h1

The Wolverine (2013)

August 2, 2013

Starring: Hugh Jackman
Director: James Mangold (Walk The Line, Girl, Interrupted, 3:10 To Yuma)

I can’t say I was too excited to see The Wolverine, but with a lack of other options that fit our time frame and a girlfriend and mother that refuse to watch movies in 3D, it seemed like the obvious choice. After the disappointing X-Men: The Last Stand in 2006 and the travesty that was 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine–a film so bad it killed off an entire franchise before it even started–my interest in the continuing sagas of Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine had pretty much evaporated. Fortunately, Matthew Vaughn breathed new life into the the X-Men franchise in 2011 with First Class and then The Avengers put everyone on alert, and the result is a pretty good solo Wolverine flick.

Interestingly enough, The Wolverine acknowledges the previous X-Men films–even the shitty third installment that includes the death of Jean Grey–and manages to bridge the gap between time periods and tell its own story, all while not totally sucking. That’s an accomplishment after the terrible origin film. Obviously Hugh Jackman is great as the title character and while this film doesn’t really challenge the actor’s abilities, it’s hard to imagine anyone else playing the role.

Setting the film in Japan was a good concept. I liked seeing Wolverine interact with mostly human characters in an environment you wouldn’t really expect to see in a film about a mutant superhero. It was a breath of fresh air in the comic book genre. Although, there was a scene that takes place on top of a train that while kind of awesome and funny, is pretty ridiculous for the human Japanese characters. The two Japanese lead actresses did a good job and Rila Rukushima was particularly awesome as Yukio. In fact, aside from a two hour running time that feels more like two and a half hours, The Wolverine‘s biggest weakness is in its villains. Viper is the main villain in the film and is played by a Russian actress that I’m unfamiliar with. Not only is the character a Poison Ivy rip off, but a white woman playing the lead antagonist in a film with a Japanese setting seems wildly out of place. Everything about her sucks: the acting, the concept, the motive. Ugh. The climax is a face off with the Silver Samurai that, well, is just bizarre. Wolverine fighting ninjas and yakuza? Awesome. Wolverine fighting mutants and old, Japanese men in robot suits? Crap.

Basically, The Wolverine is an enjoyable film that could have been much better with a different final act and more interesting villains. As it is, it’s still a step forward from the last film in the Wolverine franchise, and the mid-credits scene (the best moment in the whole film!) is reason to be excited about the future.

Grade: 5.5/10 (Recommended/Rent It)

Replay Value: Not worth owning unless you’re a die hard fan. I’ll probably never see it again.
Sequel Potential: Wolverine will be making his next appearance in 2014’s X-Men: Days Of Future Past.
Oscar Potential: None.
Nudity: None.
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 67% Audience: 75%
IMDB Rating: 7.2/10

Recommendation: Not really worth theater prices, but something that’s worth watching when it comes out to rent. I’d rank the X-Men films as follows: X-Men: First Class, X2, X-Men, The Wolverine, X-Men: The Last Stand, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

h1

Man Of Steel (2013)

June 21, 2013

Starring: Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Amy Adams
Director: Zack Snyder (Watchmen trilogy, 300, Sucker Punchy)

Quick Thoughts: What a spectacle. That was my first thought leaving the theater after watching Man Of Steel, which was probably my most anticipated film this summer. Director Zack Snyder can handle action. We know that much and those looking for a Superman that finally kicks some real ass, you’ll get it here. There’s plenty of super fights, massive property destruction, and a finale that is almost overwhelmingly heavy on action. It was enough to make me want to go back and see it in IMAX 3D.

Man Of Steel almost feels like you’re watching two films. The first half of the movie feels much like producer Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins while the second half plays out, well, like a Zack Snyder film. Much like Begins the first half of Man Of Steel switches between scenes of Clark Kent dealing with his unnatural abilities as a child and discovering himself as an adult. Unlike Begins, where you become quite invested in Bruce Wayne’s story, Man Of Steel seems a bit slow and I was pretty eager to move along to the Superman stuff. Also, the sequence on Krypton, in particular, is overly long and a bit confusing. The second half of the film feels a lot like an alien invasion movie. I kept thinking of Independence Day during the second act.

