Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
I don't even like Kristen Stewart and I thought this film was awesome. Like totally. For sure. Okay, I don't really dislike Ms. Stewart either, I just never got into those vampire movies she was in. Maybe if I had been younger when I saw them, like twenty years younger. Or maybe if I had been more goth, like twenty years more goth. Based upon this film, she seems to be a decent enough actor. Now before y'all start filling up my inbox with emails pointing out that I probably meant actress, I assure you I did not. I am not trying to make some subtle, or not so subtle comment on her sexuality. From what I could see she is very definitely a young woman. I've just decided that using actress is ridiculous. I never would think to call my doctor (another person who based on what I've seen is also very definitely a young woman) a doctress. I'm making a stand on the English language right here, right now. No longer will I be a slave to the small minority of genderfied nouns - it's all or nothing. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the femine form of actor would be actrix. So, all actors are actors until Nancy Pelosi is a legislatrix and my doctor is a doctrix and my dominatrix is a, er, um, uh...real and not make believe. You totally thought I had backed myself into a corner there didn't you?
You know what I really like about this movie? Okay, you could say a lot of different things, but let me tell you it's a given that I loved the look. I really liked that there was good magic as well as evil magic. It seems that so often in the Snow White fairy tale that the evil queen has all the magic. There is a scenario where the evil queen having all the magic works, but I haven't seen it in a film yet, though that other Snow White movie - the one with Sigourney Weaver - tried and failed. If the magic is only on one side, it needs to seem more like some ancient, mystical rite, not just some simple waving of the hands crap. So I thought the faeries and elves and white hart were a really nice touch. The other thing I appreciated was that this movie was Romantic, but not a romance. The first type inspire me, while the latter ultimately just point out my failings as a human being. Just let me make a quick not here to mention that to my therapist.
The only thing about this movie that I found odd were the dwarves. They were almost Jacksonian dwarves. Almost. Maybe it's the hair-dos that are throwing me off, but it seems that they just didn't adjust their stature, that through cgi they made their heads large in proportion to their bodies. Were they going for the look of Disney's dwarves or just trying to set themselves apart from Gimli and his brethren? Their hair styles seem for comic value to the untrained eye, but any of you who are gamers that read or looked at the pictures at least of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons late 2nd edition and 3rd edition books will recognize them. Did I just answer my own question? Maybe they were going for that AD&D look. Maybe they went the Jacksonian route so they could get those heavy hitters into their movie - Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Nick Frost, Ray Winstone. Alright, Frost might not be a heavy hitter, but he's a personal fave and if you are a regular enough reader you even know why *cough* Simon Pegg movies *cough*.
And finally, we can't leave this topic without thinking about Charlize Theron. I'm not going to say anything about her or her role. I just want us all to think about her.

Snow White and the Huntsman at IMDb

Snow White: A Tale of Terror (1997)

This film stars Sigourney Weaver and Sam Neill. That brings with it certain expectations - that this will be a good film, but not great, because that's how I think of these two actors. They are both good actors, in some roles very good, but neither one of them are charismatic in the least. That is why they can never be great actors. I will grant that maybe they can be in great films, but that is because the other members fo the cast or the story itself provides that essential ingrediant.
This could have been such a good film. Like if instead of what they did, they actually went with terror. Or if the supernatural bits had happened earlier, or at least were hinted at earlier. Or if they had done anything to make us care about Weaver or Neill's characters. They could have taken this in a Lovecraftian direction or a Poeian, um maybe that should be Poeish, either one of those would have been fresh. Instead this was a film that was "good" - technically sound, costumes looked correct, etc. But nothing made it stand out. Hell, they could even have taken this in Raimian turn a la Evil Dead. They could have stayed more main stream and just used Weaver's character to actually show her descent into madness, or at least explain why she was doing what she did. But, it was all fucked up.
This film tried to be a period piece, it tried to be a horror story, it tried to be a love story. It kind did all of them, but half-assed. Maybe I should classify this as a "fair" movie - I made it all the way to the end, but I'm not going to encourage anyone else to attempt that feat without first hearing my caveats.
This film is a perfect example of a movie where the cast and crew do their jobs - no one was phoning any acting in and the technical stuff never lapsed - but the director lets you down. There are so many little things the director could have done to make us care about the characters. The main one could have been a little more character development. The film is only an hour and a half, we could have handled another 20 minutes if it was well spent with giving us characters that we care about instead of using contrivances to get the point across.
Blurgh.
There is one other little thing about this film that really chaps my hide, and I think maybe the studio gets tagged for this one, and that's the name. Don't a) call a movie a "Tale of Terror" and then give us half-assed creepiness and b) and this is the big one, don't call the damn thing Snow White and then stray enough from the story that it's only recognizable in a couple of spots. You would have been better suited to call this something completely different, like "The Mirror's Shards". Then as we come across things that remind us of Snow White, we could have had "a-ha!" moments. In interviews after the movie was released you wouldn't deny it was an interpretation of the Snow White tale, but you wouldn't be all like, "hey, were spinnin' Ess Dub in a whole new direction!" either.
I was told that this movie wasn't bad, and I was sure that implied the film was good but not great, but I'm going to hold my critique to the exact words, "it wasn't bad".

