Reviews by Matt

Over the last two days, this list has changed a lot. Movies I thought that were going to make it, ended up getting supplanted by two movies I saw recently. All the work I put into my “Sunshine Cleaning” review ended up being all for naught because there ended up being some late additions to the list. The biggest of these resides at No. 8 on the list, it was a movie I reviewed for the school paper, but because I lost the file, I did not post in on the blog. Long winded introduction aside, I present the Top 10 movies I saw this past year.

10) I Love You, Man
Easily the funniest movie I saw this year, it was also the only real comedy I saw. Unless you count “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,” which was funny for all the wrong reasons. Paul Rudd and Jason Segal have been apart of the funniest comedies of the past 5 years and this one is no exception. Rudd has a knack for the understated comedy. He is low key and subtle when he is delivering his lines. All of this is a great complement to Segal who is all about the more overt brand of comedy.
The other standout is Rashida Jones. In a comedy where everyone is getting all the laughs, she has to play the straight woman aside the rest of the cast. She does a great job being the one to observe the shenanigans going on around her.

9) Watchmen
Many considered Alan Moore’s graphic novel masterpiece “Watchmen” to be unfilmable. Some still might, especially the very anti-Hollywood Moore. Despite all it had going against it, lawsuits from movie studios chief among them, “Watchmen” still made it to the big screen. This might be as close as a movie can be to its source material as you can get. It improved on the ending (as mad as that statement will make fanboys) and still kept the major theme intact.
This is not your father’s comic book movie. There is plenty of violence and the blood to match. The material is darker than other comic book movies, even darker than “The Dark Knight” (no pun intended).

8) Taken
This was never posted, but I did review it in the school paper earlier this year. It was just a fun movie to watch, despite the dark subject material. What the story boils down to is a father doing whatever he has to in order to get his kidnapped daughter back and punish those who took her. The action is great; there are some intense chase and shootout scenes.
This also had one of my favorite trailers of the year.
It was so simple, yet conveyed exactly what to expect from this movie. He tells the kidnappers he will find them and he will kill them and that is exactly what he does.

7) Avatar
The review may be pending, but consider this a small preview of what is to come. Story wise it is nothing new. It is very generic. A guy goes into a tribe of natives and becomes one of them. I saw a lot of the plot coming a mile away and there were a lot of characters who were introduced but never elaborated on. I had a hard time caring about the fate of any of the side characters.
Technology-wise it is stunning. I saw it in 3-D (not the IMAX version) and I was amazed at what I saw. The attention to detail was stunning. When I say detail, I mean things as small as dirt and particles floating in the air. It was really awesome to see, especially in 3-D.

6) Up
Pixar, Pixar, Pixar. Is there nothing you cannot do? It was a risk making the star of your summer movie a 76-year-old man. Don’t you know that if you want to make a ton of money you need a young attractive lead actor/actress? You even cast an older actor, Ed Asner, to voice your lead character. Your target market doesn’t even know who that is. I don’t mean the kids, I mean the younger parents who are taking their kids to this movie. What do you mean it has made over $300 million? Wow, I apologize. I guess you can do no wrong.
You have raised the bar for animation and no one can even come close. Is there no end to your genius? I only have one request; a sequel to “The Incredibles.”

5) Star Trek
As a movie geek, you would think I would have picked a side in the “Star Wars” vs. “Star Trek” debate. I have not. The “Star Wars” prequels have soured my love of the original series and I have never really given, nor wanted to give, “Star Trek” a chance. Plus my sci-fi fandom belongs to “Firefly” so nothing can compete. The new “Star Trek” came close though.
J.J. Abrams, the mastermind of “Lost” and “Fringe” was given the keys to a U.S.S Enterprise and forever changed the series. He gave “Trek” fast paced space battles and got rid of boring political talk. The cast is great and all do a superb job and I cannot wait until the inevitable sequel.

4) District 9
This was the first time in years I have entered a theater knowing only the basic plot. It was a refreshing experience to watch a movie with the same wonder as everyone else in the theater. The movie was made for $30 million, cheap by movie standards, but looked like it cost 3 times that. It was an original story in a sea of remakes, reboots and sequels.
Sharlto Copley, the lead actor, had never acted before he made this. He had never even thought about it before. He got the job while reading lines with other actors and the director/friend, Neil Blomkamp, gave him the role.
He is currently filming “The A-Team” where he is in the role of Murdock. I think he did a great job and I hope he has long career in the movie industry.

3) (500) Days of Summer
When I first saw this in the summer, it was easily going on the list and could very well be placed at No.1. Well, months have passed and other movies have been watched so “(500) Days of Summer” ended up here at No. 3. As much as I love big blockbusters, I love smaller character driven movies more. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are superstars in the indie movie scene and prove it here. Tom’s obsession with Summer drives the story along at a good pace. It covers the 500 days of their relationship, just not in order. Cutting between their happiest days to when Summer breaks up with him is an interesting way to cut the movie together. It gives the viewer a chance to see where things started to turn as Tom reflects on his relationship with Summer.
Through the use of a musical scene, some great split screen shots and an amazing soundtrack, this found it’s way to the top of my list for a long time. It took a lot to place it here and I’m sure if I kept dwelling on it, it might make it back to the top.

