Review: Moon (DVD)

It has been a long time since I've actually reviewed a movie on here, and for good reason - it's been a long time since I've actually sat down and watched a movie. Trying to get through all the Oscar movies is a bit of movie overload, so right after it every year I seem to need a post-Oscar movie break, so I just slow down a little on my movie watching, but the Netflix keep coming in and I have a couple of good movies saved on my DVR AND I'm plugging away at watching "Pushing Daisies" at night, and once that's done with, I'll get back to watching more movies.

And this brings me to the movie I watched this afternoon, "Moon." I hadn't heard of "Moon" until I watched the BAFTAs which are Britain's equivalent of the Oscars, and it won the award for Best Debut by a Brit for Director Duncan Jones (who PS is David Bowie's son!) I didn't quite know what to expect but I thought this movie was great.

It was kind of in the same vein as "Alien", with a dash of "District 9", a good portion of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the tiniest part "The Parent Trap" minus the humor and musical number.  The plot concerns Sam Bell, played by a fantastic Sam Rockwell, who faced quite a challenge with this part and was phenomenal. Anyways, Sam Bell works for Lunar, a company who mines Helium from the Moon and sends it back to Earth, providing 70% of the Earth's power. He is up there all by himself and towards the end of his three year contract with the company. He can't wait to get back to Earth to see his wife and new little girl, until when he's out harvesting and gets in a crash. Suddenly he wakes back up in the infirmary under the care of the station's talking and emoting robot, GERTY, voiced by none other than Kevin Spacey, who nurses Sam back to some sort of health. When Sam heads out to the Harvester he crashed into, he discovers the dying body of none other than himself. I'm not going to give the rest away, but the mystery was enough to intrigue me, and even though I could see what was coming for the most part, I loved the whole "is he going crazy? is this really happening? what is going on?" vibe of the story. In the end, not everything is revealed - you're left to either pick up on the subtle clues or to draw your own conclusions, but the movie doesn't make you think super hard, which I appreciate, especially on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

I really like this psychology approach to science fiction. When most sci-fi recently has been fighting aliens on foreign planets or transforming robots that have wars with each other, there have been refreshing science fiction like "Moon" or "District 9" that go into the psychology of the characters or who offer up messages - it's smart science fiction.

Sam Rockwell was brilliant in this movie. I have maybe only seen him in one or two other movies, and he's always a good actor, but this movie is HIS movie. Literally, the cast only has 10 people in it, and 8 of them are only shown on video monitors for a few minutes combined, and the other 1 is just the voice of a robot. Without giving too much away, Rockwell acts against himself for the majority of the movie (thus "The Parent Trap" similarities) but never once do you think he's not acting with nobody there.

I probably would've never seen this movie if it didn't pique my interest on the BAFTAs but I'm glad I watched it, and now I'm highly recommending it to you too.


Patrick Approval Rating: 9/10


"Moon" @ imdb

Review: Food, Inc. (DVD)

"You'll never look at dinner the same way again."

That's the tagline from this movie. If I knew how true that was I may have never watched it. I always figured, ignorance is bliss and what you don't know, can't hurt you - so if you are going to brave watching "Food, Inc." like I did, I'm going to warn you - that ignorance is going to give way to knowledge and take away all your bliss you get from food, and you will know things that will hurt your heart and change the way you think about all things food until you're old and have Alzheimer's and forget everything. When the time comes, please - let me eat anything I want to, but until then "Food Inc" has caused me to completely change my diet.

I knew what I was getting into with this. I knew documentaries can be pretty powerful and even as the movie berated me with these awful facts about food, I knew I needed to make sure to research the other side to get a balanced view before making any opinions. But when I ended up reading the ingredients, or going to the big company's websites and not reading denials of the awful things they do, but rather them simply stating they do in fact do these things and that they do it for the benefit of us, I was appalled and shocked.

