As for the plot, it is very thin and shallow.  There are no surprises and it's actually quite mundane and boring.  I guess a movie about retired spies would have to deal with digging up stuff from the past.  But Cold War grudges and such just aren't interesting any more; especially when you try to intertwine it with relationship therapy between Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker

Don't see it.

The Man With One Red Shoe Review

If you want a fun little movie with a few laughs and that isn't difficult at all to follow, this is the movie for you.  It's the story of a guy who is unwittingly a pawn in a chess game between two rival CIA factions.  While the potential for a lot of twists and confusing turns is there, the film makers did a very good job of making sure that didn't happen.  in fact, it may have been too good because the movie is actually very shallow with little to no intrigue that a spy movie should have.

But this is, first and foremost, a comedy rather than a spy movie.  So ensuring that the intrigue is there is a much lower priority.  They focus on keeping it light and the result is some very funny bits with Tom Hanks being unaware of what is going on around him and the CIA agents suffering the consequences of his inadvertent bumbling around.  And Hanks plays this very well.  Even back in the 80s, he was a top actor.  Throughout this movie, his performance is stable and convincing even when his situations were not.  he is supported by a competent but not stellar cast that allows him to be the spotlight.

Like I said, it's pretty thin and there are a lot of holes and problems with the script.  But it is funny and only 1.5 hours long.  It's a fun diversion to turn your brain off.  See it.

The Smurfs 2 Review

As we all know, sequels (especially those to kids movies) have a well deserved reputation for being disappointing.  One of the things about the first Smurfs movie that annoyed me was the introduction of a completely unnecessary Smurf for the sole purpose of having a wisecracking Scottish gnome on screen to sell Happy Meal toys.  So when I saw that they were introducing two more new and "sassy" Smurfs for this one, I cringed.  But, being a child of the 80s, I went anyways.  And I'm glad I did.

While Gutsy Smurf was a superfluous combination of Smurfs we already knew, Vexy and Hackus are creations who's existence is central to the plot and even the story of Smurfette.  While I'm not a fan of the drastic changes and additions to the Smurfs, I can accept it if they work it into the story in a meaningful way and they did so here.  But I'm not sure two of them were necessary.  Vexy is important but Hackus was a little too much.  His moronic antics are cute at the start but are over used to the point that you just wish he'd go away (up until one part right close to the end that had me laughing out loud).  I understand why they had him and why he stopped short of being all there mentally. (Gargamel was trying to create an army and only had enough Smurf essence for 1.5 brains and needs to get more. - that isn't a spoiler.  It's the basic premise.)  And the kids were laughing at Hackus throughout and this movie is in their world now, not mine.

Back to the Gutsy thing, I was really glad to see them move all of the "new age" Smurfs to the background and give them moderately humourous one-off jokes while they stuck to the basics of five Smurfs we all loved as kids: Papa, Smurfette, Clumsy, Grouchy, and Vanity.  In doing this, they proved that you can take classic, bare bones elements and still update them through witty dialogue and make a decent movie that will entertain both generations.  These five Smurfs had changed very little but were still able to entertain.  It also helps that they ramped up the bumbling Gargamel and slapstick with Azrael.  That kept me laughing as well.

The movie is nothing too special.  The writing is average.  The human acting is passable.  The effects are very good but nothing innovative.  But the bottom line is that this movie is meant to entertain children.  It isn't like Pixar where they layer them to appeal to all generations.  This is out and out a kids movie and in that, it delivers.  It throws jokes like snowballs and has Chris Farley levels of characters running into things.

If you want a nice little entertaining diversion, see it.

2 Guns Review

I knew very little about this movie going in.  All of my information came from the TV ads.  I thought the idea of Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington engaging in witty dialogue and shooting a bunch of stuff would be fun.  As it turns out, I was right.  It is fun.  But it is also pretty basic too.

One thing you need to know about this movie is that it is based on a series of graphic novels.  I didn't know that until the end credits.  If I had known that going in, I would have had an easier time accepting the over the top comic-like qualities of the villains.  In that, it is reminiscent of The Losers.  It isn't enough to make you dislike the movie but it does take away a bit from the experience.  Had that been changed to be a bit more realistic, it would have made a better movie throughout.

