Review: Mystery Team

There are many things that I just can't wrap my (slightly misshaped) head around:

1. Twilight

2. The explanation for Joba Chamberlain's celebrity status (hint: it can't be pitching skill)

3. Why a truly bad-ass character can't be created without the initials J.B. (James Bond, Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer)

4. Why it's perfectly fine for a 1 year old to poop their pants but when I do it my girlfriend suddenly calls it a "deal-breaker"

5. Why girls feel the need to take and post pictures of just their feet on Facebook.

Unless this is a massive collection of leg lamps a la A Christmas Story, I'm not interested

6. Why Mel Gibson is (understandably) a Hollywood pariah but Charlie Sheen can attempt to use his wife like a pin cushion with a butcher knife on Baby Jesus' birthday and Hollywood/"Two and a Half Men" viewers give a collective "meh".

7. How Vampires Suck can see a wide release but a comedy like Mystery Team (trailer here) barely makes a blip on the radar as it's shuffled straight to DVD.

For the sake of time I will only address #7 and save the other issues for my therapist. And by therapist I mean my Justin Timberlake life size cut-out.

The doctor is innnnnnn (fans face with both hands)

Before anyone starts panicking, I'm putting down the glass of scotch and taking out the monacle. This is not me acting as a movie elitist and stating how much more intellectual Mystery Team is compared to other low-brow mindless comedies such as Paul Blart or Grown-Ups. This movie is about as low brow as you can get. Fishing an engagement ring out of feces filled toilet? Check. Drinking dog urine? Oh you know it. The plot centers around three high school seniors who still hang onto their childhood innocence and personalities through their mystery solving team. The shenanigans begin when an 8 year old requests that the team find out who killed her parents which leads them to strip clubs, drug dealers, and grocery clerk snitches.

Yes these are the same jokes as other gross-out comedies that roll through theaters while receiving average box office receipts and critical reviews. The difference is that this film executes the jokes and gags just as well or better its competitors. Hence my confusion as to why it wouldn't receive the chance at a theatrical release. The film does lack any real star power. The film was made by the three guys behind the DerrickComedy website. The closest thing the movie has to a recognizable face is Donald Glover ("Community"). Also making short cameos, albeit funny ones, are Dot Com from "30 Rock" and Matt Walsh otherwise known as "that guy" who pops up in almost every comedy (Old School, The Hangover, Role Models).

You are the utility infielder of comedy, sir.

Maybe the studio gets jumpy greenlighting a comedy for theatrical release if there is neither A) a bankable star B) like Epic Movie or Vampires Suck the film sports jokes parodying well known movies that the studio thinks the audience will blindly love and clap their flippers in approval. In my opinion, American audiences need to be given more credit for appreciating a movie if the concept is solid. Inception is one of the top grossing movies of the summer despite an original and somewhat complex plot. More people flocked to Inception instead of the movie studio's layups of The A-Team or Sex and the City 2.

I suppose the argument could be made that Inception sported a fairly well known cast as well as the biggest director in Hollywood at the moment. But The Hangover had a cast of relative unknowns at the time of its release and cleaned up at the box office more than my Mom vacuuming in front of the TV every time I wanted to play Nintendo. Mystery Team has more than enough laughs and plot to fully sustain an audience in a darkened theater from beginning to end. I'm sure there are financial reasons behind why it was given the direct-to-DVD treatment but it doesn't seem fair that in an industry where so many comedies fall short, this one wasn't even given a chance.

It's not monumental filmmaking but it's a solid comedy that's worth a Netflix rental. Out of a maximum of 5 I would buy the film 3 beers but if things were going well I would hang around and split the bill for a fourth round.

I feel much better now but all the anger still isn't out of my system. In fact, I believe the next compilation list will be "Best Movies Released Directly To DVD". If the timeliness of my articles stays at the status quo, look for it around the time of your kid's high school graduation.

That's A Low Blow, Hollywood

I realized at a relatively early age that I would be a horrible humanitarian. Given the content of this website it should come as no surprise that I made this self-revelation through the medium of film. Independence Day arrived in the CGI summer of 1996 along with fellow big budget flicks Twister and Dragonheart. It was a great time to be 11 years old. It was, however, not a great time to have a mother that wanted to monitor every piece of cinema that was burned into my retinas and seared to my impressionable mind. The thought of seeing a PG-13 movie before I was 13 was completely out of the question. Two years and one family DirecTV subscription later I was parked six inches in front of the TV captivated by the impending doom about to befall Los Angeles at the hands of the alien ships. Along with the crumbling buildings and exploding cars, waves of humanity were wiped out but I could care less. All I cared about was whether Bobo, Will Smith's family dog, made it out of this alive. "Move little girl holding the teddy bear screaming for her life. I can't see the dog." Happily, against the laws of probablity and all physics, Bobo made it out alive along with the Will Smith's stripper girlfriend and her bastard son. It didn't matter to me that countless people had lost their lives as long as Bobo made it out okay because to kill the dog would be just cruel. That was the thought process in my 13 year old mind. Apparently it wasn't too far from the thoughts of director Roland Emmerich either. Emmerich's latest movie 2012 follows a basic premise: The world is ending and stuff blows up. I tuned into the movie after missing the first 20 minutes but doubt I missed any major plot points. I can sum up the review simply. It's bad. Even for disaster porn, this is bad. I like John Cusack and this is still bad. If you like special effects watch it once. That's all. It's that forgettable. But Emmerich once again decided to make it a reoccurring scenario during 2012 of the dog being in peril and humans, often at the risk of their own lives, going out of their way to ensure its safety. Even though I didn't care nearly as much about this dog as I did for my beloved Bobo from Independence Day, there was a part of me that was happy to see the dog make it out alive. Even if that meant countless human characters had been wiped out by the movie's end. But what about the opposite scenario? What about the filmmakers who simply use an animal's demise to prompt an emotional response from the audience? Does this add to the story or just a low blow from Hollywood. Or, more immature yet, is it simply a chance for guys to look upset in the theater in an attempt to fool their girlfriends into thinking they're compassionate? As opposed to writing a boring review of 2012 and simply rehashing what every other critic said about its blandness back in November, I have compiled a boring list of 11Hollywood movies that have used the demise of the canine to move the story along. Movies ranked starting with what had the least emotional effect on me and ending with what left me curled up in the fetal position wishing I could buy stock in Puffs Kleenex. Without further ado, "Welcome to Earff"! I can't reference Independence Day without using that line. Right, Will....? Exactly. On to the countdown. And yes I realize it's somewhat of a bleak countdown but I'm going through my goth phase and the world doesn't understand my pain. 11. The Movie: The Lost World: Jurassic Park The Set-Up: A T-Rex escapee runs amok in San Diego and manages to find its way into a family's backyard. The incessant barking of a small dog apparently enrages the T-Rex enough that he eats it...and the doghouse. The dog's family's last image of beloved Fido is his leash and doghouse hanging from T-Rex teeth like a pizza slice from Hradek's drunken mouth (yeah, it's a call-out Hradek to write your Commando review already). Still, this is the second worst thing to ever happen to San Diego. Number 1 pictured below:

How Much It Upset Me: Minimal. First of all, a T-Rex taking the time to eat a dog or even humans would be like trying to feed my appetite by eating a meal solely of 3 Fritos. Fritos that move around, hide, scream and ultimately poop themselves before I can eat them. And you can't feel too bad for the family. To their 12 year old boy, there are few ways that are more bad ass for a dog to die than being eaten by a Tyrannasaurus Rex. Okay maybe if the dog died in a plane battle fighting off Nazis...... He made the Red Baron his bitch....literally. 10. The Movie: Shooter The Set-Up: Shooter is a standard action B movie starring Mark Wahlberg featuring the classic plot of a complete bad ass who's betrayed, left for dead and then commences to go on a revenge-fueled rampage. It's a familiar plot but this film does it well and it's entertaining watching Wahlberg mow down baddies with a sniper rifle from close to a mile away while making a conscious effort to not speak with a Boston accent. To add insult to injury, Wahlberg learns from a television report that his dog has been shot presumably by the men who betrayed him. How Much It Upset Me: It is disturbing that the villains would go to the effort of shooting Marky Mark's dog (his canine, not a slang word for his friend) just to make it look like Wahlberg did it and is crazy. But we only saw the dog for maybe 10 seconds of the movie and it was being fed beer so it had a good run; a much better fate than the tiny dogs destined to live in Paris Hilton's purse. This is clearly an issue of the writers writing the dog out of the movie out of a A) laziness B) spite because the dog held out in contract talks for more money if there was a sequel. I was actually more upset that Shooter did not turn out to be a biopic of this man: Side note: I'm still waiting for Tiger to go full villain mode and pull out the Shooter McGavin finger guns after sinking a putt. But I digress. 9. The Movie: American Gangster The Set-Up: Ridley Scott's true story depiction of drug dealer, entrepreneur and snappy dresser Frank Lucas. It stars Denzel Washington as Denzel Washington who answers to the name Frank Lucas and Russell Crowe, who must have serious abandonment issues with Ridley Scott because neither one will make a movie without the other, as the cop Ritchie Roberts that brings Lucas' empire (including corrupt cops) down. Even though Lucas was a drug dealer and murderer he is not the central villain of the movie as Scott paints Lucas and Ritchie in shades of grey showcasing their flaws along with their laurels. A mustachioed Josh Brolin provides the film's true villain as a corrupt cop who steals Lucas' secret fortune of cash. Since stealing money from a drug dealer isn't really enough to make the audience hate a character, he shoots Denzel's dog to get to the cash underneath the doghouse. A simple "C'mere boy" is how I always got our dog to move but to each his own. How Much It Upset Me: It raised the blood level a bit but again, it's pretty hard to find sympathy for a criminal as notorious as Frank Lucas. It did make me hate Brolin's character more though. I think the fact the shooting was committed by a former Goonie made it significantly more disturbing.

Maybe the Truffle Shuffle would cheer him up

Brolin's bad deeds do not go unpunished though as he and his crooked cop cronies are outed by Lucas in exchange for a shorter prison sentence. Rather than face prison, Brolin's character decides to redecorate his head with some new holes courtesy of a revolver. Everyone feel better now that the dog killer offed himself? Good. Moving on. 8. The Movie: Signs The Set-Up: Before M. Night Shymalan, Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix all went certifiably insane from ego, biological imbalance and a publicity stunt respectively they all collaborated to make Signs in 2003. The movie centers on an alien invasion seen through the eyes of a family led by Gibson as the patriarch.

Tell us Mel, what race is a bigger threat: alien or every ethnic minority?

The family is tipped off that aliens are in their midst when massive crop circles begin appearing not only around their farm but also in other parts of the world. Apparently the aliens had the technology and superior intelligence to navigate the cosmos finding Earth but couldn't find their way around Earth without making massive crop signs to find their way around. At least that's what the citizens of Earth believe the crop circles mean. I would like to think that they were messages which translated things like "Dibs on Hawaii" or "Xenox is a douche". Anyway, Gibson's family is completed by Phoenix as his brother, a creepy Culkin kid as the older son, a daughter and two dogs. That's right two dogs. Which leads us to three scenarios: 1) Both dogs survive the invasion. 2) One dog dies to get sympathy from the audience but the audience still feels okay because one dog lives 3) The dogs are both killed in a disturbing manner but the Culkin mouth-breather kid survives. This is Shymalan. They both die. How Much It Upset Me: Meh. The way that the dogs were done in was disturbing as hell but they were never in the movie and the family didn't even care about them. Apparently the presence of the aliens caused strange behavior in animals and made them more aggressive. So during a barbecue Dog 1 starts to growl and this is cause enough for the Culkin kid to stab it in the heart with a steak knife. Okay, so obviously he wasn't the biggest fan of Dog 1. So now that they're down to 1 dog you would think they would be a little protective of it. Nope. With hours of prep time before the aliens attack the home the family finds time to board up every window and cook their last meal of choice. What they don't have time to do is get the bloody dog inside the house. We're then treated to listening to the aliens strangle/beat Dog 2 into silence. Maybe get a gerbil next time. 7. The Movie: 8 Below The Set-Up: I'm well aware this is the third Paul Walker movie I've referenced on this website. Shut up. Don't look at me like that. We find Mr. Walker this time as a guide in Antarctica at a US research base along with eight sled dogs and Jason Biggs. When a massive storm hits and the base must be evacuated Walker is told that the dogs will put the plane over the weight limit and must be left behind. Personally I found flaw with the script that they wouldn't at least debate leaving Jason Biggs behind and taking the dogs.

Jason Biggs = 4 dogs When it becomes evident that they won't be able to go back for the dogs for at least a few months, the movie shifts to a survival story centering on the dogs. Step one for the dogs is breaking the chains that the research team conveniently left them in before departing on the plane. One of the dogs dies of old age almost immediately. This is followed by another one that gets distracted looking at the northern lights and falls off a cliff. Yeah. I'm getting depressed just writing this stuff. Hold on, I have to light a few candles in here and block out any sunlight. How Much It Upset Me: It's a true story so not a lot of wiggle room for the writers. And the movie ends with 6 of the dogs surviving so an uplifting ending is still possible. What upset me most is the fact that the team tied up the dogs. I know they probably wanted to make sure they didn't wander thus making it easy to find and pick them up when the team came back from them. But didn't the possibility that they may not be able to go back for them immediately cross any one's mind? So the last image the dog had was their master tying them up, getting on a plane and leaving them in the coldest place on planet Earth. Given the short term memory of dogs, advantage: Paul Walker.

6. The Movie:: I Am Legend

The Set-Up:: Will Smith plays a government agent policing extraterrestrials who is forced to live in Bel Air with his parents. Oh excuuuuuse meeee if I don't actually take the time to watch these movies but the Wikipedia plot summaries are just as reliable. Actually, Will Smith plays Dr. Robert Neville who is supposedly the last man on Earth thanks to a virus (to which Neville is immune) that causes all humans to turn into zombies. The movie actually warns that the zombie apocalypse should be starting around 2010 which means there could be walking undead roaming the streets now looking for new flesh.

Kill it! Killlll Itttttt!!!

The only companion Neville has to keep him company is a German Shepherd left behind by his young daughter. Given that the director wants an emotional response from the audience by killing a character and there are only two characters in the movie, Smith and the dog, guess which one gets bitten by zombie dogs and meets the great Milkbone in the sky. I'll give a small hint. It has four legs and humps furniture.