2) Up in the Air
I wanted to see this from the second I saw this trailer:
From then on, I was looking forward to this with anticipation and it did not disappoint. Clooney is one those actors who I have a hard time separating him from the character he is playing, but in a good way. When I watch one of his movies, I see Clooney. Clooney plays Ryan, a man whose job is to fire people.
The other star is Anna Kendrick. She plays Natalie, a young woman who goes with Ryan so he can “show her the ropes.” I will elaborate more when I get to reviewing the movie later.

1) Inglourious Basterds
The executives at Miramax would have you believe that this movie is about Brad Pitt killing Nazis. To some extent it is, but it is also so much more. The star is not Pitt but Christoph Waltz. His portrayal of Hans Landa is one of the best of the year. He makes Landa one of the all time greatest villains. Writer/director Quentin Tarantino is at his best with this, his seventh movie. He has written some great dialogue scenes in the past and the ones in “Basterds” might be some of his best. The best action scenes are not the ones involving the guns but the ones involving the spoken word. Those scenes are full of tension and suspense and showcase the strength of Tarantino as a writer.
In the end of the movie a character remarks: “I think this might just be my masterpiece.” It might be a pompous remark for Tarantino to make, but he has the evidence to back it up.

5) G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
“G.I. Joe” gets the honor of being the “best of the worst” and in this case, it really was. For all that was bad about it, I still liked it...a lot, actually. Yes, the computer effects were horrid, the dialogue stilted and clichéd, the plot completely predictable and acting worthy of only a daytime soap opera. Despite all that, I enjoyed every single second of it.

I see a lot of movies over the course of a year and many of them are trying way to hard to be good—see “The Soloist”—that it is nice to see a movie that doesn’t try to be more than it is. Stupid. Fun. Entertainment.

4) 9
Sometimes expectations can be a bad thing. When I first saw the trailer for “9,” I was interested. It seemed like it could have been good; the plot essentially boils down to sock puppets in a post-apocalyptic world. It was a cool idea. Then I saw the movie. Pointless. Completely and totally pointless.

In a world where Pixar runs the world of animation, the bar has been raised when it comes to this genre of movies. Story, characters and the animation itself al have to be nearly flawless to even compete with the Pixar monster. This did not even come close. The story went nowhere and did not make much sense even it the sci-fi world.

3) X-Men Origins: Wolverine
As long as I can remember, I have always been a fan of Wolverine. He was so cool when I was a kid. He had this tough, gruff and had the coolest power; regeneration. Add to that the unbreakable adamantium bones and claws and you have got a killer combination. While the first two “X-Men” movies did a great job of living up to the childhood memories, This movie kind of killed it. It was, as my review headline said, a de-clawed version of the character I loved as a kid.
What was worse was it took an amazing actor, Liev Schreiber, and made his act down to the material. I am sure he did what he could with what he has given, but it was not enough to make the movie enjoyable.

There was one bright spot. It was Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. I have been waiting for Gambit to make an appearance in the movies since the first movie and while it was not what I was hoping for, I saw a lot of potential.

2) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I am all for dumb action movies. “G.I. Joe” was a dumb action movie; “Transformers 2” not so much. Where “Joe” had redeeming qualities in its badness, this did not. The special effects were great, just like the first one, but other than that there was nothing to save this movie.
The plot was so disjointed and unintelligible that I was very confused through most of it. There were characters crammed into the movie for absolutely no reason. Then there were the raciest robots. Despite director Michael Bay’s best efforts to convince to the contrary, the two characters—Mud Flap and Skids—are clearly black stereotypes. So much so that I was offended by what I heard and saw on screen. They can't read, talk broken, slang riddled English, and one even has a gold tooth. The robots might have well been in black face. I don't know how it made it through the editing process without someone realizing how raciest these two robots were.

1) Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
I saw no worse movie this year than the third movie in the “Underworld” series. This movie took what was a 5-minute sequence in “Underworld” and made it into a 92-minute movie. There was nothing good in this movie and nothing that made it worth watching. I had hoped I would be at least entertained, something I can do with even the worst of the bad movies. I do not think there was a substance on Earth that I could have taken to make me enjoy this movie at all. I was just bored. If you have any desire to see this movie, I ask you, neigh, EMPLORE you to just watch “Underworld.” All you need to know about the plot of “Rise of the Lycans” is summarized and is better told in the original.

Many of the television shows have a low re-watch value. Once you have seen the season once there is really no reason to watch it again. “24” for instance is hard to re-watch on DVD because the real suspense is gone (it is part of the reason why I have not gotten the past few seasons on DVD). Even shows like “Scrubs” and “How I Met Your Mother,” are not the same the second time around, even though I tend to make it through the series over the corse of the year. I recently watched a show that falls into a completely different category. The show is “Leverage” and I have watched both seasons twice within the past three months (gotta love Netflix and its watch instantly catalogue) and enjoyed it equally both times.