It’s interesting that DC took such a realistic approach with Superman right after The Dark Knight trilogy finished. Certainly, Snyder’s Superman would fit comfortably into Nolan’s Batman universe. Nolan has stated that he is finished with Batman, however, and Man Of Steel is supposed to be the first step towards an eventual Justice League movie; one that will likely feature a rebooted Batman. It’s all quite a mess and as a massive fan of DC Comics, I have to say I’m concerned.

Regardless, even with my ridiculous expectations for Man Of Steel, I’m pretty satisfied with the finished product. Henry Cavill is perfect as Superman, General Zod and crew are formidable first opponents, the action is amazing, and Russell Crowe is great as Jor-El. David Goyer took some liberties with the Superman mythos–notably on how Lois Lane and Superman first meet and Superman’s morality–but I thought these were handled delicately and actually made sense for modern (and more realistic) versions of the characters. Lois Lane is an investigative journalist, after all, and it’s always been pretty unbelievable that no one can figure out that Superman and Clark Kent are one in the same. With all the pressure from the crazy success of The Avengers and Marvel’s ridiculously smart blueprint for creating their cinematic universe, I’m nervous about DC trying to match it by rushing into a Justice League movie, but even so, I’m looking forward to Man Of Steel 2

Replay Value: I’m anxious to see it again in IMAX 3D.
Sequel Potential: Release date already announced and this character will eventually show up in a Justice League movie.
Oscar Potential: Maybe some visual effects and sound recognition.
Nudity: None.
Grade: 7/10 (Must See)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 56% Audience: 82%
IMDB Rating: 8.1/10

Recommendation: The critics are way off on this one. 2006’s Superman Returns is a 75% and sucks. Man Of Steel blows it away and I think even the critics would agree with that. I’ll admit it didn’t meet my expectations, but this is still an above average superhero film and a great reintroduction of the Superman character.

h1

Flight (2012)

April 7, 2013

Starring: Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Kelly Reilly, Bruce Greenwood
Director: Robert Zemeckis (Back To The Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, Cast Away)

Quick Thoughts: Flight hit home for me a bit. Being an alcoholic myself–one that has been sober for nearly three years now–I couldn’t help but relate to the path of self-destruction that Denzel Washington’s character Whip Whitaker had created for himself: the complete lack of self-control, the walls his family has put up, the delusion, the denial. Of course, the decision to make this character the pilot of a major airline makes his story worthy of a film. Watching the movie, I was wondering how much of it was based in reality. Was it a true story? The answer is… not really. While Whip’s decision to invert the plane during the incredible flight and crash sequence was inspired by true events, the character of Whip Whitaker himself is a figment of screenwriter John Gatins’ imagination–or more likely, a loose translation of someone the writer actually knows.

This is one of those films where the hero is quite the opposite. There’s no protagonist in this movie. I can’t imagine too many people rooting for Whip Whitaker. He’s despicable. Aside from his alcoholism, he also abuses drugs, womanizes, and is generally crude and overbearingly filthy in his diction. Perhaps we want to see him sink so low that he finally sees and admits the errors of his ways, but that’s it. About 90 minutes into the movie, I turned to my girlfriend and said: “This movie can’t possibly have a happy ending.” There is no light at the end of the tunnel for this person.

While I found Flight to be entertaining–seriously, the flight sequence is jaw-dropping–and the best depiction of alcoholism since Leaving Las Vegas, I did walk away with some serious questions. Whip’s flight crew is all too familiar with his antics. He’s sleeping and partying with one of his flight attendants (a fellow substance abuser) and it appears this is no secret to the rest of the crew, particularly a devoutly religious woman that has known Whip for years. My question is, knowing who this man is, why on earth would these people get on a plane that he’s flying? I understand enabling and co-dependent relationships–believe me–but I can’t understand constantly putting your own life and lives of passengers in immediate danger. This man is piloting planes drunk while reeking of vodka (as his co-pilot later points out). Who in their right mind is letting that happen? Also curious, Whip’s toxicology report comes back with a .24 BAC after landing the plane, getting extracted from the wreckage, and possibly transported to a hospital. In other words, during the crash, Whip was probably sporting a BAC over .3, which is well into black out territory. Of course, this is the portrait of a “functioning” alcoholic, but come on. And… my comments on the ending I will post below*.