That being said, the dynamic between Washington and Wahlberg is top notch.  Denzel has always been able to deliver terrific dialogue especially when working with another strong actor.  Wahlberg is decent at what he does especially when he's allowed to be a bit quirky and comical.  In 2 Guns, that's exactly what they did and it works as long as the two are on screen together.  When they are separated, the pace slows a lot and neither one performs as well as they do when together.

At the start, I felt like I was almost watching a remake of Bulletproof with some elements of the Last Boy Scout thrown in.  This made me think that I wasn't going to like it at all.  But then they moved past that with a couple of twists that grabbed my attention again.  Even though it did slow down at times, they were able to hold that attention throughout and make me care about the outcome of the film.  This is largely due to the fact that both leads were engaging.  And Wahlberg's fast talking is better than anything Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans can deliver.

It's nothing that is going to set the earth on fire but it is still worth a watch to see Washington and Wahlberg work together.  See it.

Forrest Gump Review

Do I really have to convince you to see this movie?  Chances are, if you care, you already have.  And then the chances are good that you would also recommend it to people.  For my money, this is flat out one of the best movies ever made.  For its time, the effects were unbelievable, the writing is solid, and the story is gripping and engaging.  The comic relief is well spaced and just funny enough to make you laugh while remaining in the seriousness of the moment.  It's one of those films that can make you laugh out loud and still bawl your eyes out later on.  Finally, the acting is some of the best I've ever seen.  In fact, for all of the movies I have watched over the years, Tom Hanks' performance as Forrest Gump is the most well-deserved Best Actor winner in history.

But it isn't just the solid technical aspects that make Forrest Gump so good.  There are two further reasons why I love this film.  First, I love history.  To be able to see some of the most important events in history through the eyes of a simpleton brings a unique perspective to the study of the past.  Even though Forrest's involvement in these eras and events is purely fictional, it shows how the world is becoming increasingly tumultuous and complex but humanity, at its core, remains fairly simple.  While the world changes, our basic needs and desires stay constant.

Second, using the hyperbole of the most simple of people being thrown into the most extraordinary of situations hammers home an even more philosophical point.  Even though many of us are just trying to live our lives without any grand outcome, the little things we do can have a profound impact on others and the world.  Forrest was just trying to save Bubba in the firefight.  He just felt like dancing while Elvis played guitar.  Bear Bryant told him to run with the football so he did.  And he just felt like going for a jog.  But these and the other events changed lives and history within this film's universe.

The only problem I have with this movie is the part about him running across the country for three plus years.  While all of Forrest's life events are far fetched, the running for that long was just a little too far over the line and seems oddly out of place in the film.  But by the time it gets to that part, it doesn't matter.  You will have already seen one of the greatest movies of all time.

And, because my "thing" is to give a see or don't see recommendation at the end of every review, I guess I have to say it to keep the streak alive: See it.

PCU Review

Ah, the 90s.  When a guy could wear mom jeans with a t-shirt tucked in and be considered the cool guy.  As long as there are movies, Hollywood will continue to pump out hastily written and made comedies that are designed to do nothing more than distract the masses for a couple of hours.  That's really all PCU is.  Sure, they try to make a commentary on political correctness getting out of hand by exaggerating it on a college campus.  But, in the end, it's Animal House, Old School, and House Party 2 and every other college party movie.

That's not to say that it isn't enjoyable.  It is.  Jeremy Piven, John Favreau, and David Spade do bring a half decent level of smartly delivered comedy to it.  And the different cliques of campus students provide some laughs in their over the top antics throughout.  The problem is that it seems it was slapped together very hastily.  Political correctness exploded in the early 90s and is still a nuisance much of the time for people who want to just relax and have a few laughs and a good time.  Had they taken a bit more time and effort with this, it could have avoided being a forgettable movie and been a decent statement on fighting the establishment.  Instead, the writing is very shallow and the story suffers.  It has become that movie you see in the bargain bin and say, "oh, yeah.  I remember that."

And, because it does provide some laughs, it is worth the bargain bin price; especially if you get the double feature pack that also includes Airheads.  If you stumble across it, see it if only for the nostalgia of the early 90s.  But, whatever you do, don't go seeking it out.

Hot Fuzz Review

I've reviewed every movie I've seen since March 2011 and I am just now reviewing Hot Fuzz.  I can't believe I haven't watched this movie in over two years.  It is one of my absolute favourites.