I originally went into this movie wanting to know more about corn syrup, which, as I learned from watching the disappointing "The Informant!" with Matt Damon, is in everything. Literally most food we consume has some corn syrup, or some deviation of corn syrup in it. I'm not exactly sure why other than to put money into big corporation's pockets. I mean really, does orange juice need corn syrup to taste good? What about pasta sauce? Really? So I wanted to know more about this. What I got was also an in depth look at the food industry as a whole, which also includes the huge soy bean farms and of course, the atrocious meat industry. It really digs deep into the industries, providing factual information to prove their point. It's quite a film, and an impressive one if it is able to have the effect it did on me to every viewer, than that's the power of a good film.

I'm not going to use this review as a soap box to stand on to discuss all the things they do in the film. Watch the movie yourself. Or don't. Make a decision to either want to gain the knowledge about the food we eat and be disgusted, or don't watch and eat in happiness enjoying all your favorites. To me, it's a lose - lose. You either become aware and angry or stay blind and happy. I won't blame you for either, but as I begin a change in my life to become a vegetarian and to read the labels of all the food I buy, just know if you watch "Food, Inc." there is no going back.


Patrick Approval Rating: 9/10


"Food, Inc." @ imdb

Review: Every Little Step (DVD)

If you know me you know that I love TV and movies. And even more so, you may know I especially love things on TV or in the movies that concern either Disney or musical theater. So any combination of those four things make me so excited. For example, a TV special about the filming of a Disney musical movie! Not that one of those exists (actually I'm pretty sure there is), but that's just an example.

Regardless, I love Broadway musicals. I'm sort of obsessed with them, with musical cast recordings on loop endlessly in my car (and we're not just talking "Wicked" or "Rent" here people, I go hardcore with "Follies" or classic with "Mame"), nevermind the fact I own many a musical move adaptation on DVD, something I touched on in my review of one of the latest, "Mamma Mia!" One of these movies I own is, unfortunately, "A Chorus Line" which, even though it's one of my all time favorite musicals, it goes into the category of "stage to screen adaptation that never should have been made in the first place." I'm sure I'll be reviewing it down the line, so I won't get into much detail other than I think the movie is just plain awful. It doesn't work, as the entire plot of the show is about an audition that takes place on stage within the two hours time of the show itself, which is all fine and good for a stage show, but boring as all get out for a movie. Haven't seen it? Don't bother, it will give you the wrong impression of a fantastic musical.

"Every Little Step" is a documentary that chronicles the the audition process for the 2006 "A Chorus Line" revival, so that in itself is a pretty meta concept: a movie about auditioning for a show that's about auditioning for a show. The documentarians gained exclusive access to what it's like to audition for Broadway, going into the audition rooms, call backs, final call backs - what the directors saw, what they thought about people, justifications for certain castings, angry actors, ecstatic actors - as a wannabe director myself, I found the whole process and look into it fascinating. I loved watching the people soar (like Jason Tam whose insanely good audition for the emotional character of Paul in the show made the director of the show AND me cry. His AUDITION!) And I cringed watching the people make fools of themselves (thanks Tyce Diorio, of "So You Think You Can Dance" judging fame who made an ass of himself during the audition being all cocky and then especially after he lost the part. As if I couldn't have hated him more after watching him on SYTYCD, but I do.)

I found myself caring for these actors, wanting them to get the part. They highlighted certain actors or actresses and kind of created character arcs for each of them in the documentary, with only one being able to triumph in the end. The doc follows the same themes of the musical, these dancers give it there all to the audition process - while we get to learn more about them, giving these faceless actors a story, and you care for them because you find out they might not be just another actor. They are a person with dreams, and it all hinges on this one audition. But whereas "A Chorus Line" is a musical, and not real, "Every Little Step" is real, with real people in a very real situation. It transcends the meaning of the show to a whole new level.

The doc also gives us insight to the creation of the musical itself, famously workshopped in New York, and based on the lives of real dancers who recorded their stories on tape with conceiver and director Michael Bennett in 1974. With clips from that audio tape, rare footage of Michael Bennett discussing the concept AND the original Broadway cast staging, interwoven through the film it makes this movie a truly extra special treat for fans of "A Chorus Line" and anybody who loves musical theater. I really just adored this movie, and think it's a must for any musical, Broadway, or theater geek like myself.


Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10


"Every Little Step" @ imdb

Review: Network (DVD)

One of the reasons I got Netflix last year was to catch up on a list movies I should have seen as a movie fan, but haven't yet. So my queue is filled with new and future releases as well as some old classic films, films like 1976's "Network." I knew little about "Network" other than it starred William Holden (who is in one of my favorite classics, "Sunset Blvd.") and Faye Dunaway ( knowing it won a couple of Oscars, most notably a posthumous one for Peter Finch, and that is was way ahead of its time and speaks volumes about todays TV networks.

I know I personally have a lot of issues with the majority of the movies released during the late 1960s/1970s for some reason. I don't know if it was the type of film they used back then, or the style of cinematography, but I don't like the way a lot of them look. Prior to this period, the movies are all in technicolor wonderfulness and somewhere in the early 80s they changed things, but these movies released in the 70s look and often feel very dated to me. "Network" swings both ways here.

Though the film may look dated in certain places, it certainly doesn't feel like it is. The story is surprisingly very relevant to today, with our current TV culture of 24/7 network news stations that sometimes make up news to make news (Balloon Boy 2009 anybody?) or where shows that are based in "reality" are not really "reality" and destroy the show's targets (see the self-destruction of Jon and Kate's marriage because of their fame.) At times I couldn't believe the movie was written in the 70s. So either writer Paddy Chayefsky was psychic OR real TV network execs saw this movie and decided it would be a good idea to everything that the movie was saying wrong.

The network referred to in "Network" is the fourth place, ratings challenged, and floundering UBS, who's evening news is the lowest rated show and so they decide to fire the current news anchor, Howard Beale (played by an intensely crazy Peter Finch, who infamously died between the filming of the movie and winning his Oscar for it.) So Beale goes on a bender on how sucky life is and ends up telling everybody in America over the news that he is going to kill himself on air and to get off their couches, go out to window and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" So they do because he speaks to the inner anguish of the viewers, and so a man with a serious mental problem ends up becoming a national superstar and saves the UBS Network. Some other key players include a wonderfully ruthless, young, you-know-what executive played by Faye Dunaway who also won an Oscar for this part. It's so nice to see her be subtle because the last movie I watched her in was "Mommie Dearest" and that's anything but subtle. Her character is the one who capitalizes on Beale's insanity. William Holden, who got SO old between making this movie and "Sunset Blvd" plays the voice of reason at the network and doesn't like what is happening with Beale. And then the crazy-ass ending where everything goes just a bit too far and the executives decide to kill Beale on the air, and I was kind of left in shock, just because it shows how far people will go for ratings or for entertainment. Here's an example from a couple years ago: Anna Nicole Smith. Someone with serious issues, exploited for TV, and she ends up dead. How this movie know this sort of stuff would happen?!

The plot is way more complicated than what I typed out, and I admit some of the dialogue went WAY over my head, but I did like this movie. The performances of the entire cast really made it awesome. Perhaps not as one of the greatest movies ever made, as it's been called, but I did think it's a very good classic, and an important film.


Patrick Approval Rating: 8/10

"Network" @ imdb

Review: Alice in Wonderland (Theatrical)

I'll start this review off discussing my stance on this 3-D craze that has attacked movie theaters (and America's wallets) as of late. I want to remind everybody of the 50s, during a time that I feel like everybody has forgotten, when all movies seemed to be in 3-D. Not that I was alive back then, but doesn't anybody remember those pictures of conservative 1950s audiences wearing 3-D glasses at the movies and being shocked at the giant bugs popping off the screen? Remember how the movie version of "Kiss Me Kate" was awkwardly in 3-D? And remember how that fad ended? And remember that it became a joke or theme park novelty (thanks Muppet Vision!)? So then why is it a big deal all of a sudden again? Sure I appreciate the novelty of 3-D, but I'm just waiting for this to all blow over in a couple of years. I don't particularly like it or think that it even adds anything to a movie and it hurts my eyes when things move around the screen quickly. The true test for me is when I see "Avatar" on DVD. Whereas I thought the 3-D aided that movie in placing the audience in a completely different world, I feel like now it's just being thrown on any movie, and that bothers me.