How Much It Upset Me: Walking into this movie, one had to figure that the dog was probably not going to survive a zombie infested city. What made this particularly hard to watch was that Smith was forced to strangle his own dog to death as it slowly morphed into a killing machine in his arms. I will say Smith's facial expression was some solid acting as he slowly killed his only friend and link to his departed family. Doubling the creepiness factor was Smith humming Bob Marley's "Three Little Birds" right before committing the difficult act. Using an innocent song before or during a gruesome event. Someone should waste some hours off their life and write an article about that. 5. The Movie: Old Yeller The Set-Up: It was an inevitability for this to show up on the list at some point. One of the most well known sad endings that lives on as a classic to traumatize kids with grief over Old Yeller's fate along with instilling a powerful fear of rabies. It's pretty unnecessary to do a plot summary but in case there is a mystery surrounding the fate of the family dog here's a helpful equation: Dog + Rabies + Shotgun wielded by sobbing 14 year old + Movie made in time before Old Yeller Happy Meal toys were an option - 1 Man Card =

How Much It Upset Me: We're moving into the more brutal part of the list. I believe the first and last time I watched this movie was when I was around 8years old and I still remember it vividly. This is far from the only movie on the list that spends the whole movie introducing you to a dog and its connection to a family only to rip it away from you in the last 15 minutes of the movie. What actually upset me the most was that the entire reason I wanted to see the movie in the first place was because Old Yeller was a segment on one of the sing along VHS tapes I had when I was really young. How do I remember that tape if it was that long ago? Because I literally wore that tape out. As in it wouldn't play in the VCR anymore. Thanks to the glorious invention of the Internet here is the clip featuring Old Yeller himself:

As evidenced by the video, the movie Old Yeller looks like a fun romp featuring a loveable dog set in days of the frontier farms. Sure there's a fracas with a bear every once in awhile (which is unreal that they got the dog and bear to fight for the filming of a Disney movie) but overall it looks like a happy movie for those who haven't seen it. I guess a fourth verse to the song with Mickey head bouncing over lyrics detailing shooting a rabid animal wouldn't have sold a sing-along video too well. 4. The Movie:Turner and Hooch

The Set-Up: The 1989 Tom Hanks had probably never heard of anyone named Forrest Gump and the word Philadelphia brought to mind cheesesteaks and obnoxious fans instead of Oscar gold. Actually Hanks' career was floundering at that point. Big was still a blip on the future's horizon and Bonfire of the Vanities, The 'Burbs and Volunteers were not only box office misfires but they did little to boost his image as a solid leading man. Basically at this point he was an ab-less Matthew McCaughney. Enter the script for Turner and Hooch. Not to be confused with the upcoming buddy sitcom of the same name:

Hooch is crazy and Mr. Turner owns the Braves. Watch sitcom gold as they share a condo.

For those who have not seen the film, Tom Hanks plays a cop who forms an unlikely (isn't it always?) bond with a slobbering mutt who is the only witness to a key town murder. Hijinks and hilarity ensue as Hanks grows to love the dog only to watch it shot coming to his defense at the end of the movie. If you're looking for the video of Hooch actually getting shot, search for a therapist and say hi to Mike Vick for me. Vick is still a relevant reference right?

How Much It Upset Me: A lot. Thinking this was family friendly entertainment I was shown this movie when I was six. Not the ideal age to watch doggie go bye bye on a vet table as a sobbing Tom Hanks weeps over him. My parents were shocked at the ending as I would have been too. For all intents and purposes this was marketed as a semi-kids movie. If anyone else felt like this was a Disney movie he would be justified. Disney in effect made the movie but, I'm guessing due to the upsetting violence of the dog death, distributed it under the Touchstone Studios name. After some of Disney's stankest farts, Touchstone was/is the dog in the corner on which they were always blamed.

Hanks has made reference himself that the movie killed any Hooch merchandise by his death. But Big also came out in 1989 and this movie became an afterthought except to those who still fondly remember the one they call Hooch. Extra rant: It is a small step in the heartwarming direction watching the epilogue as Hanks and the destructive offspring of Hooch interact. What I found strange even back then and definitely now is the credits sequence in which stills of the movie are played in the background. Just in case you missed the plot point of Tom Hanks screaming at the dog in his grape smugglers, here's a reminder. Enjoy and yes that is Carl Winslow at the beginning of the clip. 3. The Movie: Marley and Me The Set-Up: Jennifer Aniston's biggest box office success resulted from riding the coattails of her four legged costar. The movie also starred Owen Wilson and chronicled the life of a Golden Retriever as well as the family with whom he grew up. Nothing particularly stands out about this movie but it will resonate with anyone who has ever owned a dog and dealt with the fun times, the frustrations and ultimately the loss. And when I say loss I don't mean Marley gets lost three quarters of the way through the movie and then there's a happy reunion at the end. I mean loss as in "our family knows the dog is sick and we're going to spend hours of deliberation and self-inflicted sorrow before we pull the trigger and do the humane thing." This, coupled with listening to Aniston deliver dialogue for two hours, makes it an incredibly depressing experience by the time the final credits roll. Funny that when the film first came out the marketers failed to mention this part. Awwww, wook at da puppy..... How Much It Upset Me: Ouch, quit it. There's a certain amount of understanding that goes into buying/adopting/finding a dog and taking it home. The owner will get considerable enjoyment and laughs from the four legged family member but in the back of his mind he knows the day is coming in which he'll have to say goodbye for good. And considering 12 years to a dog is getting into Monty Burns in human years the amount of time spent with the dog is somewhat limited. I'm not saying Marley and Me is an Oscar worthy movie and I thought much of the first two thirds was yawn-worthy but what it does scarily well is depict just how hard it is to say goodbye. When we put our boxer down I was 16 years old and it ripped me apart. This film will rip that scab open with authority to anyone who has ever had to hold his dog and say goodbye as its eyes shut the final time. What are you looking at? We just swept the floors of the house and some dust got in my eyes. Time for the home stretch of emotional scarring. 2. The Movie: All Dogs Go To Heaven The Set-Up: Renting movies in the Brooks household was a special event. So at the age of 7 when my parents left for a wedding and I was left home with my sister and the VHS rental of All Dogs Go To Heaven I was excited. I remember running through the house singing a celebration song the lyrics to which solely consisted of "All Dogs Go To Heaven, All Dogs Go To Heaven, All Dogs Go To Heaven". Lyrics on the same creativity level as a Fergie song. Suffice it to say that my viewing experience did not live up to expectations unless said expectations were to be scared so badly in parts that I was using my blanket like a riot shield. In the first twelve minutes, the dogs gamble at a casino and get the main protagonist dog (voiced by Burt Reynolds who sounds about as enthused to be in an animated movie as you would expect) drunk with the goal of killing him by running him over with a truck. So in the first twelve minutes they've managed to work in a first on this list: dog death as an indirect result of alcohol use. Little surprise that the creator of this movie, Don Bluth, is Irish. I'm not saying the Irish are inherently drunks but I'm white with little athleticism and a penchant for Coldplay. Stereotypes exist for a reason. "Uhhh Don, was that Bailey's bottle empty when you came in with it this morning? And where are your pants?" How Much It Upset Me: This film stuck with me for awhile and not because I enjoyed it. Even at that young age I saw the hapless attempt to recreate Disney success by randomly forcing songs into the plot line. And just because you can wave enough money and Denny's coupons in front of Burt Reynolds to make him sing, doesn't mean you should. What disturbed me the most though was that, because Burt Reynolds dog came back to Earth after death, he forfeited his place in heaven. As a result, he's haunted in dreams by the equivalent of the Dog Devil.

No. Completely wrong.

Closer but add a touch less "crazy owner" and a smidgen more "bed-wetting night terror"

Good enough.