The second instalment in the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy is a hilarious spoof of cop (and to a lesser extent, slasher) movies from start to finish.  But what makes this a movie with such great rewatchability is the fact that almost everything that is said, done, or even shown in this movie is important to the plot and story development.  So, when you watch it for the third or fourth time, you'll likely notice something that you didn't before.

I've said it before but it warrants repeating: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are the best comedy duo since Wayne and Schuster and they're maybe even funnier than that.  In Shaun of the Dead, they both played best friend slackers and played very well off each other.  In Hot Fuzz, Pegg is the straight laced city cop and Frost is a doofus that wants to be just like his idolized cop movie heroes.  It's a different dynamic and I think it works even better when the two are thrown into more of an odd couple situation.  The dialogue between the two becomes much quicker and wittier when there's a bit more conflict.

Throughout the movie, you'll see things that you saw in Shaun of the Dead.  That is intentional.  The movies are part of a non-sequential trilogy that use the same elements and many of the same gags in slightly different ways.  It just adds to the fun factor when you notice them throughout.  Normally, it would be just rehashing jokes but they do them differently.  It's hard to explain why it works.  it just does.

See it.  This is one of the best comedies of the last ten years or so.

Back to the Future Part III Review

I like the way they handled these movies.  Originally, it was supposed to be a stand alone movie with no sequel.  But then when there was a demand for a sequel, they planned two right away and filmed them back to back.  Finishing the story over twp more movies allowed them to give the franchise a decent sense of continuity and closure that can be lacking in time travel movies.

While the second one took another stab at the events of 1955, they were smart not to go to that well again.  Instead, they continued the story by going even farther back to the wild west.  They were able to do all the same gags and elements that we all wanted to see but in a brand new context that didn't make them feel stale.  So in spite of it all being basically the same, the third movie is still entertaining.  And even though you start to get the feeling that the McFly family has been inbreeding for a very long time, you're willing to look past the fact that Marty's paternal great grandmother looks suspiciously like his mother.

Ultimately what makes these movies good is that they keep the fun factor high.  They never take themselves seriously and try to make it some sort of grand morality play.  I recently heard about a fourth installment and I'm torn as to my opinion of it.  On the one hand, I would like to see what they will do with an older Marty and the leaps that CGI has taken.  On the other hand, by the time the third one rolled around, I was starting to get tired of hearing "great Scott!" over an over.  So a fourth right away would have been a mistake.  But maybe they've waited long enough.

But, back to the review of this one.  Even though it is still fast paced and fun, you can tell that it is starting to go a bit downhill.  Still, I say you should see it.

Back to the Future Part II Review

It's almost impossible to watch the first one without watching the second one as soon as you can after.  When the first finished the other night, Steph hit the record button for the other two on Space on the DVR.  So, we watched the second one the next night.

Often in a trilogy, the second installment is the boring one.  That isn't the case with these movies.  The second one has a very high level of entertainment value.  Granted, part of that entertainment is laughing at just how off their vision of the future really was.  But I'm pretty sure that they never really thought that hover boards and flying cars would actually emerge.  Or that CCDC sunglasses would make a comeback.  The exaggerated predictions were basically a vehicle to amp up the fish out of water theme for the rest of the movie.  In fact, everything in this one is basically the first one but just more exaggerated.  The characters are all the same but more melodramatic and the situations are even more bizarre.  It worked in the first so they did it in the second.

They did go a little too far though.  Doc Brown and Biff go overboard with their antics and it actually draws away from the story.  Had they kept them on the same level as the first film, this one would have been even better.  I believe they reshot most of the scenes that took place in the first film so keeping the characters on a more even keel would have provided for a more seamless sequel.  But that isn't really enough to take away from the fact that it is entertaining.

The one thing that does irritate me a bit about the movie is that Doc, a guy who is so adamant about paradoxes and catastrophic consequences of interfering with events in time travel brings Marty to the future specifically to interfere with events.

Still, see it.

Back to the Future Review

Because of the whole notion of paradoxes and catastrophic consequences, time travel movies tend to be very bleak.  That's why Back to the Future will always stand out from the crowd.  The bleakest part of this movie is close to the beginning when Doc is confronted by the terrorists.  It's a light and humourous film that never takes itself too seriously even though it had the potential to do so.