Snow White: A Tale of Terror at IMDb

Man on a Ledge (2012)

Well, this was a bit different from Clash of the Titans for Worthington. While I am totally into those fantasy FX-fests, this was my type of move. A cop wrongly accused. A jewel heist. Adrenaline. Twists and turns. A hot cop. A hotter thief. Shots. Jumps. Misguidance. Big reveals. This film did okay by me.
This movie was like the "Law" part of "Law & Order" back in the day when Jerry Auerbach was still on the show, except on a giant dose of steroids. Maybe I mean the "Order" part. It's the cop part, okay. I just picked "Law because that comes first, and the cop part is always first in the show. Okay? Sheesh. Do you feel better now for making me out as some kind of fraud? They had the police procedure down, which they used to great effect to speed things up and slow them down when needed. They had a system of good cops dealing with a couple of bad cops and a cop that was made to look bad even though he was good.
Speaking of bad, man Ed Harris totally kicked bad guy ass in this movie. You hear stories about business men that would sell their own mother into slavery if the price was right. They ain't got nothin' on David Englander who is one cold heartless son of a bitch.
It's interesting watching the extras on this flick, not for their sake as to be honest they're not that interesting, but to hear the actors as themselves. Banks sounds like Mercer, but Rodriguez does not sound quite like Angie her voice being a bit higher pitched than the character's. Bell is British which I didn't know which I guess means he did a pretty good job as a New Yorker. And Worthington of course is Australian and did a good job with the New York accent. If Banks could have matched their accent the whole thing would have been totally awesome. Oh well. Her character's accent wasn't distracting, it's only something I am thinking about in the afterwards.

Man on a Ledge at IMDb

Let's Pretend This Never Happened

Let's Pretend This Never Happened
by
Jenny Lawson

Oh. My. God.
Wouldn't it be funny if that's all I said about the book? Did I like it? Did I hate it? Did I mean to use exclamation points? But forgot? Did I mean to ?
This book was recommended to me whole-heartedly, but there was also a warning about feeling guilty at laughing at some of the stories. I can certainly see what she meant, but I don't think I ever felt guilty because by about a third of the way into the memoir, I was all like, "I totally get that." Jenny could have been one of my friends growing up. If only I had grown up in Texas, perhaps we would have known each other and I could have been a footnote to one of her stories. For the record, I did live in TX when I was quite young - in the San Antonio area which is close to where she ends up at the end of the book. Oh, and let me just say, she is not kidding about the fucking scorpions. Not at all.
It was more than feeling like she could have been one of my friends from childhood, it was more like I was identifying with her, past the point of empathy. My dad was not a taxidermist, professional, amateur or otherwise, but my mom was, shall we say, eccentric. By the time Jenny meets Victor, I'm usually saying things to myself, "that seems totally logical".
Also, in full disclosure, I think I have a little crush on her. Not the real Jenny, the one who's crazy in curlers. I could so go for a girl like that.
You've got to read this book to appreciate it, which now that I look at it is one of the more obvious things I've written today. But what I'm trying to say is that my telling you about cannot possibly do this book justice. I could tell you a story about a talking squirrel or bobcat lap warmer or zombie dogs, but it could not possibly be as funny as how she wrote it.
And for the record, I did not listen to this book on CD or mp3, I actually read it. That felt kind of liberating. It was fucking frustrating because I read so goddamned slow, but it was also rewarding and for a little while, I felt like a normal human being. Which is kind of ironic considering that I just told you that I read her book and completely understood her logic in every situation and agreed with it as the most obvious course in many cases.
Read her book, then read her blog. And then keep reading her blog util the new book comes out in 2014.
Also, Jenny knows Neil Gaimon. So, she is like twice as cool as she was before you read this paragraph.

Buy this book at Amazon

Read Jenny's blog.

Worship her.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Goddammit! I always knew that stoners and virgins would be the end of us all.