It amazes me that there was enough support for this movie to support a theatrical sequel, a TV show and a Christmas special. I dug around online and I guess critics liked it because it taught kids at a young age to think about life after death. Not only was my 7 year old mind incapable of processing that kind of information, I didn't care to unless the secret to life after death was lodged somewhere in my nose in which case I would gladly spend countless hours searching for it. You would think Satan Dog would be the last entry on the list but there was still one more dog death in film that upset me more. Thankfully I don't think anyone else saw it. The Movie: Stone Fox The Set-Up: After studying the Iditarod in third grade, our teacher showed us a movie. It wasn't about the Iditarod. It was just about dog sled racing but any movie that showed any sort of relevance to the lesson would be gladly employed by the teacher just so she wouldn't have to talk for two hours. I would give the educational system a letter grade but I don't know which letter would represent a mouth fart while rolling my eyes. The movie was called Stone Fox and it basically told the story of a poor boy living with his huskie and grandfather in Alaska. The grandfather gets sick and the family can't afford medicine so the boy enters a local dog sled race for a cash prize. The problem is that instead of a team of dogs to pull his sled, he just has the one huskie. But it's okay because the boy and the sled are really light. This is the equivalent of entering the Indy 500 with a John Deere lawn mower and attaching a sail to even up the odds. Because of some shortcut across the frozen lake, the boy is in a position to win when the dog drops dead in slow motion from a heart attack. The boy still wins because some Native American bad ass threatens to shoot anyone that passes the kid as he carries his dog across the finish line.

Cool Runnings definitely stole the ending

How Much It Upset Me: Through the roof. The only proof I have is that 17 years later I still remember the ending of a movie starring Uncle Jed from "The Beverly Hillbillies."

See?

It looked like such an uplifting ending. The boy's grandfather was going to get his medicine and they could all move out of the run-down cabin. The dog's love and the boy's perseverance pulled the family out of debt. People who actually spent time and money on dog racing were going to lose to a one man amateur team. I could have gone without this ending of the dog's heart exploding like John Candy's after a Baconator bender.

Miss you, John (drinks from Crisco bottle and then pours some on ground)

That's it. The absolute most depressing compilation list I've ever made. I'll be in the bathroom crying and reading uplifting snippets from Reader's Digest if anyone needs me. Let me know what the next list should be. And my heart is too fragile right now to do "Top 10 Movies Playing in the Background as Curt Was Shot Down By Various Women". At the very least that title would need work. Go hug your dog. If you don't have a dog, here's trampoline dog.

Review: Avatar

I think that one of my favorite things about watching movies is the discussion that comes along afterward. It’s always really interesting to me to see how two people sitting next to each other in the same theater can have such disparate experiences with the same film. I like to try and use those discussions to get a read on each of my friends, what do they like in movies? What don’t they like? Then, I can use this information to try and recommend movies that they haven’t heard of, or would never have watched on their own. There are few feelings as satisfying as being able to discover an underrated gem, or some small indie movie, and to have someone fall in love with that film based on your recommendation.

In that vein, I think there was one movie in 2009 that seems to have flown under everyone’s radar, and that was a film called “Avatar”. You probably haven’t heard of it, because it didn’t get a very wide release, but Avatar was actually written by the same individual that was responsible for Titanic and The Terminator (two films that are still widely loved at most art-house film festivals). Avatar, similar to the director’s previous fare, is a very understated work. Most of the film’s three-hour running time is spent largely on character development, and you really have to be paying attention to pick up on the subtleties that Cameron uses to advance the plot. Spoiler Alert: I didn’t pick it up my first time through, but on repeat viewings, I’m starting to get the feeling that this film is actually trying to make a statement about the way our culture has mishandled the Earth and our natural environment. Personally, I think that’s a rather brave stance to take. You don’t often see people, especially in Hollywood, that have the courage to draw a line in the sand and declare themselves as firmly against global warming.

Alright, well, that was fun, but it’s probably time to turn my sarcasm filter off and actually talk about the movie, right? Avatar, for those of you that have just recently returned from a 3 year mission to the International Space Station, is James Cameron’s latest big-budget blockbuster. A film many years in the making, Avatar weaves a tale of mankind far into the future. Once we have drained all the resources from our own planet, we go out looking for another planet we can mine for resources. It’s not a very original plot, as you can probably name five movies, video games, and comic books that have aliens coming to Earth for that exact reason. However, it does give the film a slightly fresh twist in that we the humans are the bad guys this time around.

Honestly, I wouldn’t worry too much about the story. It’s serviceable enough to carry you through the film, but it lacks any type of subtlety that would really allow you to identify with it. The foreshadowing comes down like a hammer, meaning that if any of the plot twists in this movie take you by surprise, you probably were just in the bathroom during the scene that set the twist up. Speaking of heavy-handed, yeah, the environmental message in this movie acts like a bully at your community swimming pool. It seems to derive copious amounts of joy from holding your head under the water with all its might, only letting you up for brief gaps of air to ensure that you don’t actually end up with brain damage.

That said, if you were going to see Avatar for the story, perhaps you really do have brain damage. The reason that we all went to see Avatar was for the big budget effects, the new technology, and to check out this film that was pegged as “the next great advancement for cinema.” Personally, I caught the film in IMAX 3-D, and I’d be lying if I said that it didn’t blow me away. Between the 3-D, the level of sophistication in the digital effects, the whole thing had a very epic quality to it. I’ve often heard stories where people relate their experience of seeing Star Wars on the big screen back in 1977, and how they just knew it was going to change everything. I don’t know if I’d go that far with Avatar, since it’s going to be a while before those type of effects are common-place in a major film. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 years down the road, I was telling my kids a story about how I was one of the lucky ones that saw Avatar in theaters.

So, even if we’re only here for the action, we still need something to hold the film together. Since it certainly wasn’t the script, that role fell down to the actors. In general, I was pretty impressed all around, which feels odd to say for a movie that can go upwards of 30 minutes without ever showing an actual human being on screen. Thankfully, Cameron was smart enough to use copious amounts of motion and facial capture, to allow his actors’ performances to shine through their digital…….um…….avatars, I guess. I was pretty worried going into this movie about how I would react to a film that was 95% CGI. The good news is that the Navi (the tall, blue, indigenous population of the planet we humans are out to rape and pillage) are much more Gollum than Jar-Jar.  The highlight for me was Sam Worthingon. I’ve only seen him in two or three things now, but so far, I like what I see. He seems to be entrenched pretty firmly in the big-budget, CGI-laden, summer blockbusters at this point, but I think they work perfectly for him.  In Avatar, he really served to anchor the film, and he was one of the few characters that you could actually identify with. The real drawbacks for me were the “villains”, these evil corporate executives and military contractors. They were such one-note characters, and were so ridiculously over-the-top and evil that I found them to just be overkill.

From the perspective of direction, I was actually pretty impressed. When action scenes started to heat up, Cameron kept them coming fast and furious. The camera zipped around the screen, and the fact that the movie was mostly digital effects, meant that Cameron could put the camera anywhere he wanted to, and that created some really cool shots. Thankfully, no matter how intense a battle got, or how many things were happening on screen, you could always follow what was happening. Cameron is a master of framing his shots and for directing your attention to whatever it is he wants you to see. You always have a read on who is winning each particular battle, and where each of the main characters are in the battlefield. Michael Bay, are you taking notes?