You need to know going in that this movie (and its sequels) is wrought with contradictions, plot holes, and time travel paradoxes that are almost enough to make your head spin.  But most time travel moves are simply because it is scientifically impossible so there's no way to properly reconcile all of the questions.  When you realize that and decide to just focus on the characters (especially Marty McFly) and less on the ridiculous situation,  this becomes one of the most entertaining movies of its generation.

I think it's Michael J Fox's crowning achievement and he's had a lot of good performances.  But to people my age, he will always be Marty McFly (and to a lesser extent, Alex P Keaton).  In Back to the Future, he is able to convey just about every emotion from humour (playing Johnny B Goode) to awkward (his mom has the hots for him) to fear and sadness (his future and existence is in doubt).  From when he goes back in time right up to the end, he brings a sense of panic and urgency that makes the movie fly and keep the viewer interested.  All of the other characters are pretty much over the top cartoony simply to be able to give focus to the absurd situation that McFly has gotten into.

See it.  Chances are, you already have and, if that's the case, see it again.  In fact, make it a great Saturday night and sit down with all three.

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure Review

Sometimes, you just have to turn your brain off.  I saw this movie way back in the day and remember laughing my arse off but also recognizing that it wasn't a very good movie.  It was just funny and I was about 14 years old.  A recent turn in Draw Something where I drew Keanu Reeves saying, "be excellent to each other" caused me to want to give it another go to see if it would still be funny.  (Note: I subsequently found out that Bill said the line, not Ted.  So my drawing was inaccurate.)

While watching it the second time around, I was struck by just how much of this film was stolen to make Dude, Where's My Car?.  It would be easy to see it as a ripoff of that but Bill & Ted did it first.  And while the cinematic quality isn't there from an acting, story, effects, etc. point of view, let's face it.  This is one of those movies where they couldn't give a rip about making a great film.  The entire intent was to make a goofball, stoner comedy that makes you laugh because it is so ridiculous.  They succeeded in doing just that.

Sadly, the movie isn't aging as well as it could.  It was made at that awkward time when CGI was just starting to be used a lot and everything winds up looking too fake.  The acting is also atrocious throughout.  It is possible to do these stoner movies with some halfway decent acting quality (Dude... and Pineapple Express come to mind) but what they did in Bill & Ted was sufficient for the late 80s.  It wouldn't cut it now if they tried to do this the same way.

So, would I recommend the movie?  For nostalgia and some mindless laughs, yes.  But if you're looking for just a goofball comedy without the trip down memory lane, there are better options (see above).

About a Boy Review

The late 90s and early 00s are proving to be the golden age of British romantic comedy.  From the original Fever Pitch through Love Actually and more, these movies have been able to create a fantastic mix of melancholy and comedy that entertains the viewer on many different levels.  It's a formula that only the British seem to be able to do and one of the best is About a Boy.

Part of what makes this film successful is the source material.  Nick Hornby is an absolute master of combining serous topics with comedy that make you reflect on an issue while not taking it too seriously.  About a Boy takes depression and loneliness and makes you laugh at it without ever thinking you are making light of a serious situation.  This is not an easy thing to do.  I would think taking it from a novel to the screen is even more difficult.  Rather than dealing with it in a traditional good guy, douchebag, girl love triangle, the story has no bad guy.  The villain is really relationships themselves.  The characters need to conquer whatever is holding them back to win what they want.

The light-hearted theme throughout is achieved through some very strong performances by Hugh Grant and Nicholas Hoult.  It helps that they are cast perfectly.  Grant is always able to play aloof yet relatable.  Hoult just had the look of the awkward kid who just doesn't fit in.  It is likely a stroke of luck that they were able to get two actors that fit their parts so well and get a terrific on-screen chemistry from them.  Luck or not, it worked and that's all that matters.  From their first interaction right to the end, there is an authenticity in the development of their relationship that grips you.

In its writing, acting, music, pace, etc.  This movie excels in everything that a romantic comedy should be.  And it achieves the end result that all romantic comedies should: a happy and satisfied feeling in the viewer.  See it.

48 Hours Review

The original buddy action comedy movie.  This is the one that inspired things like Lethal Weapon, the Last Boy Scout, Tango and Cash and even Turner and Hooch with its odd couple pairing and fast paced dialogue.  If those were the only requirements, this would be a great movie.  However, in order to make a great cop action comedy, you need more than just a run down dirt bag and a motor mouth colleague.  You also need to have decently written dialogue that not only moves the story along but also makes the viewer laugh.  You need memorable one liners.  48 Hours does not have that.  It's basically an hour and a half of Nick Nolte spouting racial slurs at Eddie Murphy.  There are a few instances where Murphy's reactions are well written and acted but these are too few and far between to save the movie.  I will concede that the delivery is done fairly well by both actors.  But the writing is so ham and cheesy that even the best actors wouldn't be able to save it.