“Leverage” is basically an updated Robin Hood. Nathan Ford (Timothy Hutton,) a claims investigator for a big insurance company, lost his son because the very company he worked for would not pay for the experimental procedure that could have saved his life. After months of drinking heavily and doing nothing bit dwelling on his loss, he is given an opportunity to get even; help steal from a company that has insurance through his former employers. He is teamed up with Hardison (Aldis Hodge) a brilliant computer hacker, Parker (Beth Reisgraf), a thief who steals for the thrill of it and Eliot (Christian Kane) a “hitter” who has a knack for violence. Rounding out the team is Sophie (Gia Bellman) a “grifter” or con artist. What starts out as a one-time gig, turned into a place for people to go when the law is not enough.

The opening says is all:

So what makes the show good, well besides the heists, it is the characters. They are probably some of the strongest written characters on television now. Most of the humor in the show comes from Parker. Her people skills are next to non-existant. She does not understand many social conventions— things like the concept of subtlety. She tends to be honest to a fault. In one episode they are on an airplane and Parker has the job of playing the part of a flight attendant. When she gives the announcements she makes her own additions including that if the plane did crash in the water, the impact would probably kill them anyway. All of the characters have their own distinct personalities that make them unique.

The heists are really clever and it is fun to catch the small things they do to achieve the end result. At the end they revisit key moments during the con when the switch took place or the key move that was made that allowed the Leverage team to gain the upper hand.
“Leverage” is, quite possibly, the most fun way to spend an hour. Not only are the characters great to watch, but also the heists are extremely fun. True, you know they are going to get away with it, but even during my second viewing I loved every minute of it. Season two kicks off again on Wednesday January 22, 2010 at 10 p.m. and I will be there on my couch watching the Leverage team bring the rich and powerful to justice.

I have not written about any of the new television shows this year for two reasons. 1) As always, time. Some days I have precious little of it and sleep just seems more fun. 2) There has not been much to write about. I have only really added three new shows to my weekly television schedule (“Flash forward,” “V,” and “Glee”) and only one of those is worth writing about. “Flash forward” and “V” are more along the lines of “Lost” and they have their audience. Not many people are going to venture into the world of sci-fi, no matter how good I think it is. “Glee,” on the other hand, is one of those shows that can appeal to just about everyone, as long as you can deal with musical numbers.

Set at William McKinley High School. “Glee” follows the school’s very ridiculed and downtrodden glee club. Will Schuester (Matthew Morrison), a former member and current Spanish teacher takes on the role as faculty advisor for the club in hopes of returning it to its former glory.

The glee club is full of the school’s misfits like Rachel (Lea Michele) the overachiever who is very talented, but not humble. To achieve his goal, Will recruits quarterback Finn (Cory Monteith) to give the club a more popular image.

Cheerleader coach Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) wants to see glee club destroyed and has three of her cheerleaders join the club as her moles. Will knows of her hatred of him and glee club and the two spend lots of time airing their feelings to Principal Figgins (Iqbal Theba) who has to try to keep the peace in his school.

I’m not exaggerating when I say that this is a feel good show. No matter how bad a day you are having, this show just makes you feel better. 90 percent of the time it is a happy-go-lucky easy to watch, fun hour of television. There are plenty of musical numbers combined with very funny moments. It is really hard to be in a bad mood and watch this show.

The other 10 percent of the time the show can get pretty serious. Head cheerleader, Quinn (Dianna Agron) discovers that she is pregnant and that her boyfriend, Finn, is not the father. The father is, of all people, Finn’s best friend Puck (Mark Salling). The whole story is too complicated to explain here, but, long story short, Finn thinks he is the father. Quinn’s story is where we see the drama behind the music and comedy. She starts out as a spy for Sue and does everything she can to bring down the club. When Sue finds out about Quinn’s pregnancy, she kicks her off the squad and she is forced to find another place to fit in and, not surprisingly, that turns out to be in glee club.

Now to the real reason to watch this show: the music. I could sit here and tell you how great the cast is, but hearing is believing, which is a god place to start. In the pilot episode, the final scene is the group singing Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'."

I’ve been thinking about what it is about movies. What is it about them that make me go to the theater or buy countless DVDs? Why do I spend money I do not necessarily have on them year in and year out?

The answer can be different for other people; story, a certain actor or actress, great special effects. The list goes on and on. For me it is the moments. Those “moments” usually come from the a killer combination of great writing and great acting: when the words on the page are made all the better by the actors reading them.

I recently re-watched my favorite Kevin Smith movie, “Chasing Amy.” The short plot summery is Holden McNeal (Ben Affleck) falls in love with Alyssa Jones (Joey-Lauren Adams). The only problem is, she is a lesbian.