I could have liked "Alice in Wonderland" in 2-D, I'm sure. Perhaps I would have liked it even more than I did, as I felt like it was a generally blah movie altogether. I definitely feel like it didn't add anything to the story or the movie going experience except for having all the kids in the theater comment on how they could touch everything. Which also brings me to the awful movie going experience we had seeing this. I couldn't believe the young children who came, never mind the idiot family who showed up (a group of like 7, in a sold out showing) five minutes before the movie started, WITH A BALLOON AND AN INFANT. WHYYYYY. That angered me so much. So the balloon waved in the corner and the baby cried a lot and then I punched them all in the face.

OK, so back to the movie itself. I couldn't believe it was a Tim Burton movie, because it lacked a lot of...something. Creativity? It just seemed like a watered down Burton, or a commercialized Burton. Which I guess it was. A Disney-fied Tim Burton. Maybe he's lost the knack he was known for - that quirky off beat dark movies that actually had some heart and imagination. This movie seemed like it was just created in the vein of his other movies, to make someone some money because they knew Tim Burton and Wonderland would be a good match. Sure the movie looked like a Burton film, with the twisted greenery and the pale complexions and the general lack of eyebrows (except Anne Hathaway's White Queen) but maybe it just didn't live up to the expectations I had for what the movie could've been.

I thought the plot was way too contrived, with Alice going back to Wonderland and everybody there kept telling her she has been brought back to save them but she keeps denying this saying "they've got the wrong Alice" for no reason except to make the plot longer until Alice realizes she is that Alice. Le duh. I even found Johnny Depp to be oddly disappointing. I wanted him to be more...well, a tad more "mad" as the Mad Hatter and especially as compared to his cartoon counterpart he was kind of boring. And let's talk about the awkward hip hop dance he does which seems totally incongruous to the rest of the movie, but it's as if Depp said "I want to do a crazy dance at the end" and everybody was like, "You're Johnny Depp. Do what you want." I am not sure what the kid sitting next to me said when the dance started, but I choose to believe he did say "Hella Awkward." Which it was.

Maybe it was all the CGI of the movie that let me down a little. I didn't think it would bother me, and it kind of threw me back to the brilliant sequences of "Mary Poppins" or "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" with the live action characters cohabitating with animated characters on screen. But whereas those movies made those scenes feel magical, "Alice" left me with the sense of the CGI being a copout. It might as well has been an entirely animated movie. Oh wait, didn't that already happen once in 1951? And even though that "Alice in Wonderland" may not be one of my all time favorite Disney movies (it's still one of the best, but just not one of the top 10 favorites), this "Alice in Wonderland" pales in comparison.

I just think this was a case of a movie not living up to the expectations I had going into it because of the movie's premise, concept, director and cast. "Alice" should have been everything I thought it would've been, but it wasn't. I was entertained, sure, but I was also bored, unimpressed, and wished it wasn't in 3-D.

Please stop the 3-D trend. K-thanks.

Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10

"Alice in Wonderland" @ imdb

Snap Judgement: Oscars 2010

So they've come and gone. Thank goodness that's over. The Oscars are done, at least for now. I got asked a lot today "What did I think?" "Was I happy with who won?" And my answer: Meh. I couldn't feel any more ambivalent towards last night's show. Overall I enjoyed it. I thought Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were hysterical during the opening monologue, especially the joke that for their film debut, both Steve Martin and Gabourey Sidibe from Precious were born as poor black children. CLASSIC. And the note that Meryl Streep collects Hitler memorabilia. Because I know she does.

The show movie along at a fairly brisk pace, thanks to quick acceptance speeches, a very quick Death Montage of Applause-o-Meter which left out the likes of Bea Arthur and Farrah Fawcett, but left in Michael Jackson? Mmmkay. I thought the dance piece set to the Best Score nominees was a good idea and concept, and looked cool, but felt out of place at the Oscars, and the montage dedicated to Horror films seemed liked a random way to include "Twilight" and a couple other not-so-scary movies. The entire ceremony also lacked the element of surprise, with whoever was the front-runner going into the ceremony, winning the award. Where's the fun in that? I was totally hoping Gabourey Sidibe would beat both Sandra and Meryl because she had the most impressive performance for a debut this year, and she freakin' rocks. She's so sassy, and she looked fierce. But, IMO, she won anyways when Oprah told her how much she loved her on the stage of the Oscars and she started crying. Adorably cute. Plus her mom was there, and she was so into Steve Martin.