So, in conclusion, should you see Avatar? Well, you probably already did. This thing is the highest grossing film of all time (and I’m so far behind with actually typing up this review that the film is already on DVD). Avatar was exactly what we expected it to be. It was a cinematic achievement, it raised the bar for technology and special effects in films, and it was one of the heralds of 3-D technology in movies. If you don’t believe me, check out the movies playing in your local theater right now, chances are, half of them will be available in 3-D. Personally, I’m not too big of a fan. The 3-D in Avatar was amazing, but I’m just not sure that other films will benefit as much. Going to the movies is already expensive enough, when you tack on the additional $5 or so that it typically costs to catch the movie in 3-D, you better make damn sure that you really want to see this movie in theaters. This is especially true for those of you with a little patience, because if you’re willing to hold out for four months, you’ll be able to own the DVD for the same price.

(And speaking of DVD, what is up with the standard release they trotted out a few months back? Do they really think people are stupid enough to buy that? Come on. You know that they’re going to churn out some epic 8-disc Blu-ray collectors set once Christmas comes around. To be honest, I’m tempted to pick it up. I have a feeling that all of the behind the scenes stuff would be really interesting, and would probably give you a greater appreciation for all of the advances in technology and cinematic innovations that Cameron shepherded in in order to be able to make this film. Also, who doesn’t like a good blooper reel?)

If you didn’t catch Avatar in theaters, that really is too bad. I can’t imagine that it would affect you the same way when you’re sitting at home on your own 32” television. But then again, maybe that says everything about the kind of movie Avatar is. When you have to sit down and view it on its own merits as a story, the whole thing falls apart to some degree. It really was the IMAX screen, the HD effects, and the pioneering use of 3-D that will cause people to remember this film. If you missed it the first time around, you should probably either keep your fingers crossed that it gets an IMAX release some time in the future, or you’ll just have to wait 30 years until technology gives your ability to re-create the same experience in your own home (Be sure to tell your grandkids I said “Hi”).

Despite all its flaws, Avatar was innovative, unique, and was the first big-budget film I’ve seen in a LONG time that wasn’t a remake, or based on a novel, comic, video game, etc. For that fact alone, I’m willing to share three beers with Avatar if we were to meet up at a bar. However, we should probably make sure we recycle the cans/bottles, for some reason I get the feeling like I should start taking better care of the Earth.

Review: Glengarry Glenross

A good script is a rare thing in Hollywood these days. A good script with excellent dialogue is even rarer. And a good script with excellent dialogue, no explosions, no CGI and a studio greenlight for wide release is rarer than a purple unicorn frolicking in a valley filled with women who hold a high opinion of me.  So when one actually threads the Hollywood eye of the needle and is released for our viewing pleasure, it has the potential to become a classic. Glengarry Glenross was released in 1992 when I was eight years old and just figuring out that "smoking grass" didn't mean going out to the front yard and lighting blades of grass on fire. Yes...yes that is a true story. Glengarry became one of those movies that I knew I should see yet I just never found the time to watch it. I knew it featured a guy's guy cast of Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris and Alan Arkin. To be fair the movie was originally a play written by David Mamet. There are really only six scenes in the movie that take place in three different locations. With scenes that last this long it's imperative to develop a story and dialogue that will keep the audience entertained. The story centers around four land salesmen who are given an ultimatum at the outset of the movie: Whoever sells the least amount by the end of the month is fired. With their jobs on the line these four men (whose morals are already suspect) sink even further into an unscrupulous abyss. And it's fascinating watching them slowly circle the drain. The dialogue is expertly written and performed which is especially important because with no special effects or action of any kind it's the only thing keeping the audience in the story. I'm a fan of overlapping dialogue by actors talented enough to pull it off (i.e. Good Night and Good Luck) and this movie could write a textbook on how it can be used effectively.

If there is one possible flaw in this movie, it's the one potential landmine that every Al Pacino movie must try to navigate. There will be those who say that Pacino chews the scenery and overacts here (as many say he does in every role since The Godfather). I personally find it more entertaining when Pacino is over the top and borderline psychotic. He and Jack Lemmon hold the movie together respectively as the major mover and shaker salesman of the company and a salesman who is past his prime but refusing to accept it. This would be a great movie on its own but when you couple in the fact that this includes one if not the greatest insult laden speech by a scene-stealing Alec Baldwin, Glengarry Glenross is propelled into the upper echelon of movies that is still being discussed almost twenty years later by an untalented 25 year old writer. Seriously though, the Baldwin speech is everything that I wish I could be as a boss but alas I will never have cajones that big. Mark Wahlberg in The Departed is the only other role I can think of in which a character had so many classic one-liners in so little screen time. Out of a total of 5 I would buy Glengarry Glenross 5 gin and tonics at the local bar. Then I'd even let Pacino try to sell me some real estate.

A Brief Intermission

Taking a quick break from the reviewing format, I would like to announce that June 13th was the quarter century mark for Nick who will likely celebrate today by....continuing to go to work and keep up with the daily grind. Get back to blogging!

Review: The Infernal Departed Affairs

Two messengers deliver identical messages. One messenger is from Hong Kong and delivers the message in 2003. The other messenger is from Boston (or Bahhston for you in the Northeast) and delivers the same message three years later presumably because he got distracted by the Red Sox/Bruins/Celtics for three years. Is one messenger favored over the other just because they delivered the message in different styles?

The Departed hit theaters in October of 2006 boasting an impressive man's man cast headed by Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon. It just got really hot in here so take a moment to swoon if needed. And I don't just mean the female readers. Martin Scorcese directed this crime drama of deception, suspense and enough Boston accents to choke a Catholic guilt filled Irishman. I won't waste anyone's time reviewing The Departed. If you haven't watched it, rectify that situation. It's easily in my personal top 10. It's well acted by a perfectly selected cast of characters with a story that's suspenseful, exciting and at times hysterically funny. It's a testament to how Scorcese's talent as a director isn't slowing down with his age (unlike my ever expanding tummy).

Leaving the movie theater after my first viewing of The Departed in the fall of 2006 I was informed by fellow writer Nick Connors 1) to get my feet off the dashboard of his Jeep 2) that The Departed was actually based on a movie out of Hong Kong from 2003. I wasn't necessarily surprised given that most scripts floating around Hollywood are based on a book, video game, short story, TV show, childhood toy, household appliance or are just a remake of another movie. Now, five years and one Netflix subscription later I finally watched the original film Infernal Affairs.

Considering it was the source work for a Martin Scorcese film, it's not surprising that I found the movie excellent. Normally I don't like reading subtitles unless it's to tell me that Godzilla's coming or VH1's Pop-up Video (yeah, you remember that show) but I didn't mind following the dialogue in subtitle format here. It also didn't impede my comprehension of the story. While I thought the movie was well done I didn't necessarily enjoy watching it. I already knew the story and as the movie progressed, I began to realize that The Departed is (quite literally in some cases) a shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs. Granted the dialogue has been changed in a few places to accommodate the Boston vibe and some of the scenes are out of order but for the most part it's a direct remake right down to the locations of most of the scenes.

Infernal Affairs was also the first of a trilogy. The second film, which delves into the origins of the characters prior to the first movie, is great while the third movie is only so-so. The third film was too confusing to me with the storyline constantly switching between 6 months before the first movie and 6 months after the first movie. As a stand-alone trilogy, they make a solid three films and are definitely worth watching especially if you enjoyed The Departed.