Another thing a movie like this needs is great action.  While it may have been good for 1982, the action does not age well into today.  The shootouts are over acted and chases are nothing special.  I did enjoy the fist fight between Nolte and Murphy because it was reminiscent of Hugh Grant vs Colin Firth in Bridget Jones' Diary in the fact that it was two guys who can't fight but attempting it anyway.  Whether this was by design for the characters or just bad choreography is irrelevant.  It did entertain.

To wrap up those shortcomings, the movie is just out and out boring.  The story has no real intrigue or twists.  Without that, one would have to rely on entertaining dialogue or great action.  And as I mentioned, this movie has neither.  Instead, they use a lot of filler like a useless montage of Nolte driving towards the club that Murphy is in while an entire song is played.

I'm glad it was made because it paved the way for one of my favourite subgenres.  But what it spawned is so much better than what it is.  Don't see it.

The Inbetweeners Movie Review

An acquaintance told me that the TV show was really funny.  So I gave it a shot and he was right.  The TV show is absolutely hilarious.  It's very raunchy and almost like a British version of American Pie.  So I figured the movie would be great as well.  I must say I was a bit disappointed.  The American Pie movies were able to take the same subject matter and make it funny in a feature length film.  The Inbetweeners should have been able to do the same thing.  But in taking their half hour format and stretching it over an hour and a half, they didn't add enough to fill the gaps.

They do push the envelope a bit with the blue humour but it isn't enough to really shock the viewer that is familiar with the TV show.  After all, in England, they can show some nudity and swear a lot more on their TV shows than they can in North America.  So it really had to just be a capstone finale to the series.

It does achieve that end.  The show was about four average high school kids and the movie ends that era of their lives.  However, in the show, the funny insults and crazy situations come fast and furious.  In the movie, they really don't.  The pace and content lends itself well to a 30 minute show where, when it's done, it's done.  But in a movie it was almost as if they said, "OK, we've used a funny slang term for female genitalia.  What do we do now?"  Rather than find some other jokes, they just have the kids walk around and argue for a bit longer.

If you are a fan of the TV show, see it just to wrap it all up.  There are enough laughs that you will get because of your familiarity with the characters.  But if you are just looking for a funny coming of age story with a bit of a raunchy edge, this one isn't really for you.

Shaun of the Dead Review

I don't care for the horror genre and zombies are my least favourite sub-genre.  But you have to know one thing going in.  This is not a horror movie.  When you put Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Edgar Wright into a project together, you can only come out with fantastic comedy.  It just happens to be a comedic tribute to the zombie horror genre.  So while it has the subject matter that I don't care for, that is outshined greatly by the superior comedy throughout the movie.

It's very similar to Zombieland in that it has a few people just trying to get to a safe haven during a zombie infestation.  The thing is, Shaun did it first.  Both are great movies but I have to give the edge to Shaun for its originality and more clever writing.  The jokes and dialogue do a fantastic job of working with the visual and physical comedy.  Right from the start, you know that you need to pay attention or you might miss something great.  And, like a good Pixar movie, they layered it.  If you're like me, you like it simply for the great comedy and timing of Pegg and Frost.  If you are a fan of the zombie scene, you like it for the great makeup, thrilling tension, and tributes to other films.  If you like good film making, you appreciate the allegories and symbolism (especially the colour red).  And, if you just like Queen music (which only soulless people do not), you like watching the crew beating a zombie to the rhythm of "Don't Stop Me Now."

From start to finish, this film has a tight story, excellent timing, and great makeup and effects.  It also has some of the best on screen chemistry you will ever see from the best comedy pairing since Wayne and Schuster in Pegg and Frost.

Definitely see it.

Guns, Girls, and Gambling Review

It was an interesting idea.  Take the popularity of the hip and cool London underground movies and put it in the context of Indian casinos.  You have a mix of quirky characters played by recognizable and fairly decent actors.  (Yes, I just called Christian Slater decent.  Face it.  He has some talent.)  Then, you call it Guns, Girls and Gambling and you should have at least a passable movie.  So, what happened?