Overall the movie is great and is the best thing Kevin Smith has written/directed. There is one scene, or moment, stand out for me as to the epitome of why I love this movie. Spoiler Alert: they end up hooking up. That’s not the moment though. Sometime into their relationship Holden confronts Alyssa about her sexual past. He is enraged at her because of the things he has heard about her. She tries to explain to him that it was the past and he is her present. What she did before him has nothing to do with him. I would include the video of that scene, but I try to keep these posts "family friendly." So you get this picture instead:

This scene has great performances and great writing. The anger on Holden’s face as she admits to being experimental when she was younger, the rage in Alyssa’s voice as she tells him the past is the past are so real that you feel it. Affleck and Adams deliver so much in what is the most powerful scene in the movie.

Not all moments are from good movies. Take “The Phantom of the Opera” for instance. All in all, not a good movie, but I still have it on DVD. There are plenty of moments that make that movie better than it really is. I love the musical and to be honest and the only reason I bought it, besides getting it in a 4 for $20 deal at Blockbuster, was the opening scene. As those who have seen the play know, there is an auction at the beginning. When the chandelier is on the auction block it rises up and the play begins. In the movie this scene is in black and white. Now, here is the moment I love; as the chandelier rises, everything transitions to color. It is a drastic change, even more extreme than the color change in “The Wizard of Oz.” Dust and cobwebs are blown off the old seats, walls and statures as the chandelier rises from the stage to take its place above the theater and where it will sit until it comes crashing back down complements of the Phantom.


Maybe it is because I know a lot about movies that I also find those moments in the technical aspects of the movies. In “Children of Men” there is a 10-minute continuous shot. I love stuff like that.

Some things just keep hanging around; that guy at the party who stays long after everyone else has left, the lake-effect snow of Western New York, Bunker. In some cases that resilience can be frustrating and leave people wondering when they will be rid of this pain in the ass (not a commentary on my mom’s feelings toward the dearly departed dog). Then there are those things that you have to love for their willingness to stick around; the coworker who stays late to give you a hand, the friend who won’t leave until your problems are solved, Bunker. There is one more to add to that list; “Scrubs.”

Last night marked the return of the most medically accurate show on television (look it up, its actually true.) Last year the show looked to be over and many fans, me included, were satisfied with the ending. J.D. was moving on and so were we. Then ABC announced they were renewing the show for a 9th season. Now the show focuses on medical students being taught by some of the familiar faces from Sacred Heart. Turk (Donald Faison,) J.D (Zach Braff,) Dr. Kelso (Ken Jenkins) and Dr. Cox (John C. McGinley) are all teachers at the new Sacred Heart Medical School.

While the show has not changed that much, it feels very different. Braff has signed on for a few episodes to make the transition to Kerry Bishé’s Lucy to become the focal point of the show. She will take over the internal monologues and crazy fantasies once reserved for J.D. This is a change I think I can deal with. There were episodes where the focus was on another character in the show and J.D. took a back seat. Those episodes were as good as any if the others in the series.

The change of scenery is also something that will require some adjustment time. Sacred Heart hospital is gone and the medical school has taken its place. It is a much bigger set and the look and feel of the halls of the old Sacred Heart is no longer there.
There are a few shows where you know you way around the world created. For me, I know every inch of Serenity on “Firefly.” I also could also find my way around Sacred Heart Hospital. This does open up the show to do more in terms of variety of locations and I look forward to see what they do with this new freedom.

The show feels very different. I really cannot find the words to describe just what that means, but it can be compared to moving. You are still home, but the new place just doesn’t feel like the old one.

The only real problem I have with the new season is that I loved the finale. The final scene of J.D. walking down the halls of Sacred Heart one last time was one a great way to end it. So, really the show has to live up to that, but I have a feeling it will. I am going to stick with it in spite of all that has changed. I truly love this show and I am happy it is still on the air after all it has been though (see any previous reviews for that lovely story.)

“Scrubs” Tuesday 9 p.m. on ABC

I have a special list planned for the end of the year, so by the rules I set down for myself, this review must be written.

Sometimes when I see a trailer I know exactly what to expect. I can tell you if a movie is going to be awesome or if it is going to be a complete waste of time. What I first saw the trailer for “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra,” I knew from the moment the trailer ended that the movie was going to be really bad. What I could not have anticipated was how much I would actually enjoy it for all its faults: and there are many.

What there is of a plot looks like this: when a weapons maker creates weapon that would destroy the world leaving humanity at his mercy, a group of elite soldiers set out to stop him before he can go through with his plan.

Let’s start with the special effects used in this movie. They are complete crap. In a world where robots that transform into cars can look real, these special effects are way behind the times. It is clear every time something was done on a computer. The transformation from real actor to computer simulation is so jarring, but, to be honest, I could not have cared less (more on that later).

Secondly, the writing was so bad and so clichéd. Attempts to put in subtle clues that will pay of later are so obvious that it spoils some of the “surprises.” The only response you can give to the clichéd nature of the lines is a groan and a headshake. It is so bad that I cannot believe how these groan worthy lines appear so often into the movie. Yet, I did not care (more to come).