I wasn't super successful in predicting who would win. 13/23 correct. But not that it even matters, after all, the awards go to the most deserving career-wise (see Sandra Bullock, Jeff Bridges) or to the movie that has the most momentum going into the broadcast (i.e. "The Hurt Locker") and not necessarily to whatever actor gave an amazing performance or to the movie that is the best all around film of the year. Though, I am OK with "The Hurt Locker" winning. It was a very good movie. I liked it. It was suspenseful, but it wasn't my favorite, nor was it my pick to win. Everybody has different ideas of what's good though, and in the end, the movie that wins the most Oscars doesn't make it the best.

So it's all done. I look forward to next year, where I'll try to see all the nominees again. Because even though the whole thing is a big spectacle and I tend to disagree with a lot of it, I get to see some awesome movies that I might not otherwise be able to see. Thanks Oscars. Now come the summer blockbusters.

Special: If I Voted for the Oscars

I don't vote for the Oscars. As if you didn't know that. I will probably never vote for the Oscars, though I  wish someday I might have the career to allow me to do that. Plus I don't necessarily agree with all they have to stand for. I read a really good article from New York magazine (read it here) describing how the Oscars work, and how rather than giving the award to the "Best" they often give it to who would create the "Best Story Arc" or who's career deserves the award, rather than who actually was the best actor or actress. It's all part of the Hollywood schlitz and glitz, and even though I might not agree with it, it's how it works. So for tonight's event, I'm going to say who I would've picked. Not who I think is going to win, and not even a will win/should win thing. Who I would've voted for the big awards, if I picked soley based on what I saw and watched. 

BEST PICTURE:

"Avatar"

For me, this was the best movie going experience of the year. Maybe it's not the best film I saw (that would have to be either "Up" or "Precious") but it was the best film I watched that took me away to another place. I go to movies to get taken away and to forget about being in a movie theater, and for the three hours of "Avatar" I was on another planet, totally absorbed into what was happening. Best Picture of the year for sure. And I would also probably vote for James Cameron as Best Director too, for having the vision to do what he did here.





BEST ACTOR:
Colin Firth "A Single Man"

The most moving performance of the year. He was in every single scene, every moment, and he was always present in the heartbreak and pain the character was feeling. Just seeing him in "Mamma Mia!" and then this? Complete difference.



BEST ACTRESS:
Gabourey Sidibe "Precious"

This was her first movie? Ridiculous. I would've never guessed if I hadn't known. And to see her in real life, and how buoyant and bubbly and total opposite from Precious she is, she is a real actress.






BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Chrisoph Waltz "Inglouorious Basterds"

Terrifying and vicious, and gentle and funny. Waltz was crazy good in this movie. He brought a completely new take to the role of a villainous Nazi.






BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Mo'Nique "Precious"

I remember watching Mo'Nique on Showtime at the Apollo. Never did I think she had it in her to portray a role like this. Phenomenal.

Review: Inglourious Basterds (DVD)

Finally I've finally seen all of the Best Picture nominees! I didn't succeed in seeing all nominated actor and actresses this year, but I saw more than I thought I would, and I set my goal for only seeing the Best Picture nominees this year, so I'm proud of myself nontheless.

And here it is, the final movie I had to see, Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds." So sue me, I'm not a gigantic fan of Tarantino. At least I never thought I was. I hadn't (and still haven't) seen a majority of his movies, with the only exception being "Death Proof" from "Grindhouse," and even that, though I like it, isn't my favorite of the two "Grindhouse" movies. So maybe it's not that I'm not a huge fan, but rather I hadn't given him a chance. Like at all. I assumed I wouldn't like his movies, so I never bothered to see them. I wrote them off as being too violent - which they are - but the violence is done with a smirk. It's not a bang bang shoot them all up and drive in fast cars with guns movie, it's an artfully done violence that kind of makes me smile. I can't describe it.