What I have a hard time accepting is that the Hollywood Academy chose to (finally) bestow an Oscar to Mr. Scorcese for this film. Don't get misinterpret that I didn't think The Departed was deserving. I was happy that it won. It's just a little confusing that after the legendary films Scorcese has helmed which the Academy snubbed, they would finally reward him with the coveted Oscar for directing a remake. Most directors would kill to make just one of the many, many quality movies Scorcese has made: Mean Streets, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Taxi Driver , Goodfellas and even slightly lesser fare like Gangs of New York, Casino or The Aviator. All of these films the Academy never acknowledged for Best Picture or Best Director. Some of these snubs were understandable such as losing Best Director in 1989 to Barry Levinson for Rain Man Some snubs were questionable like Dances With Wolves/Costner winning in 1990 over Goodfellas. And some are anger inducing even today like Redford beating out Raging Bull with the suckfest that is and was Ordinary People. Giving Scorcese the Oscar for The Departed felt like a charity gift in an effort to begin to apologize for the all the times they screwed him over.

I give The Departed five Guiness car bombs (the highest honor I can give a Boston film aside from three helpings of shepherds pie). Infernal Affairs can have 5sake bombs and then try to explain to me one more time how Hong Kong is different from China. And that's about as political as this site will get.

Sorry for the long layoff. I can't even keep up commitments on things I enjoy.

Review: Fast and Furious

I like Paul Walker.

There. Now it's out there.

I don't need to elaborate on why I like him. I probably couldn't even if I wanted to try. He's the Carlos Zambrano of acting. I know he's going to perform horribly but I get my hopes up before every performance thinking this time could be different. I'm aware that he's not the most gifted actor and every character he plays is pretty much exactly the same. Whether it's a quarterback, soldier, government agent, conflicted undercover government agent or some combination of those choices he always plays the stereotypical "cool, tough guy with a slightly sensitive side". Actually, some psychiatrist would probably say that the reason I like him despite his poor acting is because I want to be like the characters he plays. Ouch. Self-revelation stings.

Brief side note tangent: I don't know what clause Paul Walker has in his acting contract that he be allowed to have sex with the female lead on a washing machine but it's happened twice now in Varsity Blues (before Billy Bob gave his dinosaurs a holler) and again in Running Scared.

The Fast and the Furious came out in 2001 to the delight of 16-18 year old boys who wanted to drag race each other out of the parking lot of the movie theater. For me, it meant pushing my 1994 Ford Taurus all the way up to 82 mph on I-65 before the car and my hands started to shake. The movie was a success and naturally the sequels followed. There was 2 Fast 2 Furious which I thought was way too fast yet inadequate on the furious side. The third installment was called Tokyo Drift which I'm pretty sure is the term for a Japanese guy farting on you as he walks by. I could be wrong though since I didn't see the movie. By the time the third movie came out not one of the original actors was left.

Apparently all the acting roles dried up for Michelle Rodriguez, Paul Walker, Vin Diesel, and Jordana Brewster although in fairness I don't think Brewster had any roles since the first movie. They're all back for a fourth round though as you can tell from the poster.



When I first saw the title for Fast and Furious I thought they had made a mini-documentary describing Kingsley's demeanor as he chased me down an alley after Nick lied that I was going to Julie's. Unfortunately, Fast and Furious is just the fourth movie in the car racing franchise. Not much has changed since the last time we saw all of these characters together. Paul Walker is somehow still a government agent. I would love to say this is the movie where he proves me wrong and gives a great performance without woodenly reading his lines but I would be lying.

Michelle Rodriguez is still the extreme, always yelling girlfriend of Vin Diesel. It's sad to see that Vin's character Dom is still suffering from the condition of arm overheating thus preventing him from wearing sleeves....ever. Oh and Brewster is back as Dom's sister to provide emotional support. And by that I mean she's there for Paul Walker to hook up with again. Only this time it's on a kitchen counter. Nice move up from the washing machine Paul. It's quicker access for her to make you a sandwich from there when you're done. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Calm down feminists.

There's not really much to review here in terms of a plot. After splitting from his girlfriend for her own safety, Dom goes off on his own only to discover that his girlfriend has been murdered anyway. This is where Diesel really excels as he spends the remainder of the movie in deep discussions with the other characters regarding the true nature of good and evil along with the futility of a human life. Nah, I'm kidding. He drives cars into people, buildings and other cars while blowing sh*t up. While working as a driver for the drug dealer responsible for Rodriguez's death, he encounters Paul Walker who is also working undercover to bring down the same man. Since both know the other's ulterior motive they're forced to work together and rest assured there will be a bro hug at the end of this.

This is pure summer entertainment and the filmmakers know it. There's never more than 10 minutes of dialogue before another action/chase scene. I've always thought these movies must be easy for the actors to make since all the chase scenes require is to make worried faces, act like they're shifting gears and occasionally look in the rear view mirror. The rest they leave to the stunt drivers. It's nice to see Walker and Diesel accepting their place in the movie food chain making the kind of movie they're good at making and the public wants to see. I could be trite and arrogant in pointing out the weak dialogue and the impossibility of some of the chase scenes (100 mph in an underground labyrinth in the dark?) but who really goes to the summer movies expecting believability?

While I don't live my life a quarter mile at a time (it's actually 32 miles at a time which is the distance of my commute), I can enjoy a good summer popcorn movie. Plus it's Paul Walker so I can't hate it too much. That doesn't save it from an average rating though. I would buy this movie 3 beers. Perhaps 3 Bud Heavys otherwise known as Bud Diesels. Get it? Diesel? Like Vin Diesel? Yeah, yeah I know. Ten minutes on the timeout stool.

Review: The Slammin' Salmon

The Slammin' Salmon is  the latest outing by comedy troupe Broken Lizard, the guys who brought us Super Troopers and Beerfest. This time around, the entire movie takes place during a single evening at the titular restaurant, with a majority of the wait-staff being played by the Lizards. The plot essentially boils down to the fact that the owner of the restaurant has laid down a challenge: the top-selling waiter of the evening will win a prize, and the waiter with the lowest total gets punched in the stomach.

The plot is (as you can probably tell) fairly simplistic, but it actually works well here. Rather than allowing themselves to get bogged down in a plot that reaches too far or becomes overcomplicated, setting the entire film in a single location allows you to spend the 90 minutes focused solely on character development. Now, this isn't character development in the traditional sense, but you do get a a sense for who all these characters are, and they establish nice little quirks or personality traits for each of the characters that helps to draw the humor out during the rest of the film.

All of the Lizards do a fine job at playing their particular roles. If you liked their style or sense of humor in their previous films, you will feel right at home in this one. They each ended up with a few scenes/lines that made me laugh, and there weren't any weak links. No one member particularly outshines all the others, but Jay Chandrasekhar is particularly hilarious as"Nuts", even if his character doesn't seem to get as much screen time as some of the other leads. Among the non-Broken Lizards stepping into lead roles is Michael Clark Duncan as the owner of the restaurant. Ducan isn't typically known as a comedic actor, though he has dipped his toe in the waters from time to time. In this film though, he steals nearly every scene he's in. He perfectly nails the character as both equal parts dim-witten and intimidating, and he has a number of fantastic one-liners that I have found myself referencing numerous times since I saw the film. The rest of the roles are filled out by a string of cameos from individuals playing patrons at the restaurant. The performances here vary, but it will keep you entertained to see what actor/actress is going to pop up next, and they run a nice mix between new talent and a number of folks you'll recognize from previous Broken Lizard movies.

The first question people will ask when they found you saw this movie will inevitably by "Was this as good as Beerfest or Super Troopers?" Unfortunately, my answer to that would be "no." That's not to say that it was a bad movie, but at this point I just don't think people will be talking about this one with the same fondness so many hold for the Lizard's previous work. That said, I certainly wasn't disappointed with the film, and yes Spud, it is definitely better than Club Dread. It provided more than enough laughs, the characters again found that perfect mix of unique and relateable, and I can easily see myself quoting lines to this movie with friends months and years down the road. This solid outing keeps me firmly entrenched in the "fan" camp for Broken Lizard, and while I wouldn't rate this as their best work, I'm certainly on board for whatever they cook up next. (PUN!)