Wouldn't have been funny if that was all I wrote? And if I did it without the title of the movie? Just like a note in cyberspace saying, "hello! crazy guy here!" Normally I wouldn't go with two exclamation points, but I made the exemption this time because I think it deserved it.
I loves me some Bradley Whitford. The West Wing. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know millions saw the first one and just like twelve of us the second one, and two of us were in the same household. I know that Aaron Sorkin had a lot to do with both of these, but I think I only watched like one or two years of the West Wing with Sorkin as the show runner, so I'm going to give a lot of credit to Whitford. Man, I'm still tripping that he's married to the mom from Malcolm in the Middle, and also a bit embarrassed that I can't remember her name - is it Jane Kaczmarek? I think I may have just made up that last name. (Thanks to a very devoted reader, I know that this is correct - because I had the wrong name initially. Sadly, Wikipedia is telling me they are divorced now. Shows what I know.)
Of all the ways that the world ends, I think I like Joss Whedon's version best. My least favorite way is by a rogue asteroid or a super solar flare. Unless we get lots of warning and personal melodrama, or at the very least televised melodrama. If it were say a 8 month long debate about whether or not the asteroid was actually going to hit, or narrowly going to miss the earth as it passes between us and the moon, and as we get closer the calculations get more accurate, but they interpretted more widely so that we end up with two camps, the we're-all-gonna-die-in-a-horrible-impact-that-leads-to-nuclear-night-style-death-but-don't-think-we'll-sneak-through-this-one-because-the-atmosphere-will-be-knocked-away or the other camp, the a-lot-of-people-are-going-to-die-through-natural-disasters-caused-by-the-near-miss-but-all-the-main-characters-will-survive-because-that's-a-given folk. The first camp would be really popular if the holocaust were covered on HBO, because you could have lots of naked people and each week it would be like, "I can't believe she fucked *him*" and then they'd  be all, "well, we are all going to die in a couple of months." and then the first person would be all like, "oh my god! you fucked him too, didn't you?" And there would be that sorry schmoe that everyone felt sorry for because even though the world was definitely ending, probably, he still would get any and he would just spend all of his blogging about it just in case someone survived yet forgot what happened and somehow had electricity to read his stupid blog. But I swear if Bruce Willis or Ben Afleck tries to save the earth, I will personally take them out, because the death of billions is preferable to seeing them trying to save us. Seriously. Can you guess who I am in this apocalyptic scenario?
Part of my brain is telling me this is a novel idea, I should see what Sorkin or maybe Kevin Smith are up to and pitch it to them. But another part of me is whispering, "you're going to feel so guilty if you wake up tomorrow and NPR has announced super killer solar flares coming in late May." And I totally would. And then I would start blogging about and all the crazy shit and how I still...oh too much personal information here.
My only critical comment about this whole movie is that the very last scene - the arm shouldn't have looked so human, it should have been more amphibian. Also, and this is not a critical comment, more of a, "hmm" kind of thing, when did Sigourney Weaver pass from the bad-ass heroine to be the director of the evil angency? Aliens 4 and even Avatar, she was bad-ass. Then, in Paul and now The Cabin in the Woods, she's the director of the evil agency. I guess it works for her though.

The Cabin in the Woods at IMDb

The Avengers (1998)

I really wished that I had been able to get Joss Whedon's Averngers movie, which I imagine is a tad different from this one. Alas, that movie is not out on DVD yet (well at the time when I wrote this), so I had to do with this Avengers. This movie is based on a television show that aired before I was born so of course the library system doesn't have it for watching. I'm normally not into 60s television shows, but after watching this movie it would love to see if it's even close to what it's based on. Does that make it sound like I don't like this movie? I hope not, because I do like it.
In an effort at achieving full disclosure, I heart Uma. She's purty. She fills out a jumpsuit quite swimmingly.
Ralph Fiennes ain't too bad, either. He looks very at home in a black bowler.
This movie is very punny, particularly the early dialogues between Mr. Steed and Mrs. Peel. Fortunately this doesn't fall over into the action which is taken quite seriously, even though the premise or the setting or both is often quite ridiculous.
You know what this reminds me of? A British version of Get Smart. The romance and the action are quite serious, but the dialogue and premise are absurd. Quite entertaining really. I wonder if they initially planned on doing a series of movies? I thought the same thing when I watched the movie adaptation of Wild, Wild West. You have a movie with instant name recognition. You have witty if not sparkling dialogue. You have some big action sequences. And, you have big name stars attached, ones that are known to do a sequel or two in their time.

The Avengers on IMDb

Contraband (2012)

Mark Wahlberg is back to his roots with this movie. This more reminiscent of The Italian Job than just about anything else, except with a lot more profanity. Really noticeable with this movie is the lack of music, by which I mean incidental music, as there are actually bands playing in some early scenes and there is a song at the end which really sticks out because there hasn't been much music up to this point. It helps make this a more gritty film than I think Hollywood expects from Wahlberg, but something which his fans will like.
Kate Beckinsale is not her usual self in this film. I am used to seeing her all dark haired and dressed in tight leather, usually as a vampire or a vampire hunter or a vampire who is a vampire hunter. I know that she is British, but I've heard her do American accents before, but this was pretty good, had I not known better, I would have guessed that she and Wahlberg really were from the same place.
Ben Foster is the third main in the film. He plays a pretty good bad guy (pun intended). He has that creepy thing going on where you want to wash your hands after time he touches someone. As the movie progresses, the creepiness progresses, which is good and bad - good for character development, bad for predictability.
The only bad thing about this movie is that it is pretty obvious from very early on what the gimmick is. It doesn't really ruin the movie, as most of the time the mains aren't trying to figure out who is behind the scenes, but towards the end when Wahlberg's character is trying to figure things out you kind of feel for the guy because you've known since the start of the movie, and it's been revealed to other characters about 15 minutes earlier. If you like a good Wahlberg action flick, this won't detract from it for you.