Despite these concerns, I was still pleased with Flight and thought it tackled alcoholism quite well. The crash sequence is legendary and Denzel Washington gives another great performance.

Replay Value: Worth watching again for sure.
Sequel Potential: None.
Oscar Potential: Denzel received an acting nomination and Gatins a writing nomination. Surprisingly, the visual effects team was snubbed.
Nudity: Quite a bit during the opening sequence.
Grade: 7/10 (Must See)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 79% Audience: 76%
IMDB Rating: 7.3/10

Recommendation: Highly recommended, especially to those who have dealt with alcoholism in their lives.

SPOILERS:

I felt like this movie couldn’t possibly have a happy ending and while I suppose I was satisfied with the way things wrapped up, I didn’t really buy it either. Whip Whitaker ultimately breaks down and admits the truth of his alcoholism–a scene that brought tears to my eyes–right on the brink of lying his way to freedom during his testimony. All he has to do is tell one more lie and he can go right on living his destructive life. So what sparked his change of heart? He has the perfect alibi: the woman he spent the night with before the crash has passed away, she’s a known alcoholic, and he can say that she drank the two bottles of vodka that had been found in the wreckage. But instead, he admits that he drank those bottles and suffers all the punishments that come with that admittance. Why? Do we really believe this man, that has chosen alcohol over the relationships of anyone close to him–wife and son included–would choose this moment to come clean? Presumably to protect the honor of a dead woman he had a casual sexual relationship with? I’m sorry, but this would never happen in real life. Alcoholics are incredibly selfish people and I really believe that 100% of alcoholics in that situation would choose to lie and protect their freedom. Perhaps the close call with extensive jail time would be enough to spark a change, but Whip Whitaker doesn’t take the fall there. Ever.

h1

The Croods (2013)

March 28, 2013

Starring: voices of Nicholas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds
Director: Kirk De Micco, Chris Sanders (How To Train Your Dragon, Lilo & Stitch)

Quick Thoughts: This movie kicked all sorts of ass. As far as kids movies go, The Croods is the nuts. Filled with great animation, memorable characters, stellar voice acting, and a surprising amount of quality humor, The Croods is spectacular family filmmaking. Nicholas Cage as the dim, over protective father figure gives his most inspired performance since Adaptation. Perhaps he’s better suited behind a mic? The Croods are definitely a family you can get behind rooting for and their adventure will have you laughing out loud the whole time and walking out with a smile on your face. I do regret not seeing this in 3D, however, as the trailersI saw in 3D for it looked awesome.

Replay Value: I will probably add this to my own collection and think it would be great for kids to watch repeatedly.
Sequel Potential: Remember this moment: The Croods is a fantastic animated movie that opened to $46 million. By 2018, we’ll probably be sick of this family.
Oscar Potential: Pixar’s Monsters University will probably be stiff competition for the Best Animated Movie Oscar, but The Croods would’ve been a shoo-in if it came out last year.
Nudity: None.
Grade: 8/10 (Excellent)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 67% Audience: 86%
IMDB Rating: 7.5/10

Recommendation: Honestly, that 67% critics rating is absurd; The Croods is great fun for both kids and adults. The first must see film of 2013.

h1

Oz The Great And Powerful (2013)

March 24, 2013

Starring: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz
Director: Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Evil Dead, Spider-Man 3)

Quick Thoughts: There is way too much green screen going on in Sam Raimi’s Oz The Great And Powerful and the result is the film looks more like Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland than James Cameron’s Avatar and that’s not a good thing. You certainly don’t feel immersed in the land of Oz; it all looks quite fake. The acting does little to add to the believability, as four Oscar and Golden Globe nominees all do a great job of not taking their roles too seriously… and maybe they shouldn’t. But still, I don’t want to see Michelle Williams or Mila Kunis hamming it up. Having seen the Broadway version of Wicked last year, I know there is a way to continue The Wizard Of Oz story in a way that can still be embraced in 2013. I’ll take Elphaba’s origin story over this mess any day.