After its shift is over, I'd take this movie out for three rounds on me. Duncan gets to pick what we drink.

Review: Boxboarders!

Every so often, a film comes along that touches us in a way that only Curt likes to be touched. Boxboarders! is one of those films.

I discovered Boxboarders! (yes, the exclamation point is part of the official title) when I was scrolling though a list of films that were recently added to Netflix's online streaming service. The film tells the stories of two "surfers" (who will not once be seen surfing during the entirety of the film) Ty Neptune and James James (not a typo). During a moment of boredom/genius, James decides (for reasons left unexplained) to take a refrigerator box and strap it to the top of a skateboard. He then sits inside the box and rides it down a hill. He crashes. This is essentially the point of the whole film. The rest of the 90 minutes are filled with your typical archetypes of the rich boy who wants to steal the idea, the stuck up girl who taunts our heroes, the down-to-earth girl that we should have been with all along,  a tormented younger brother, and two other guys who says "gnarly" a lot. The entire movie is pretty standard fare for the early 1990s, or at least it would be if it wasn't made in 2007. You owe it to yourself to check out the trailer on IMDB.

Based on that description, you would probably assume that I didn't like Boxboarders!, but that was actually not the case. Don't get me wrong, this movie definitely has its flaws. A number of the moments are so cliche that I was quoting the dialog along with the characters (even though I've never seen the movie), the plot takes certain turns that seem to have no basis, entire subplots are created and then forgotten in a single scene, and the shakey-cam could rival Michael Mann's best (and I don't think that's done intentionally). 

All of that being said, this feels like exactly the kind of movie that I would make if someone gave me a few thousand bucks and a video camera. Maybe that's why I found it so endearing. You can't help but feel like these people enjoyed the hell out of themselves as they made the movie. You won't recognize any of the main characters in this one (although the "villain" looks exactly like Mitchell Goosen from the 1993 film Airborne) but a few of their parents are played by actors you might recognize. The two most recognizable are The Office's Melora Hardin, and the always unbelievable Stephen Tobolowski. Not sure how Tobolowski found his way into this movie, but his role as the quirky, therapist Dad was pretty funny. He once again proves that he can be entertaining and likable in absolutely anything and everything he's in. If this guy isn't your favorite character actor in Hollywood, then you just clearly haven't seen the fantastic documentary Stephen Tobolowski's Birthday Party (and shame on you for that).

Boxboarders! is not a great movie, but in the right frame of mind, it can be really enjoyable. I watched the movie with a few beers and a few friends and found that I rarely stopped laughing. The laughter was a mix of intentional and unintentional on the part of the film, but I can't say that I wasn't entertained. If you and a friend are ever sitting around one night, bored and looking for something to do, keep Boxboarders! in mind. Might I suggest the drinking game we tried:

Take one drink every time:

1) Someone says "dude"

2) A challenge is thrown down

3) Someone crashes in their boxboard (take a shot if that crash takes place in water)

4) A main character fantasizes about the popular girl

5) A pun is made using the word "box"

6) "The Lizardman" appears on screen

7) The little brother screams

In short, Boxboarders! perfectly walks that line of "so bad it's good" and "entertaining enough to be watchable while I laugh." This is the exact quality that used to make films perfect fodder for the guys at MST3K, and I think you will find yourself doing the exact same thing as you watch this movie yourself. I would have hated this movie if it tried to take itself too seriously, but instead it seemed like it was just a small group of people trying to have a good time, and you can't knock that. I wont cheapen our rating system by inflating this movie's score, so I think I can only offer to buy it two drinks were we to cross paths at a bar. If you watch this movie with friends and make a night of it, you can easily add another drink onto that total.

Review: Extract

Mike Judge is a comedy god. I’ll just get that out of the way up front. Not only is he responsible for Beavis & Butthead (which defined humor and fart jokes for my entire generation), but he has also maintained a film career consisting of nothing but cult favorites. Office Space is, as we all know, one of the best satires of the corporate workplace in history, and Idiocracy is one of my absolutely favorite films, a largely-ignored comedy gem that never fails to make me laugh. To follow up on that pedigree is no easy task.

Judge’s latest foray onto the silver screen is Extract, another comedy set around the inter-workings of an office, only this time we’ve swapped out the cubicle farm for a factory that makes flavor extracts. The plot is comparable to most of Judge’s other movies. There is one particular element that drives the main plot, but most of the movie is comprised of the smaller things that happen to the characters along the way. It’s the perfect setup for this type of movie, as the plot remains coherent, but it leaves you much more leeway to keep the focus where it belongs, on the characters.

And the characters in this movie are fantastic. I think this comes from a combination of Judge’s comedic writing, and the pitch-perfect cast he has gathered for this film. This is far and away the movie’s biggest strength. Jason Bateman makes a solid anchor for a cast that largely tips toward the eccentric. He plays a quality foil for the other actors, and remains relate-able as the everyman we are supposed to connect with. His three years of training on Arrested Development serve him well here.

The supporting cast is all pretty well developed for a 90-minute comedy. They each have a particular character quirk that they rely on, but it’s done in a way where they don’t just come off as one-note characters. Ben Affleck makes a nice return to work his comedic chops as Bateman’s best friend, JK Simmons continues his bid to become the most underrated comedic actor of the last five years, and Beth Grant cracked me up almost the entire time she was on screen. Also, if you don’t get at least a chuckle out of Grant’s outfits in this movie, you are dead inside. One final supporting player worth mentioning is David Koechner, who plays Bateman’s neighbor. This is the only character that does just sort of repeat the same joke over and over, but for me, it worked. Koechner was really funny in those scenes, was great at drawing out the awkward humor in the moment, and played a fantastic dorky neighbor, which was a nice change of pace from the overly confident characters he typically portrays.

The only fault I found with this movie is that it was a bit uneven. There are moments in here that are classic Judge, but the humor wasn’t as consistent as with some of his other movies. I’m afraid that people are going to write this movie off because it’s not Office Space, and I don’t really think that that’s a fair comparison. Honestly, those people didn’t give Office Space a chance either, and that movie floundered on the shelf at Blockbuster for like 2 years after it had been released. I have a feeling that time will be kind to Extract, and it will be one of those movies that people do start to pick up on a few years down the road once they stop watching it through the goggles of “From the guy who brought you Office Space.”

I would buy Extract four beers and plan for a quality night out with the boys. I'm looking forward to re-watching this movie in the future, and I might even add an extra drink onto the total, but I’m drawing the line if it asks me to start doing hits of Special K.

Review: Year One

What is the purpose of the “Unrated Version” of a movie? It seems like every single comedy that has come out in the last 8 years has been released on DVD as an “Unrated Version.” I’m not sure if I understand why. Yes, I realize that these versions typically have an extra shot of boobs or a few more offensive or gross-out jokes, but were they worth of the brand of “unrated”? If you showed one more pair of boobs in Old School was the MPAA going to slap you with the dreaded X rating? Would one more fart joke in Knocked Up have forced it to spend its days sitting next to Showgirls on the NC-17 shelf? Doubtful. In fact, this is another way for the studio to pander to its audience. We buy the unrated version because it seems cooler, we want to see what they left out of the theatrical cut, and because everybody likes boobs. And for this, we pay the extra three dollars.