Contraband at IMDb

Little Brother (2008)

Little Brother (2008)
by
Cory Doctorow
read by Kirby Heyborne
___

What a pleasant surprise. I've read two novels by Doctorow now (you know that audiobooks counts as reading, right?) and I didn't know anything about them going in. But, that's okay. He's now become an author that I will seek out all the audiobooks I can find, which I think is limited to the two I've now heard, but I'll look.
I decided to give Little Brother a try because my friend asked me if I was excited about the sequel dropping - must have been a month or two ago by now. She'd read and like it and thought I might as well. You know what? She was spot on.
Interestingly this is a "YA" novel. Which I never would have guessed until I was told so in an afterwards by the author at the very end. This book dealt with some pretty weighty stuff, and while I'm not saying young adults can't deal with that, it's just more than I expect from one of the YA genre. Sure, Rowling and Pullman deal with some very adult issues including death, unlawful imprisonment and torture, but they've never had a scene of a main character being tortured in a real world method in one of their books. Unlike someone, say Riordan in his Percy Jackson books that casually mentions death and then may or may not mention that Percy is a little sad, Doctorow puts it right up front so that the characters have to deal with it, and they do so in a very human manner, which is to say not perfectly.
I bet Cory Doctorow is a very smart guy, and I bet he either was/is a teacher or wanted to be one. I say this because in, "For The Win", I learned a lot about macro-economics, a topic not unfamiliar to me, but never before explained so well. NPR could take notes on how well Doctorow explains a country fiscal policies, especially their currency policies. In "Little Brother" we learn a lot about network security and various different internet-related terms and actions, like what 'tunneling' actually is. Again, this area is not something new to me, but if I had learned this from Doctorow, it would have been very clear years ago and taken much less time to boot.
I do wonder why this was a YA book and "For The Win" wasn't. The protagonists of each are young people, the bad things that happen in each are graphically detailed, but not glorified. I'll have to look into it, maybe they're both YA and I just didn't notice. Which is okay, because it just happens that I am quite fond of YA.

Audiobook available at Amazon.com

Sneakers (1992)

My god, how can it be 20 years since this came out? How could all of that computer stuff seem so cutting edge, or nearly cutting edge? How could they think that Mary McDonnell's hair-do looked good? How could we ever buy anyone mistaking Dany Akroyd for River Phoenix?
What a great film. So many great stars doing their thing. I really thought that this would be a good re-watch, but mostly for nostalgic reasons than that it would have been a good film two decades later. But aside from Ms. McDonnell's hair and some really old tech, that you and I both know was already out of date in '92, this was a good film. It was quirky and a bit predictable, but how can you go wrong with Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, Ben Kingsley and James Earl Jones? Then you add in River Phoenix, Timothy Busfield, Dan Akroyd and Stephen Tobolowski, and it's just a great film.
Gush gush gush.
I was watching Redford and thinking how much Brad Pitt reminds me of him in some of his roles and lilkely if this film was made today it would have been Pitt in the leading role. But, George Clooney is more erudite and could pull it off if he were a bit younger. So, my conclusion from this film was the following math equation: Brad Pitt + George Clooney = Robert Redford. I don't think this surprises anyone.

Sneakers at IMDB

Maverick (1994)

I was totally ready to not be entertained by this film. I don't much care for Westerns as a rule. I have seen the series this is based on, and thought maybe my time would be better spent organizing files on a folder somewhere. But, I turned it on anyway, something to look at as I started eating my dinner. The next thing you know, I'm hooked and watched the whole thing. I thoroughly enjoyed it, too. The only real drawback was that the whole time, Maverick was Gibson, Annabelle was Foster and Coop was Garner. Not that they were bad, but I never got passed the actor to the character. There are worse actors to not get passed... *cough* Keanu Reeves *cough*.
I liked the nod to Danny Glover during the bank robbery. That was quaintly clever and I can just imagine the looks on some of the movie-goers faces 18 years ago when the light went off in their little brain. "Hey, it's the other guy from those movies!" And indeed it was.
The other scene I really liked was the first half of the poker tournament. There were a lot of faces I recognized from television and movies - many of the actors were of the elderly persuasion, so it was cool to see them.
Interestingly, I didn't see Danny Glover's name in the credits, nor did I see Denver Pyle's name (he played Uncle Jesse on the Dukes of Hazzard - hard to miss). I'll have to explore on IMDB. I did notice that quite a few country music stars did music for the film and appeared in it as well - Clint Black, Vince Gill and, well okay, just those two, plus their wives I think. If only Randy Newman had appeared in the movie as a saloon piano player, that would've been cool.