I hate to say it and every movie nerd bone in my body tells me not to say it but, I actually like this movie. It was just fun to watch. I was able to ignore all the bad and enjoy what was on screen. The action scenes, though filled with bad effects, were enjoyable. So much is happening and so much stuff is blowing up that it is easy to ignore the bad and accept it for what it is.

The same can be said for the writing. Though bad, it is punctuated with those action scenes. The formula for the movie looks like this: action, plot points, action scene, plot point, flashback action scene, plot point, flashback with no action, action scene…ect. You get the point. There is very little time to dwell on the awfulness of the dialogue before an action scene pops up.

So the whole point of this is so that I can put it on a new list I am writing for the end of the year. This year, in addition to the top 10 list, I will write a bottom 5 list. I can tell you know that this is no. 5 on that list, meaning it is the best of the worst. It takes this honor because while it is not a good movie, it is fun to watch and is a good way to kill 2 hours.


7 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout.
118 min

There are a lot of movies that I watch that I do not review up on this site. For some it is a time thing. Either I don’t have it, or a lot of time has passed since the release. Think about it, if I reviewed Astaire and Roger’s “Swing Time” would it really matter, the movie has been out for a very long time. Then there are movies I see that compel me to write. Something about the movie strikes a chord with me and I find myself with an overwhelming need to let people know about it. This would be one of those times.

“Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father” is a 2008 documentary made by Kurt Kuenne to remember his friend Andrew Bagby who was murdered in November of 2001 by his girlfriend Shirley. It starts out as a way to make one more movie with his friend, but turned into something more when Shirley says she is pregnant with Andrews child. For Kurt it becomes more than way to memorialize his friend. It becomes away to have the child know who his father was.

It is filled with tearful friends remembering Andrew as a great guy who loved to joke around and loved life. As a viewer you get a great portrait of who this man was through the people who loved him.

It also focuses on the court case and the failure of the Canadian government to keep a killer behind bars. Andrew’s parents, Kathleen and David move to Canada to fight to get custody of Zachary, Andrew’s son. This is where much of the drama is. It goes thought the delays and demands made by Shirley in allowing Kathleen and David to see their grandson. Kathleen and David recall all of their experiences in dealing with this woman who is clearly unstable. It sounds weird to say this but I want to stay away for spoilers because there are some crazy and incredibly sad things that transpire during this documentary.

If you are not touched by this movie, check your pulse. I watched it on this morning and it still affects me now at 9:30 p.m. I am sad, disgusted and angry at the things I saw and what Shirley made Andrew’s parents go through. I am appalled at the Canadian government and what they allowed to happen by their negligence.

It is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It does start out as a tribute to Andrew, but once the child is introduced, it becomes much more. With some documentaries I can get board at parts and my mind will wonder, but I was glued to the screen. See it and I can guarantee you will be moved.

10 out of 10 (just so you know how much I think you should see it)
Not Rated, but there is cursing
95 min

Think seriously about the Pixar movies you have seen. Has there really been a bad one? I was not a big fan of “Cars” but it was not a bad movie. That was as close as I have gotten to not liking a Pixar movie. They really can do no wrong. So really what do you think I thought of “Up?”

Carl Fredrickson (Ed Asner) has been living in his house for years and in that time a city has built up around him. They want him out, but he refuses to leave when he hits a construction worker with his cane, the city has the justification to kick him out. Instead, Carl straps thousands of balloons to his house and floats away to fulfill his lifelong dream of visiting the jungle of South America. He thinks he is finally alone but he soon finds Russell (Jordan Nagai) on his porch. He begrudgingly takes the boy on his trip.

The first thing that I was hit by when I saw this was how much Carl and his house reminded me of the house from “The Little House” by Virginia Lee Burton. This is another one of those books from my childhood that sticks with me. The story is about a house that has a city built up around it. Just a random thought to start off the review.

How was Pixar going to find success with a movie about an old man? Well, last year the hit one out of the park with a robot who cannot talk so they can do anything in my book. They did it again. Carl is cranky and has been a loner since his wife died. The movie starts out with a quick look at his life including the death of his wife and it is some powerful and moving stuff. They always said they were going to go to South America and live down there. He shuts the world out after her death and lives alone, but that is how he wants it.

The core to the movie is the budding relationship between Carl and Russell. Carl sees him as a nescience at the beginning but the boy does start to grow on him and Carl’s heart softens. I do not want to spoil a lot of the plot, but it is their adventures in South America that brings this unlikely pair together.

Well up next for Pixar is “Toy Story 3.” Now I love the “Toy Story” movies but the one Pixar sequel I am waiting for is the one for my all time favorite Pixar movie “The Incredibles.”