I bring this up because the copy of Year One that Netflix sent my way was the unrated version. This was my first red flag, as the movie itself went to theaters as a PG-13. Am I really supposed to believe that a movie with the potential to be so hardcore that it would be left unrated, ended up tame enough for 8th graders? After having watched the unrated version of this film, I cannot for the life of me determine what was so “unrated” about the movie. I am disappointed in myself for having bought into the marketing machine, but I also feel a bit let down that the movie itself felt so tame and so……………..rated.

Speaking of feeling let down, let’s actually get this review rolling shall we? Year One is the tale of two cavemen (Michael Cera and Jack Black) on what essentially boils down to a road trip. It’s territory that has been trodden many times before, but it was probably the best way to handle a movie like this. I say that because the movie was largely lacking in plot. The whole thing almost felt like I was watching something more in the vein of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Not so much with the quality of the humor, but in the sense that there were a number of scenes that boiled down to little more than comedy skits, and the thread that held the skits together was thin at best. For proof of this, look no further than the scene where Michael Cera finds himself in danger with a large snake. He gets himself into this situation, and then..............the camera fades to black. The next shot is the two lead characters walking through the woods as if nothing happened and talking about something entirely different. Are you serious? That just screams of lazy writing to me. They worked the character into a situation, had no good ideas to get him out of it, and so they just ended that skit and started the next one? Sadly, this is not the only time this happens in the movie.

That’s not to say that this model is all bad. In fact, it does service what I think is the best part of this movie: the cast. Cera and Black do a pretty good job, but they really don’t do much more than play their typical Cera and Black characters. However, the supporting cast is fantastic, with cameos from David Cross, Paul Rudd, Paul Sheer, and a number of others that I don’t want to spoil. It’s these cameos that keep you going in the movie. Bill Hader is hilarious in the movie, and you probably won’t even realize that he was in it. I was willing to overlook the fact that two cavemen went up a mountain and came down the other side in the middle of the Roman Empire, because it meant that we got to meet new characters. If you’re anything like me, you’ll basically spend the entire movie wondering what historical character is going to pop out next, and what awesome comedic actor will they have playing them.

Year One has its funny moments, but the humor is definitely lowest common denominator. Don’t get me wrong, I was laughing, but I expected a lot more from this cast and crew. I’d still buy the movie two beers, but those are both earmarked for the actors that dropped in for cameos.

Review: Surrogates

Surrogates is a movie that tries to imagine what life would be like if we each had a personal robot that we could send out into the world for us. Think of it like Wall-E for adults.

This was a movie that I was really looking forward to because I’m a fan of the source material. Surrogates came to life as a five-issue comic book miniseries that I think was pretty entertaining. My biggest fear from the start is that the movie would need to be padded like crazy, as the original comic was not a long story. In order to avoid the crutch of having to pad out the movie, the movie does divert from the source material. The general concept and characters are largely the same, but most of the smaller plot points are original. The overall story isn’t mindblowing, but it moves along at a fast enough clip and should keep you entertained. There are more than a few flaws in the plot’s logic, but a few handfuls of popcorn should help you look past them. Similar to my earlier comparison with Wall-E, the movie is a bit heavy-handed in its social commentary. I don’t particularly like having a message beaten over my head, but as a movie, I was able to enjoy it. Like my fellow reviewer Curt said in his District 9 review, movies with an allegory still need to be entertaining enough to stand on their own.

While the movie had flaws, there were two things about it that I really liked. First of all, the effect that they used for the titular surrogates was really cool. I don’t know if it was makeup, CGI, or a combination of the two, but I love the look they achieved. All of the surrogates looked like humans (as they were all played by the actors themselves), but there was also something about them that was “off,” especially with their skin. The skin just looked wrong, and it was perfect because it constantly reminded you that you weren’t looking at humans. It was done so in a way as to not be distracting, but as you watched the scene, you definitely knew it was there. On the other side of the coin, they also did a great job of making all of the humans in the movie look sufficiently more “worn” than their surrogate counterparts. It was a nice dynamic that helped sell the message the movie continued to push. The who concept of the surrogates added helped to add a cool sci-fi element to the movie. It presents you with a future that’s a bit more realistic than something as clean and technology driven than we see in most sci-fi fare.

The other thing I really liked about the movie was Bruce Willis’ performance, particularly as the human character. He did a great job of conveying the emotions of someone who was seeing the world for the first time in a long while. He gave you an idea for how alone the character felt, as although he was surrounded by people, they weren’t really people. It’s my opinion that Willis is the best thing about this movie by far. You could make an argument that his acting as the surrogate was pretty stiff, but I’m going to assume that was done on purpose.

Out of a total of five, I would buy Surrogates 3 beers. That’s only if we were humans though. If we went out as our surrogate robots, I guess I would have to buy us glasses of……oil! Holy shit. Do you see what I did there? Did you picture it in your head? Robots drinking oil at a bar. They’d be just like people. Oh man. Ha ha ha……ha…………………….ha……………………………………….wheeeeeew.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

As the most popular character coming out of the X-Men film trilogy, and one of the cooler characters in all of comic-dom, it makes sense that Wolverine would eventually get his own film. This film serves as a prequel to the original X-Men film, taking you through Wolverine’s origin story and up until the point of the first film.

My knowledge of the X-Men comes almost exclusively from the early 90s Fox animated series. I don’t really know anything about the comics, and as such, I can neither confirm nor deny how accurate this origin story is. If I had to guess based on my gut reaction (and my history with origin stories) it probably hits on two or three main elements, and then makes up the rest. That being said, any major fans of Wolverine may find themselves upset at changes made by the film, but since I was oblivious, I was able to keep my panties out of the proverbial twist.

From a plot perspective, I found the movie pretty lacking. There wasn’t really much of a thread connecting the film, there were just scenes that took place in between action set pieces. The only two characters that are consistent are Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber). The rest of the movie is filled with other characters that make five-minute cameos and then fight each other for a variety of reasons (both clear and confusing). It honestly reminded me of playing a video game. When I pick a character in Street Fighter, the game isn’t over until I’ve fought every other character. I beat one, and the next fight starts. That’s what this movie felt like. Characters were introduced, then there was a big fight, and then they were gone, never to be heard from again.

This method of plotting the film is probably due to their strategy for this franchise in the future. Although the movie is called “Wolverine,” it really felt more like a showcase to set up other Marvel characters. They introduce familiar names like Deadpool and Gambit, and you can almost feel the studio going “How do you feel about this character? Would you watch a movie that was just them?” Regardless of the fact that, yes, I would probably go see Ryan Reynolds in a Deadpool movie, I felt a little cheated. I wanted to see a fully fleshed out movie about Wolverine, and instead I felt like they used Wolverine to lure me in, and then just showed me previews of coming attractions to gauge my interest level (and no doubt sign actors into binding contracts requiring them to play the characters in any sequels/spin-offs).

Ignoring the plot, there were some enjoyable things about this movie. The big fight scenes were typically fun, and there is something that is endlessly entertaining about watching a guy cause havoc with sweet metal claws. This movie also sports some of the coolest facial hair in movies to date. Jackman and Schreiber both really let their facial follicles fly, and it helps to remind you that you are watching a comic book. It’s not a terrible way to kill 90 minutes, but your seatback needs to be in the upright and locked position, and your brain and any other electronic devices need to be switched into the off position. And you better get used to it too. As anyone who reads the internet can tell you, the X-Men franchise’s life on the silver screen is far from over.

Once we finished our classes at Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, I’d buy this movie two beers.