Maverick on IMDb

Wild, Wild West (1999)

So, I only thought to watch this because Tor.com did a story about this film, The Avengers (the one with Uma Thurman, not the super hero deal) and another one who's name is eluding me, but like these two was based on a 60s television show but became a 90s movie. I put all three on hold so I could watch them, with The Avengers being the only one that I've already seen.
They made Wild, Wild West sound like a horrible movie, apologizing for even picking it and apologizing again for Kenneth Branagh. Or maybe they were apologizing to him. I'm not sure. Now, this is the same place that loves the original Men In Black. Could it be that they only love M.I.B. so that they can contrast it with M.I.B. II? That could very well be, but I digress. They love M.I.B. but apologize for WWW? WTF?
Is this the greatest movie ever? Nope. But, it's pretty damn funny. The premise is completely ridiculous and I love it. This came out right after M.I.B. For the three of you who don't know, Will Smith stars in both movies. But in WWW, he's traded in Tommy Lee Jones and Vincent D'Onofrio for Kevin Kline and Kenneth Branagh. Oh, and they threw in Salma Hayek to sweeten the deal. The actors bring to their roles what you would expect. No real surprises, but that ain't always bad.
What really rocks about this film are that it doesn't take itself too seriously. I'm guessing that likely comes because they were trying out a Western version of M.I.B. But even more important is the Steampunk aspect. That aspect is pretty much the whole movie. Steam-powered jet-bicycles, giant steam-powered spiders that can blow up cities, ingenious gasgetry and men who are part machine. That's what I'm talking about!
I knew of Steampunk in '99, but I wasn't into it then (I'm a newcomer). I know this was the perfect opportunity to prove my hipster geek creds by saying that in '99 I had already been into it for a couple of years. But that would be a lie. I was into Cyberpunk, though. And Cthulhupunk. I wasn't an early adopter of Cyberpunk either, but that's because I didn't know about it. When I started to get into it, Gibson's books had been around for a while, but at least I was there before they put Keanu Reeves and Henry Rollins into a movie based on one of his books. Now Cthulhupunk, I have been into since the very beginning as far as I can tell. I learned about Lovecraft in like '87 or '88 when a teacher recommended to me that since I liked Poe, I should look to the man who inspired him. From the moment of the first short story I was hooked and have devoured all things Lovecraftian ever since. Which means I have read a lot of crap to be quite honest. When the Call of Cthulhu RPG came out in the mid-90s, I was all like, "Hell ya!", but even my hardcore gaming buddies, the ones that played every game of Vampire in full costume, thought it was a bit out there. I blame the game system on that one, not the Cthulhu. It was some point after this that the Cthulhupunk scene started popping up and now it's everywhere. Just today I was looking at something a buddy posted on facebook - a fake political poster in support of the big C in the upcoming election. I wanted to share with him my desktop background from 2004 - "Cthulhu 2004 - Why choose the lesser of two evils?" Wtih the big guy all Nixonesque in a red-white-blue motif. I wanted to share that with him and explain that even by that point, Cthulhupunk was being swallowed up into the larger geek community. Um, why am I talking about this? Oh my god! Behind you....quick run away!

Wild, Wild West on IMDb

The Disappearing Spoon

The Disappearing Spoon
by
Sam Kean
read by
Sean Runnette

What an incredibly delightful book. It has the perfect mix of science fact and meandering story telling. You never quite know which way Kean is going to go. I mean sure, he's going to talk about the elements, and probably a bit about their discovery, but learning all the gossipy stuff about Curie or the hubris of Pauling and then BAM! Suddenly we're learning about sonic-luminescence.
This is really the type of book that you should read for yourself, or you know, listen to at least. There is no way that I can do it justice, so I'm just going to tell you to trust me on this one, embrace your science geek side and read the damn thing.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

I avoided this movie for a long time, because I thought it was something that it wasn't. In my head, I got the trailer mixed up with all those Dane Cooke or Paul Rudd "bromance" flicks that all, to a one, just totally suck. That is not this movie. In fact, if I would have known Kristen Bell was in it, I would have so watched it, except I did know, but I wasn't a fan of hers yet, not having watched Veronica Mars until after this movie had come out. That makes sense, right? Sure. I did know that Mila Kunis was in this film, so I had almost watched it based on that, except that I think she was dating McCaully Culkin at the time so that probably mitigated against her, at least a little bit. The only other people I knew in it were all Saturday Night Live alums, and well that isn't really a selling point.
Jason Segel has good chemistry with both Kristen Bell and Mila Kunis. Lucky bastard.  Of course he also gets naked with both of them, not counting sex scenes where he presumably wasn't naked and where both of the young ladies are filmed in such a way as to not show anything. It's kind of funny, because Segel actually does full frontal nudity in this movie - twice. Um, maybe I should mention that I'm watching the 'unrated' extended version. There is a photo of Kunis's character flashing that is a plot device, but I'm pretty sure it's her head on another woman's body.
Ruseell Brand as the other guy in Sarah Marshall's life is brilliant. I've read interviews that say he wasn't really acting that he is like the character. In which case I say, huzzah to the person in charge of casting. Also quite funny is Jack McBrayer who I loved on 30 Rock. Interestingly this character is very religious just like his Kenneth character, but not so stupid.
What's really the most interesting parts of the movie, though, are the two fake television shows that the Marshall character is involved with. The first with Billy Baldwin and the second with Jason Bateman, both of whom play themselves in the movie playing characters on these fictitious shows. The Baldwin show is a CSI spoof called "Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime" and is CSI but with every line full of intentional and/or obvious sexual innuendo. The Bateman show is called "Animal Instinct" where he's a cop and Sarah Marshall plays an animal psychic. They both look totally ridiculous, but honestly, if they were ever made, I would probably watch them, because I like procedurals, in the first case, and I like Bateman, in the second case. Interestingly, the shows were both on NBC and not some made up network. I know that Segel has ties to NBC, I find it interesting that they would let him use their logo, but then I guess that any advertisement is good advertisement (see above where I said I would probably watch the shows).
So, I'm painting a pretty rosy picture but there are some awkward moments, and not just the good kind played for comic or dramatic value. There were several scenes where I was embarassed for the actor and Segel in his role as the writer. There are two actors in this that I really don't like - Bill Hader and Jonah Hill. I'm sure they're both great guys, so let me instead say that I don't like their characters. Not in this or in anything else. Sorry. They both annoy the fuck out of me. Some of my dislike for Hader is misplaced dislike for Jim Carey because they remind me of each other in so many ways. But, there are a couple of roles of Carey's that I quite like, so I will hold out hope that someday Hader and Hill will not so utterly disapoint.
I don't want to end on a downer, so I've been saving the bestest mostest awesomest thing for last - Dracula the musical. Why do I have the feeling that Segel wrote more than just the couple of songs we see performed? And puppets? That totally rocked! I would love to go see that musical. I love that he made it a comedy and that Dracula has more than a passing resemblance to the Count from Sesame Street and that Van Helsing has no resemblance to Hugh Jackman.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall at IMDb