9 out of 10
Rated PG for some peril and action.
96 min

What is it about an actor or actress that makes people want to watch them on film? I know in the case of my favorite actor, Nathan Fillion, it is because he oozes charisma, is great at what he does, and well…he was on “Firefly.” When it comes to picking a favorite actress, right now that honor goes to Amy Adams. She is, for lack of a better word, charming on screen. I will go see a movie purely based on her presence in the movie. So I’m sure you can tell how I felt about “Sunshine Cleaning”

Rose (Amy Adams) is a single mother living in the same small town she grew up in and is working as a maid to make ends meet for her and her son Oscar (Jason Spevack). Meanwhile her sister, Norah (Emily Blunt), is living at home with their father (Alan Arkin) and struggling to do anything right in the eyes of her sister. Spurred on by Mac (Steve Zahn), the married man she is sleeping with, she starts a crime scene cleaning business with her sister as they both figure out what they really want in life.

It would just be redundant if I said Amy Adams was charming in this movie so I will move on. She brings a sweetness to this role, the same as she has countless times before. I recently watched her in “Junebug” and Rose reminds me of her character in that. She is someone who has settled with what she has. She does her job, but does not seem to enjoy it. It is not until she starts her business that she takes pride is what she is doing. When meeting with a group of old friends she lights up when she mentions what she does. “We come into people’s lives when they have experienced something profound and we help.” To her she is more than a clean up crew. When they arrive at the home of an old woman who has just lost her husband she sits with her outside the house until the woman’s son comes to pick her up.

While there are some funny parts in this and it is billed as a comedy, it is more of a drama. There are some touching parts where we see both Rose and Norah struggling with a lot. Rose has to deal with her feelings of insecurities and her son, while Norah struggles to fit in, even within her own family.

“Sunshine Cleaning” is a good movie and has some great performances to go along with it. While it is not as funny as I was hoping, I was surprised at how poignant it was. It is definitely worth a watch.

8 out of 10
Rated R for language, disturbing images, some sexuality and drug use.
91 min

If there is one book that has stuck with me from my childhood it is “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.” Now this is not a review of the recent movie; don’t even get me started on why I hate the idea of that movie. Another book that I remember vividly it is “Where The Wild Things Are.” This review is about the movie version of that amazing book.

Max (Max Records) is a young boy with an active imagination. He lives with his mother (Catharine Keener) and his sister. Max craves attention and his mother does her best to keep him happy. One night after being sent to bed without his supper because of his actions, he runs away and into a forest. He gets in a boat and travels to a distant land where wild creatures live. They make him their king and he promises them to make them happy and protect them.

I don’t want to say you are a horrible parent if you never read this book to your kids, but come on, how could you not. It is a book that has stuck with me. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I was going to love it. It was everything I could have hoped for from a movie based on that book. The creatures looked exactly like they did in the book (Small side note the library at Seton had stuffed animals of each of the creatures so their images are burned into my brain,) Max’s wolf suit looks perfect and the land of the wild things is absolutely beautiful.

First and foremost I have to mention is Max Records. He was perfect as Max. He is just a little boy who wants to be noticed by his mother and sister. The only time he is truly happy is when he is in his own head. Whether he is building an igloo, making a fort out of blankets or just running around in his wolf suit, he is always looking for adventure. Records delivers an amazing performance. When he is sad, you feel it. When he is mad, you feel it. When he is happy, you feel it. I was absolutely blown away by what this 12-year-old boy was able to do.

The creatures were a combination of actors in suits, animatronics and computer generated faces. There was a lot of expression used in the faces of the creatures. Seeing as the book is only 10 sentences long, they did not get much of a back story, but they movie has each of them flushed out with personalities and they all had motivations for their actions.

One change I noticed from the book that I really enjoyed was how Max gets to where the wild things are. In the book his room turns into a forest. The movie version might be better than the book. Having Max run away and into a forest was a great way to make this transition.

My nostalgia may have driven me to love this movie even before I saw it, but what I saw on screen was exactly what I wanted. It was a beautiful translation from book to movie. It retained all I loved about the book and added things to make a more full story with great characters. If you read this to your kids, if you had it read to you or if you read it just for fun, go see it. Heck, if you have not read it to your kid, take them to see it. It is worth every penny.

LET THE WILD RUMPUS START!!!!!

9 out of 10
Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.
101 min

The animation in movies these days is pretty amazing. Every summer Pixar releases a new movie that shows just how far they have come since Toy Story in 1995. This is not a review of a Pixar movie, or even a Dreamworks Animation Studio movie (the makers of Shrek and Kung Fu Panda). One of the keys to the success to these movies is the story. It is the combination of story and animation that make these movies what they are. Sadly “9” is has neither the animation nor the story to live up to the standards that have been set.

Based on director Shane Acker’s short film of the same name “9” is about a world here humans have been destroyed. The machines we created have wiped out the human race. Before humans met their end, a scientist (voiced by Alan Oppenhimer), created what he hoped would be the salvation of the world; 9 creations which he brought to life using bits of himself. The movie opens with 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) coming to life and journeying out into the world. He comes upon the rest of the scientists creations and joins them. 1 (voiced by Christopher Plummer) just wants them to keep hiding from the machine the rules the world. 9 disagrees and with the help of a few of the others they go about doing their best to bring down the machine.