I know that you should not judge a book by its cover or a movie by its poster or name.  But a movie like this called Guns, Girls and Gambling should probably have more than one gambling scene.  It should also have more than one girl that is important to the plot.  The Girl Next Door really wasn't that important.  So, had they changed the name, would it have been a decent movie?  No.

The biggest problem is that the movie is a cavalcade of one trick ponies.  The blonde has one schtick:  reciting poetry in a horrible effort to be like Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction.  Even Samuel L Jackson delivered it a bit awkwardly.  To have a someone who I'm pretty sure none of us can remember the name of deliver the same style of lines is a recipe for disaster.  If that was it, I could have forgiven it.  But it's basically 90 minutes of everyone correcting everyone else for their political incorrectness and one or two other jokes that are beaten into the ground.

Sure, there's some cool movie violence and the overall story isn't horrible.  But after 90 minutes of basically the same thing, you just get bored.  Don't see it.  Opt for something by Guy Ritchie instead.

Paranorman Review

I had seen ads for this when it came out but it wasn't even really on my radar due to it being a kids' horror movie.  Then Karl said that there were a lot of jokes that I would find funny.  I trust Karl's judgement in movies and I thought I'd give it a shot.

As it turns out, Paranorman is a fun little movie with some pretty good laughs.  Most of the good stuff comes from Neil, the portly, happy go lucky sidekick.  He's a loveable kid who's cluelessness relieves any tension that builds up.  As for the rest of the characters, yes, there are some of the quirky aspects that allow them to be funny.  But the writers seemed to hold back on the goofiness a little.  Had they turned it up just a little, this could have gone from a "few chuckles" movie to downright hilarious.  But, considering its targeted straight at a slightly younger audience, anything further for humour could have been wasted.

Had this movie been made by Pixar, it would have had the multi-audience levels of story and humour that would have achieved some more laughs.  But Laika is known for a more linear and less light approach to their films.  I never saw Coraline (also made by Laika) but I can tell that it has a more fantastical yet rooted in reality approach to animated film than Pixar's approach of talking cars, toys, and cuddly monsters.  Both take people into another world and make them laugh.  But Pixar would not have had zombies' arms ripped off by villagers and Norman would have a lasting friendship with the witch as they faded off listening to a Randy Newman tune.  Instead, Laika decided to teach life lessons with a much more realistic (and albeit dark) message that ultimately made this a more satisfying movie.

There are some lingering questions left for the more discriminating movie goer.  But this is purely, pre-teen entertainment and loose ends can usually remain loose in that arena.  The laughs and melancholic but satisfying resolution make it worth your 90 minutes.  See it.

Stitches Review

When I saw that the funniest man on the planet (Ross Noble) was starring in a movie, I knew I had to watch it even though it is a slasher film.  As you may be aware, I am not a fan of the horror genre.  But my research showed that this was along the lines of comedy and horror and gore was more of a vehicle for telling jokes (sort of like Shaun of the Dead but with less allegory).  Ultimately, that's really what it boils down to.

It's got the basics of a typical slasher movie.  There's the group of teenagers, each with their own quirks and one-dimensional personality.  There's the evil killer that is enabled as a killer by either psychosis or supernatural means (in this case, it's the supernatural but there's a bit of psychosis there simply due to Noble's involvement).  There's the small setting that keeps everything within its own little package so you simply can't just outrun the clown or call for help (something that they never really address).

But they aren't trying to delve into some weird psychological study or make any allegories to the human condition or any other crap like that.  Stitches is just a slasher comedy; plain and simple.  For what it is, it is adequate.  I would have to say that the comedy is better than any slasher effects.  Most of the gore is a bit too shiny and looks plastic and fake.  Had it been a serious movie, that would be a huge failing.  But what they lack in consistent writing and effects, they make up for in humour.  The group of teenagers is well thought out and used to make their personalities continue the laughs. And that's a good thing because I was disappointed in the amount of screen time that Noble actually got.  When he is on screen, he is very funny.  But the movie focuses more on the group of kids and the buildup to Stitches' involvement.  So the fact that the kids were able to maintain my interest is good.

It's nothing that is going to set the world on fire.  And without Noble, I would never have seen it in the first place.  Overall, it isn't a waste of 90 minutes and can be quite funny.  It's worth it just for the tricycle scene.  See it but don't make it a huge priority.