Pleasantville (1998)

Wow, this is an old movie - so old that the back of the DVD case lists the date in roman numerals, which took me just a couple of seconds to translate. What a great skill to have. 1998 you say? Why that's MCMXCVIII. (And the crowd goes wild...various pieces of women's underwear rain down upon the stage)
This was a movie I was never going to watch. It looked cheesey, and seeing that it was from the director of Big and Dave didn't help it. But, then I watched the Hunger Games and more importantly the DVD extras and liked how Gary Ross presented himself. And hey, who doesn't love Peter Parker and June Carter Cash?
I'm glad that I watched Pleasantville. Would it be too cheeky to say it was a pleasant movie? Okay, maybe a little. It was a nice story about normal kids thrust into a non-normal situation, and their coming of age. Plus, you gotta love any story where the fry cook discovers that his true love is as a painter and that his other true love is the married mother of his only employee.
Joan Allen is outstanding in this film, as is Jeff Daniels. Everyone else is good, but not really noteworthy, which considering the names of some of these heavy-hitters is a bit surprising. I have to think that if William H. Macy were given just a little more to work with that his character would have shined the whole way through, and not just in the end. Oh, there is one other name that is worth mentioning - Don Knotts. He played the t.v. repairman with a mix of devil and angel and child that was brilliant. I think it's easy to sell him short based on his career, but I doubt that he really has been given many chances to play anything more than the comic relief, which is too bad - he was conveying more with a look than any of the younger actors.
I wonder if Mr. Knotts is still alive? I had no idea how old this film was until after watching it, so when he first came on screen, my reaction was, "Hey! It's Don Freaki' Knotts! I didn't know he was still alive..." And then I enjoy the film and in order to write this check out the back of the case and see that it was released in MCMXCVIII, I mean 1998 (sorry), and now I feel a bit sad because he might not be still alive and for some reason that really bums me out. Okay Google, time to break it to me...

Pleasantville on IMDb

Wrath of the Titans (2012)

Ladies and gentlemen! Gods and weird six-armed demon dudes! I present to you the fight of the year! And it's not what you think. You know after the first interaction between Perseus (Sam Worthington) and Zeus (Liam Neeson) how this movie is going to play out, and  being that it's rather starved for attention, it doesn't want to let you down. The real fight is between the storyline and Greek myth. And I don't mean to ruin this for you, but Greek myth does not win.
On one end of the Greek myth-as-movie spectrum you have Troy, which has all the names right and no godly stuff at all. On the second end of the spectrum you have Clash of the Titans (the new one) getting some of the names right and some of the deeds right and lots of godly super power stuff and on the the third end of the spectrum, you have the Percy Jackson books and movie which don't try to get it right because they are interpreting for a new generation and it has lots of godly stuff and demi-godly stuff. This movie, Wrath of the Titans falls equidistant between Clash and Jackson and three-quarters of the way away from Troy.
What the movie got right: Perseus is the son of Zeus. Zeus, Hades and Poseiden are brothers. Ares is the son of Zeus. Kronos is the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseiden.
What the movie got half-way right: Perseus and Andromeda - Perseus doesn't hook up with some chick to be his baby mama and then hook up with Andi years later, he's supposed to be with her from the start. Perseus and Pegasus - Pegasus assisted Perseus in his adventure with Medusa, but not any other adventures.
What the movie got wrong: Everything else. How can Perseus be the grandfather of Heracles if Zeus dies before Perseus has any kids with Andromeda? How is it that the Titans have power and the demi-gods have power, but the gods lose their power? How can Perseus have killed Ares before Ares makes his appearance in Troy? How is it that I'm even concerned about how this movie compares to Greek myth? The answer is sequels, baby! I am officially casting my vote for the movie to be called "Remember the Titans" so that people are always thinking they are about to watch a movie about football. Or, they can call it, 'Episode 6: The Return of the Demi'
It's time for me to get over my geeky worries and realize that no one is watching this film to see and accurate portrayal of the Greek myths involving Perseus. And they're not watching it to see Sam Worthington, because if they are it's just too sad for me to bear. If they're smart, they're watching this movie to see Liam Neeson, Ralph Feinnes, Rosamund Pike or Bill Nighy. If they had cast Clive Owen as Perseus, this could have been a brilliantly well-acted movie, and if they had different writers who were actually interested in Greek myth instead of making money, this movie could have been brilliant across the board.