I do not know what I was expecting when I went to see “9.” All I do know is that I did not get what I wanted. The story is weak and leads nowhere. The machine that is hunting the sock puppets (that is the best way to describe them) and taking the spark of life out of them; to what end I could not tell you.

The animation is not even good enough to make the movie worth watching. There is only so much bleak, post-apocalyptic animation that one can stand. In the grand scheme of things it is just plain boring to watch.

5 out of 10
PG-13 for violence and scary images
79 min

There are times when watching a movie that you can tell a director truly loves what he does. This is not to say that the others do not love what they do, just that there are some who are movie geeks. The king of these is Quentin Tarantino. His past few movies have been tributes to the films he grew up watching. “Kill Bill” was his homage to Japanese kung-fu movies, “Death Proof” was his version of the grindhouse movies he watched and now there is “Inglorious Basterds” his war/western movie.

There are a couple of stoylines in the movie so I will do my best to address them.

During World War II a group known as “The Basterds” had a mission: kill Nazis. Led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), they go around Nazi-occupied France and kill and scalp any Nazi they come in contact with.

Shosanna Drefyus (Mélanie Laurent) is a young woman who owns a movie theater in France. When she was younger Nazis killed her family, but she managed to escape. She soon finds herself with the opportunity to get revenge on those who murdered her family.

Then there is Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) is hunting down Jews and killing them.

All three of these storylines cross and intersect in many ways throughout the movie.

This has been marketed as an action movie and that is not completely accurate. There are very few scenes of traditional action.
What it does is very tense scenes that need know action. Tarantino writes some of the best dialogue scenes in movie history and there are plenty here. The opening scene is just dialogue but it is riveting. I cannot get into details without spoiling the tension that I felt. Many scenes in the movie involve deception. Much of the tension comes from wondering if the truth will come out and the liar will be killed.

The star of the movie is not Brad Pitt. It is Christoph Waltz. Landa is so evil, but he is smart and has a charisma about him. He does not really have loyalty to the Nazis; he does what he does because he is good at it. He says in the first scene that he has an ability that other Nazis do not; he can think like a Jew. He knows where they hide is able to flush them out. Everything he says or does in the movie is for him and no one else. He is truly evil, not because he is a Nazi, but because he has no loyalty to anyone but himself.

Besides taking place during WWII, there is nothing historically accurate about this movie, and as a viewer you could not care less. The enjoyment of watching these intense scenes of pure dialogue is what makes this movie what it is. If you are a fan of Tarantino’s work, you will love this movie, I know I did. If you have never seen a Tarantino movie before you might enjoy it (I know my Dad loved it).

9 out of 10
Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
153 min

One of the downsides to being someone who spends a lot to time looking at movie news and watching movie trailers is that I have trouble going into a movie blind. I usually know some detail of the movie either from the trailer or from news items I have read about the movie.

It is a rare thing when I can go into a movie and know little more than the basic plot. “District 9” was one of those rare opportunities.

Over 20 years ago an alien ship settled over Johannesburg South Africa. After weeks of no contact or movement, the government sent a team up to the ship to investigate. What they found was a group of aliens who had fled their home planet.

The South African government relocated them to a slum outside the city called District 9. They are treated with disrespect and contempt. They are largely ignored by the government and hated by the people. Years later the government decides to move them to a new home. MNU agent Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is charged with leading the eviction.

“District 9” is stunning in every respect; even more so when you take into account that it was made for $30 million dollars. The effects are incredible and the story is riveting. Sharlto Copley does a great job as the bumbling agent. This is his first big acting job and had no acting aspirations leading up to this role. He is as much of a jerk to the aliens as anyone else is. He refers to them by the racial slur of “prawns” and makes jokes as he and others destroy the eggs of the aliens. It is not until he is sprayed with an alien substance and the resulting consequences that he finds himself on the side of the aliens.

$30 million. That was all it cost to make this. James Camreon’s “Avatar” will come out within the next year and it was made for over $400 million. “District 9” shows that you do not need a lot of money to make a good sci-fi movie. The aliens are really well done and look so real it’s scary.


9 out of 10
Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language
112 min

A while ago, maybe three years or so, I decided to see how long it would take me to watch every DVD I owned. Movies and television, nothing would be missed. I did not give myself a deadline; I just saw it as something to do. Well, like I said it has been three years and my guess is I am less than halfway though. It not that I have a lot of DVDs, though it has not helped that I keep adding to the collection, it is that time has not allowed. Mostly though it is a mood thing. Some of the movies I have you have to be in the right mood to watch.

Now imagine that I gave myself a deadline of a year and I did a review of each movie? One of the reasons I decided to not be a journalist was the constant deadlines. Also I would be repeating myself a lot since I own many of the movies I have reviewed.

That is not the case in “Julie and Julia.”

Julie (Amy Adams) decides to get herself out of her rut by cooking every recipe in Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” and must do it in one year. She puts her life in cooking up on a blog and begins to gain notoriety for her project as her marriage suffers.