Replay Value: I’ll probably never watch it again… but it might have a little value here.
Sequel Potential: As a prequel to The Wizard Of Oz, obviously this property has plenty of legs.
Oscar Potential: There’s a chance for some art direction and make-up love, but I have a feeling this movie will be long forgotten come Oscar season.
Nudity: None.
Grade: 4.5/10 (watchable/wait for Red Box)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 61% Audience: 66%
IMDB Rating: 6.9/10

Recommendation: A pretty cheesy offering. I didn’t see the 3D version so maybe the film looks spectacular that way; I doubt it though. I was excited for this movie but I lost interest before we even made it to Oz. All in all, a moderately painful experience.

h1

I Suck At Tournament Poker

March 8, 2013

God, it sure feels like I do. I mean, my history in online tournaments pre-Black Friday and even playing live up through all of 2011 suggests otherwise, but my success (or lack thereof) since the start of 2012–particularly in big ($150+) events–has been…unsettling. I managed to post a profit in tournaments last year and went deep in multiple major events, but the overall result is lackluster and disappointing. So far in 2013, I’ve fizzled out of a couple events and have been cold decked out of a few others. All these experiences have lead me to the following conclusions:

a) I handle the short term luck factor in tournaments very poorly. This is a concept that creeps into my limit hold em cash games very seldom. Generally, when it comes to variance in cash games, I realize that over time, all the money I lose when I get unlucky eventually comes back, with interest, and often within the same session. I also grasp the fact that these frequent beats are a result of poor play and that errors from opponents is how I make money playing poker. Therefore, I never berate players and rarely tilt, spending as much time playing my A-game as possible. I have a much harder time applying these same concepts to tournament play. Perhaps it’s the absolute nature of tournament poker: once your chips are gone, you’re out. If you get unlucky or coolered in a massive pot, you are usually out or crippled, and the amount of chips you have directly correlates with how you can play. And when you bust out, you might have to wait a month to play in another good event. All of this tends to make me highly upset during a tournament and almost always afterwards. I mean, I don’t want to be bothered by anyone and my day of poker is usually mentally over with. For the third time in less than two months, I immediately left the casino instead of waiting for the dinner break to use my free meal voucher and socialize with the other players. I lose, I’m gone. No goodbyes. Rarely a “nice hand.” It’s not a good look.

b) I have no idea what style suits me best. Without a doubt, I’ve experienced my most success using a tight-aggressive (TAG) and frequently nitty style. The problem is, while this style gets me to the money most often, it also leaves me short stacked in the late stages of tournaments and relies far too heavily on what cards I’m being dealt (luck) and has much less to do with playing position correctly, exploiting my opponents’ tendencies, staying unpredictable, and playing poker after the flop (skill). However, my ventures into playing a loose-aggressive (LAG) style have led me to continual destruction (often self-inflicted). I have little doubt that a controlled LAG style is the best way to play tournaments, as it makes you highly unpredictable and sets you up to make the final table with a bundle of chips and the ability to make moves your short stacked opponents can’t afford to. Note that I said “controlled,” which seems to be where I go wrong. My use of the LAG style is frequently misguided and random, as I’ll show when I start talking about the $180 tournament I played at Little Creek on Friday night. Ultimately, the biggest problem here is that the TAG style is my comfort zone. It’s not how I want to play, but it’s the style I feel most comfortable using and my history of experimenting with the LAG style has been… questionable.

So last night, I’m playing in the $180 event of the Spring Classic at Little Creek Casino and within the first two levels I run JJ and TT into overpairs on favorable boards and lose a bunch of chips, but stay alive. Then I flop a full house with QQ in a raised pot and make 0 chips after the flop and then I flop another boat with 22 in a 3-way raised pot and manage a measly +700 in chips. I raise with 99 over one limper and both blinds also call. We see a flop of TT6 and only the big blind calls my bet of 500. At this point in the hand, I feel like I should tell another story.