Wrath of the Titans at IMDb

The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines (2006)

This was the first of the Librarian movies that I had seen a couple of years back, and it turns out that I had missed the opening sequence looking for the crystal skull. So, that was kind of cool.
I was going to watch a different movie tonight, but it turns out that today is Bob Newhart's birthday - happy 82nd Bob!. Which means that he was 76 when this came out, so 75 when it was made. Dang he looks only a little bit older than my memories all those years ago of the Bob Newhart Show. Which is to say that he has looked to be in his 60s for 25 to 30 years now. Huh.
I spent the whole damn film, which is as enjoyable as the other two by the way, looking at Gabrielle Anwar. I know the back of the movie case calls her the "beautiful archaeologist" and I know several dudes who think she is super hot based on starring in Burn Notice, but I am not convinced. I don't think she's an uggo or anything. Oh my god, did I just write that? I really need an editor. No. Seriously.
Where was I? Oh yeah, Ms. Anwar. I just want to make her a nice lasagna and maybe a cake or pie. That girl could use some more food. Now, I know that she's proud of how she looks, else why would she play so many roles where she is showing off so much skin but it just ain't doing it for me. Maybe it's just her neck and her face. There is a scene right at the end of the movie where she is wearing a spaghetti strap dress and holds up her arm. I paused the movie for a minute to look at her arm. I know. I'm not your average bear. Her arm was not super thin and/or all muscular. It was a normal nice looking arm. Maybe she just has a mix of things going on? Normal arms, a sculpted abs region and a scrawney little neck and too thin face. Her abs, they don't belong to a hyper skinny person either. They are quite athletic and muscular looking like she must do a thousand sit ups a day. Funny, I didn't even think to pause the movie then. But not too surprising since I don't think she's very good looking. She could take half to two-thirds of the time she spends doing sit ups and spend that time eating lasagna and cake. Ya. I like that idea.
Also, I think Noah Wylie looks totally hot in glasses. Or at least he did when he was 35. I bet he still does.

The Librarian: Return to King Solomon's Mines at IMDb

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear (2005)

I know you are supposed to watch this movie first, you know, so that you know how Flynn gets hooked up with the library, but I watched it third. Still as entertaining as if I watched it first. Not that I could have watched it any other way - I watched the second and third ones a couple of years back when they did marathon on TNT and we missed the first one. So, I watched the third one again night before last, now the first one, and will put a hold on the second one to watch next week. Good stuff.
While watching this film, I have the foresight of knowing where they are going with the characters, so it was interesting to see how it all started in that context.
This movie was goofier than the third, lots of Flynn tripping over his own feet and stuff, only to have him do some truly bad-ass thing based upon something he read combined with his observations of the world around him. Not a bad way to portray librarians, as far as I'm concerned, and if any non-librarian would know, it would probably be me.
I've always thought that Bob Newhart and Jance Curtain were funny, and there roles in this series of movies does nothing to dissuade that. What I didn't know was that I liked Noah Wylie so much. He is more leading man than comedian. Honestly, I bet that actors like Wil Wheaton look at Wylie and are totally jealous because they think that could have been them. Sure Wheaton, blame Wylie for being too short.
Kyle McLachlan as the baddy was great, especially since he was the goodie-turned-baddie. Very nice role for Muad'dib. Honestly, while I might not like all the movies that I've seen McLachlan in, I've always liked his characters.
Lastly, Sonya Walger and Kelly Hu deserve a shout out for the kicking ass and looking hot, if not their acting chops. I don't blame them, though. The script and director made them say and do the cheesy things they did, and at least they did it looking attractive.

The Librarian: Quest for the Spear at IMDb

The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice (2008)