Cut between Julie’s story is the story of how Julia Child (Meryl Streep) became a household name. She is in Paris with her husband when she decides to take cooking classes. She is very good at it and when she finally completes the classes, she is asked to help revise a French cookbook for Americans.

Allow me to gush here for a second. I love Amy Adams. In every movie I have ever seen her in she is full of charm and charisma. She was the best part of “Junebug,” and “Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.” She knocks every role out of the park. Even with all that in mind, her storyline was the weakest part of the movie. There were some funny/interesting parts, like when she has to boil the lobster, but it not add anything to the movie that was not covered by the Julia part.

Streep was amazing as Julia Child. When I saw the preview, I was worried her voice was going to get annoying, but Streep plays her in such a way that it is endearing. Most of the humor comes from the Julia half. She has such a quick wit and a humor about herself and it makes for some great scenes.

I understand why the movie was cut as it was. Julia has some success and then we see Julie have some success. Julia fails and Julie fails. It just seemed to be a bit too much and way to coincidental at times. There were times when it was blatant that it was trying to show how similar these two women were. You could really do that with anyone, the only connection that these women had was that cookbook.

Yes, this review looked a bit more at the bad than the good, but the movie is really quite good. I actually found myself enjoying it. The performances are good and it is really funny, I just wish there was one story and not two.

7 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for brief strong language and some sensuality.
123 min

As someone who follows the movie industry, I keep up with just about every bit of news that comes out. A big part of the year is the Sundance Film Festival. The big movie to come out of the last Sundance was “(500) Days of Summer.”

The opening voiceover warns you that while this is the story of boy meets girl, it is not a love story. Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) met Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel) when she came to work at his office. He immediately fell in love with her. She was not as quick to return the feelings. The movie is about the 500 days of their relationship.

I’m going to keep this short and sweet because it is sweltering in my room and the A/C in the house is broken. The acting is amazing and both leads do a superb job and continue to show why they are indie movie superstars. What I loved the most was not the acting, directing or even the great soundtrack. What I loved the most was the editing.

The story is not told in chorological order. It cuts between different days in their relationship: some good and some bad. Title cards tell you what day of Summer it is. The movie opens with them broken up, somewhere around day 300. He is brokenhearted and vows to get her back. Then it is day 1 when he first sees her. It cuts back and forth like this for most of the movie. Tom recalls all the things he loves about her and the things they did together. The audience can slowly see the relationship fall apart while Tom cannot.

This is one of those movies I cannot wait to see again. It is truly a great film and its going to take a lot for it not to be on my top 10 list when the year is over. This is a movie you could wait for the DVD to see, but why would you? It is not everywhere yet, but do whatever you have to do to see this.


9 out of 10
Rated PG-13 for sexual material and language
95 min

Here is a little insider information. When I see a movie during the movie I make note of things I should mention in the review. I’ll see a scene and say, “When I talk about so-and-so’s performance, I will mention this scene.” Some movies I don’t know what I will say until I sit down and write them. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” is one of those movies. I am a fan of the books. I have liked the movies so far and when I sit down to watch them I do so as a fan and not a critic. Which makes this just a little bit harder.

Let’s face it, fans of the books know what is going to happen and what events lead to this picture:

But for those not in the know, it breaks down to this. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is back at Hogwarts for his sixth year. With the revelation that Lord Voldemort is back, things are a little different. Granted from the movie all that seems to be going on is the hormones of the Hogwarts students are up and everyone seems to be snogging (kissing).

The real stories in the movie is the ones between Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and Harry Potter and Snape (Alan Rickman) and Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). On one hand Harry and Dumbledore are on a quest to learn more about Tom Riddle, the boy who grew to become the Dark Lord known as Voldomort. As for Snape and Malfoy, Snape pledges to help Malfoy carry out a deed that the Dark Lord handpicked the young wizard to do.

I both love and hate this movie.

I love it as a fan, but as a critic, I hate it.

From the critical standpoint, nothing happens. The movie could have been 30 minuets long and all the important stuff would have happened. All we really needed to know was about the horcruxes. It is too complicated for me to explain here, so just see the movie or read the book.

As a fan, this movie is awesome. Qudditch is back, Hermonie (Emma Watson) admits her love for Ron (Rupert Grint), Harry and Ginny (Bonnie Wight) become an item, (which still bothers me, I mean that is your best friend’s sister. IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG) and then there is everything with Dumbledore.

If you have seen or read anything on these movies before you know that the cast is great and are all perfectly cast. Blah. Blah. Blah. One guy who needs to get the proper recognition is Alan Rickman. For very spolierlific reasons his is a tough character to play (READ THE BOOKS) and he is awesome at it. He is able to walk the line between evil and good guy and cross it at ease. If there is one reason to see any of these movies, he is it.

Even with the fan and the critic at odds within me, I liked this movie a lot. I look at it as warm up to the climax that will be the next two movies based on “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows” which come out in 2010 and 2011.

8 out of 10
Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality
153 minuets