Flashback to the Fall Classic $230 Main Event at Little Creek last year. I get into a massive leveling war with the big blind in the hand I’m talking about in the last paragraph. A few people limp into the pot for 200 or 300, something in that range, and I make it at least 1000 on the button (OTB) with a deep stack holding the monstrous T8o. The big blind repops me to, say, 2700 and everyone in between folds. My first instinct is to fold, well, because I just got caught with my pants down and T8o isn’t exactly AK… but then I start thinking… I already have this guy sized up as someone that pays attention and is capable of making plays and realize that he probably realizes that I’m raising light. So if I know that he knows this, how can I possibly let him get away with it. For the first time that I can remember, I pull off the preflop 4-bet bluff and make it 6500 to go. For some reason on this day, I have chosen to sit with my chair backwards so that my arms can rest on top of the chair and my face is basically buried in my arms. I am nervous, oh boy, am I nervous, but this is the same posture I’ve taken the entire tournament. Regardless, after sizing me up for quite some time, this guy pulls the trigger and ships it all in. I spend very little time posing for the cameras before tossing my hand into the muck and he turbo fastrolls 96o. Good play, sir. And the lesson learned here is that if I trust my read, I can’t let him have the last move (the 5-bet shove) because even if he “knows” I’m bluffing, he can’t call me, much like I couldn’t call him even though I was sure he was full of it.

Flashfoward to the 99 on the TT6 flop. After he calls my flop bet, I’ve already determined that a) I’m showing down and b) I’m going to keep the pot small. So I check back on the turn and call an 1100 bet on the river and he shows me JT. Nice.

I definitely have a fishy image at this point because I’ve had lots of big hands and I’ve shown NONE of them so far, so when it folds to me in the small blind and I raise to 450 with AQ the big blind makes it 1475 quickly and with a tone in his voice that says: “find someone else to pick on.” So… I shove it on his ass and he folds.

Then, I proceed to play AK so poorly that I’m not going to write about it out of fear that no one will ever back me again. I mean, seriously… Worst. Line. Ever.

So now I’ve been involved in a number of pots, have lost almost 67% of my stack, and I’ve tabled zero hands. My terrible image is still intact. Blinds are 50/100, one player limps, the button makes it 500, the worst player at the table in the small blind flats, and I look down at QQ. I’m sitting on 6200, which creates for a rather awkward situation. My inclination is to just shove it here, but that’s a huge re-raise and I want at least some action on my hand. I opt to 3-bet it to 2000, an amount that virtually commits me to the pot, and my plan is that, if called, I’m going to shove it all-in on any flop unless something dictates that I shouldn’t. This is a gambling line, but I want chips. I’ll take the risk. Everyone folds except for the kid in the small blind which is the perfect result. He checks to me on the KJx flop and I shove my remaining 42 big blinds into the pot and he calls pretty quickly with AT for… a gut shot. I’m holding two blockers and he somehow misses his 5-outer and I have a playable stack again.

Naturally, my playable stack lasts one orbit before this happens: Blinds are 100/200, the kid from last hand limps, I limp in with 99, one other player and the button limp in, the small blind completes, and the big blind raises to… 400! Yes, a min-raise. I’d love to hear the thought process on that one. The kid calls, and I briefly consider 3-betting because given the action so far, I almost certainly have the best hand and should be able to take it down right here. Alas, my confidence is shot and I decide to just call, as does everyone else. 6-way action for 2400 to see a flop of T98 with two diamonds. Not the best flop for a set, but the pot is big enough that I’m never folding here with my stack size. The big blind leads out for 700, lighting those chips on fire and kissing them goodbye because, well, because he just announced that he has absolutely nothing with such a weak beat on a super dangerous board. The bad player to my right makes it 1400. Perfect. I practically min-raise it to 3000, prepared to get it all in if anyone comes over the top of me, but everyone folds around to the kid, who only has 3100 total, which he proceeds to shove into the pot as he fastrolls TT for top set. FML. I actually have a chance to fold here for 100 more, but I’m getting 85 to 1 and it’s probably correct to draw to my 1-outer. I miss it and am back to short stacking it.