I've read other critics say that Tarantino purposefully makes you laugh during his movies in places that aren't really supposed to be funny. Like after a Nazi gets his head beaten in with a baseball bat! In real life, not that funny. But in "Basterds" I chuckled. I laughed at being uncomfortable at Christoph Waltz's terrifyingly hilarious Nazi, the "Jew Hunter." Especially the opening scene where he confronts a French farmer who had been hiding Jews under his floorboards. The Jew Hunter was an awful, terrible person - but that barely showed through the cracks of a gentle demeanor, unless he let it flourish, then he was truly scary. No doubt he will win Best Supporting Actor - and he should! He kind of held the whole movie together.

I'm going to try to make it a point this year to see the rest of Tarantino's movies. He has a unique style, kind of a throwback to the 70s, with a modern sensibility. I take it as he's a pretty fearless filmmaker. A couple examples: 1) He does things like direct a period history drama and it looks like everything is period accurate, but then uses a David Bowie song as background music before the climax. Or 2) He has the balls to rewrite WWII and almost create an American fairy tale story where everything turns out perfect. Well, except for the fact that SPOILER ALERT: barely any characters survive.

So I guess I do like his films, and should Netflix them because I really liked "Basterds." A lot. I rented it on iTunes (which was an adventure in itself, I had never done that before, but it's pretty nifty) and watched it in one sitting, totally enthralled. I don't think I even paused it to go to the potty!

Patrick Approval Rating: 10/10

"Inglourious Basterds" @ imdb

Revisiting: Mamma Mia! (DVD)

I figured it was aboot time I reviewed a musical on here. And I say aboot in honor of the Olympics, which ended last night, and consumed much of my last two weeks' time. I'm sad they're done because I'm so obsessed with anything Olympical and I feel like something momentous is happening while they occur, and then a sense of emptiness when they're gone. Another year and half until the next ones. And maybe I'll be attending them? We'll see.

TANGENT OVER. I don't know why I went there, but I did, and now I'm going to revisit "Mamma Mia!" one of the products of the recent movie musical resurgence. Thanks "Moulin Rouge!" I do own this movie on DVD, thanks to my brother getting it for me this past Christmas. I've collected all major movie musicals on DVD since "Moulin Rouge!" because I do love them all, even the bad ones in their own way.  So it was only natural I got "Mamma Mia!" for my movie musical collection.

I'm kind of embarrassed to say I saw this movie twice in theaters. Yep. The first time I thought it was AWFUL. It was a campy piece of dreck. I thought it started out with potential, and then during the song "Money Money Money" when Meryl Streep rises from her seat at the table into the path of a wind machine and fantasizes herself singing the rest of the song in slow motion on a boat, it lost me. 4 realz. I was like, OK, this movie just jumped the shark ten minutes in and my attitude for the rest of the film was spoiled.

Then I saw it again, knowing how campy and bad it was, and accepted it, and let go of the bad, and then, from somewhere deep inside my soul, a gay little sparkle of enjoyment sparkled its sparkly dance and I started to have fun. Watching Meryl Streep let completely loose is such a thrill to watch, and even though some of the singing (and not so much the actual singing as the lipsynching to the bad singing) of Pierce Brosnan is horrendous, I can get through the entire movie and have fun. I've subsequently seen the film two more times after I watched it in theaters, and it grows on me more and more.

By no means is it perfect. The first time film director, Phyllida Lloyd, who also directed the stage incarnation, tries her best to direct a movie, but she is obviously a first timer, and fails to do a lot of things good directors should do. Just certain shots bothered me and seemed amateur-ish and there is way too much slow motion, which actually made me guffaw a couple of times because when the slow motion is used to make something dramatic it actually makes the actors look a little...slow. And not in the speedy sense of the word.

So it's a movie to watch, to not take seriously, and thus to enjoy. Plus the music of ABBA is so darn infectious and catchy you'll be your own "Dancing Queen" for the rest of the day.

Patrick Approval Rating: 6/10

"Mamma Mia!" @ imdb