Final hand. Folds around to the button who has yet to not raise in this situation. He makes it 700 to go, the loose kid to my right calls, and I look down at A8. A few things to consider here that I didn’t take the time to think over at the table. The button has open-raised in this situation four times now. Once, I 3-bet with QQ and he got out of the way pretty quickly. Another time, I flat called with A2o and he checked the flop and turn when medium cards hit the board and folded when I bluffed the river after a 4-card straight showed up. Giving this information, calling preflop makes a lot more sense as this opponent took a pretty passive line with a hand he missed with and folded without resistance when I bluffed the river and he folded when I 3-bet the queens… so when I decide to raise it up to 2700, I’m only going to get action when he can… go all-in. Which he does. I deliberate for quite a while and study him. I’m not getting much information there, so I start looking at my pot odds and realize, with horror, that I’ve priced myself in with A8o for my tournament life. Awful planning on my part. Just terrible. I shake my head and put my chips in and he shows me QQ and the dealer wastes little time killing me off as he brings out the Queen high flop. GG.

Honestly, I’m so discouraged with my tournament play that I went to the cashier and had to go through the arduous and embarrassing process of refunding my tournament buy-in for the main event because well, I don’t want to waste my time and money (or my backers’ money) when I’m not feeling good about my game. I’ve had some terrible luck in the Oregon tournaments, but my play in the local ones has been pretty awful. I just need a break to collect my thoughts and think about what I need to fix.

h1

Safe Haven (2013)

March 6, 2013

Starring: Julianne Hough, Josh Duhamel, Cobie Smulders
Director: Lasse Hallstrom (Chocolat, The Cider House Rules)

Quick Thoughts: I’ll admit to owning The Notebook, but nothing else that has been adapted for the movies in the Nicholas Sparks collection has struck my interest and half of the movies based on his books I don’t even remember coming out. Needless to say, I had no interest in watching Safe Haven and it’s 13% rotten rating had me absolutely dreading having to sit through it. But when you’re in a relationship, sometimes, them the breaks.

Well, Safe Haven certainly didn’t disappoint with it’s snail-like pace and uninteresting, predictable plot. The movie opens with Julianne Hough running away from an apparent law enforcement officer and settling down in a quiet town, hoping not to be bothered or recognized. It doesn’t take much running time to figure out who the real bad guy is and when the “reveal” does happen, it’s borderline insulting… but that doesn’t quite match what Safe Haven has in store for us later in film when the final twist is learned. I mean, Cobie Smulders (from “How I Met Your Mother”) had to be in this movie for some reason, right? Seriously though, Sparks takes the one touching moment he managed to find in his novel and then slaps the audience across the face one more time. Apologies for any potential spoilers here, but if you can’t figure this one out by the half hour mark, well…

I could go on listing reasons why I didn’t enjoy Safe Haven, but I didn’t want to waste my time watching it, so I’m certainly not going to waste too much time writing about it.

Viewings: 1
Replay Value: None, IMO
Sequel Potential: None
Oscar Potential: Zero.
Nudity: None
Grade: 2.5/10 (Horrible/Skip It)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 13% Audience: 71%
IMDB Rating: 6.2/10
Recommendation: Boyfriends, if you’re worried about seeing this movie, you should be! I’ve seen more painful movies in my day, but I’d bet Safe Haven is the worst film I see in 2013.

h1

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

March 3, 2013

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver
Director: David O. Russell (The Fighter, Three Kings)

Quick Thoughts: David O. Russell follows up The Fighter with another powerful film in Silver Linings Playbook. This film tackles mental disorders and broken relationships, but is still a love story at its core. Russell seems to have a knack for coaxing great performances out of his casts. After earning three acting nominations for The Fighter, the Silver Linings Playbook cast managed four. De Niro gives his best effort in at least ten years, Lawrence cements her status as the best young actress in the business, and Cooper is shockingly awesome. Truly, in most years without a Daniel Day Lewis movie, Cooper deserves an Oscar. The material handled here could easily be presented in an annoying fashion, but the cast makes it work…wonderfully. The end result is a sweet and troubled love story, the kind of which a man shouldn’t have to be dragged to the theater to see.

Viewings: 1
Replay Value: Worthy of owning.
Sequel Potential: None…however, Lawrence and Cooper have signed on to Russel’s next project, along with Christian Bale, Jeremy Renner, and Amy Adams. Holy crap.
Oscar Potential: A Best Actress win for Lawrence (the first of many?), nominations for Cooper, De Niro, Weaver, Russell, and Best Adapted Screenplay.
Nudity: I don’t recall, but Seth MacFarlane noted at The Oscars: “and Jennifer Lawrence’s boobs we haven’t seen at all.”
Grade: 8/10 (Excellent)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 92% Audience: 88%
IMDB Rating: 8/10
Recommendation: A fantastic movie featuring great performances. A love story both sides of a couple should appreciate.

h1

Django Unchained (2012)

February 24, 2013

Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christopher Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
Director: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds)

Quick Thoughts: I’m starting to feel like I need to watch Death Proof again because I didn’t love it and Quentin Tarantino simply doesn’t miss. For the past twenty years I can’t think of a more consistent filmmaker. If nothing else, he makes movies that are specifically tailored to my tastes. Django Unchained is more QT awesomeness and I can understand arguments claiming it as his best film ever. It’s certainly his longest, clocking in at nearly three hours, but barely feels like two with its swift pacing and frequently comical dialogue. To paint this film as a comedy would be unjust, however, as slavery and racism are the biggest themes being tackled and there is nothing funny about whip scars and savage abuse. To his credit, Tarantino is absolutely fearless and it seems he’s earned the right to be. I can’t think of another white director/writer that could have pulled off Django Unchained–or more accurately, that has the balls to try to. Tarantino is a masterful filmmaker and Django Unchained is his latest classic, featuring another Oscar-worthy performance from the spectacular Christopher Waltz and a new cinematic hero in Jamie Foxx’s Django.

Viewings: 1
Replay Value: Tons. Like all Tarantino movies, a must own for any serious film collector.
Sequel Potential: Very unlikely.
Oscar Potential: Numerous nominations including Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor for Waltz.
Nudity: Yes, but there’s nothing sexy about it.
Grade: 8.5/10 (Excellent/Potential Classic)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 89% Audience: 94%
IMDB Rating: 8.6/10
Recommendation: Even with its touchy subject matter Django Unchained is one of the most fun and enjoyable films of 2012. It’s so good my mom saw it in theaters and sat through the whole thing…twice. Another hit from the nearly flawless Tarantino.

h1

Indentity Thief (2013)

February 19, 2013

Starring: Jason Bateman, Melissa McCarthy
Director: Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses)

Quick Thoughts: If you’re familiar with the television show How I Met Your Mother you may have seen the episode where Barney Stinson brings up the Crazy/Hot scale when evaluating women. Specifically, a woman must be at least as hot as she is crazy. Well, comedy films can be judged on a similar scale: Stupid/Funny. For a comedy to actually be good, it needs to be at least as funny as it is stupid and with its ridiculous premise, bounty hunters, and unbelievable characters, Identity Thief fails in that regard. It’s definitely far dumber than it is funny.

I’m not saying Melissa McCarthy isn’t funny or that she can’t carry a comedy, but after her Oscar-worthy performance in Bridesmaids, this film was a misstep. Still, most of the actors in this movie are funny, but the script doesn’t give them much to work with. There is a moment in the film when McCarthy’s character breaks down while telling the story of her upbringing and we see a glimpse of her acting chops, but by that point the movie has become far too silly to give the scene any weight.

Viewings: 1
Replay Value: Not much
Sequel Potential: It makes me cringe a little thinking I may have contributed to the potential of a sequel.
Oscar Potential: None.
Nudity: Bare man ass.
Grade: 3/10 (Skip It)
RottenTomatoes Scores: Critics: 24% Audience: 74%
IMDB Rating: 5.8/10
Recommendation: My family seemed to enjoy Identity Thief, but it was immature for my tastes and the heart they tried to inject into the film felt forced. If the previews look funny to you, maybe you will like this. To me, it felt longer than Django Unchained, which was nearly double the running time.