This is a film in which Doctor Carter and Detective Beckett battle Senator...crap, I forgot the character name - the Senator from the first X-Men movie who turns to water...ah well, I've spoiled the moment already.
Okay, Noah Wylie plays a character that is not a doctor, but instead a librarian. I happen to be rather fond of librarians and maybe that's why I think this was a good career move for him. Well, I'm not too familiar with his character on ER. I watched it a few times and remember George Clooney and Anthony Edwards, and a scene with Dr. Carter with a really big beard. Wylie must have been quite young when he played that role.
Stana Katic is the love interest/undead temptress, Simone. When I saw this movie the first time, I didn't know her at all and remembered thinking that she was kind of cute and that I didn't really buy her French accent, even if she had been in the US for a couple of centuries. But, since then I've seen four seasons of Castle in which she plays the indomitable Detective Kate Beckett. She's also pretty young, I think just in her early thirties.
Note to my childhood self in case he reads this through some weird anomalous space-time rip or worm hole - I know that people in their thirties don't seem young, but trust me kid, they are. I don't think women really become beautiful until about thirty, they can be attractive and pretty and gorgeous, but they're missing the seasoning necessary for true beauty. Trust me kid - girls only get better looking and women always trump girls. I think there is a corollary for men too. Brad Pitt for example, much more attractive in his thirties than his twenties. Oh, but don't think it stops then - beauty, I mean truly striking beauty continues on into her fifties and in some cases sixties depending on the woman. Same thing for dudes. But, then it's all downhill from there, which I think you already know.
Okay, back to the matter at hand. This film is like a good version of Warehouse 13. Don't get me wrong, I love that show, but the acting is hit and miss and the episodes are fairly formulaic. The acting in the Librarian films is definitely a notch up. They are made for television, so profanity is lacking, as are the "sexy-sexy", but that's okay. It's funny and the main character is such a nerd as to be a rockstar. Really, I think this film easily stands up against theatrical releases like the National Treasure movies, okay Nick Cage isn't much to win against, so how about also does well against the Lara Croft movies, because I think we can all agree that Angelina Jolie is a better actor than Cage, but they're based on a video game, I know. How about I tell you that in my opinion these films stand up pretty well against the Indiana Jones franchise. Would you believe me? I'm not going to say they're better than Raiders of the Lost Ark, because let's face it, few films are, but I will stick these up against the other three. It the Librarian films had the budget of the Indiana Jones flicks, I'm sure it would win, you know, except against Raiders, because that is one of the best movies of all times.

The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice at IMDb

The Muppets (2011)

I came into this one knowing that I wasn't going to like it. My librarian didn't have anything good to say bout it, and in fact had bad things to say about it. Plus, and only slightly more importantly, I hadn't viewed any new muppet endeavors since the passing of Jim Henson. I don't care how close they got with Kermit's voice, it wasn't the same voice.
A funny thing happened though, maybe it was the magic of the moment or that I was also enspirited by Walter's dream of getting the muppets back together, but the snarky comments faded on my lips. I let the cynicism drop away and gave the mupets a fresh look and a fresh chance.
This movie was funny and entertaining. It was like putting on a favorite pair of old sneakers that you find while cleaning out the garage. It's like a...rehash of the first muppet movie, but you don't mind. Right?
Okay, I've been all nicey-nicey as long as I can. I had this hope of pulling a fast one on my readers, so she'd be all like, "what? this isn't the eric i've come to know and love!" Except that I used "know" where she actually said "accidentally read" and instead of "love" she actually said, "not hate as much as I thought I would". Gotcha!? (He almost confidently states holding his arms out straight in a way he's seen on television that rascals use to show that you gotta love them.)
Honestly though, I don't take back anything I said about the movie - there is just more to say, and I'll try to stop the snark before it hits because it really is unsolicited.
This movie is not for adults, or at least not for adults that watch it alone. Or watch it without playing the accompanying drinking game. I mean the adults when they are alone. The kids should not play the drinking game, though I suppose that two or more adults together might enjoy the drinking game.
When did Disney but the muppets? Is the Richman character a subtle poke at Disney? If that were the case, the movie just got a whole lot better. It certainly explains the uber-predictability of the movie and it's gags. I will concede that people were not watching this for cutting edge anything and on multiple occassions the muppets themselves make fun of this very fact.
Who knew that Amy Adams could sing? Also that she could dance? Also that if you drink every time she twirls you will get very drunk? Also that she is an Academy Award nominee? Also, that I could keep on going like this? Also, did you think I would add the mandatory extra question to make the previous one predictably funny? Also that by funny I mean not funny except in a groany kind of way? Also that groany is too a word?
Okay, okay, okay. I see the elephant is still in the room. Well, both of them. I didn't hate this movie and parts of it I even liked, sometimes in spite of myself. How could my friend be so wrong on this? Usually, it is that she likes things that I don't not vice versa. And what about my moratorium against the new voice talents? I think I have asked more questions in this post than in any other. I mean, haven't I asked more questions? The voices are not the same. I think I'm okay with that. I think. Here's my rationale - there are two ways to think about Kermit and company. First, and the way I have been thinking about them, Kermit for example is an entity akin to an actor who also happens to play the role of Kermit and is voiced by some guy named Jim, just like Miss Piggy plays the role of Miss Piggy and is voiced by some guy named Yoda, I mean Frank. Or the second way to think about, and the way I am allowing myself to try out this night, Kermit is a role just like Hamlet or Batman, and he just happened to be played by Jim Henson. Other actors will play the role and they will be different but not necessarily bad, though some may be as time goes on. But in years to come people might say, "That Robert Pattinson plays a dashing Kermit, but no one compare to the time I saw Jim Henson play Kermit - he was not acting, he was Kermit." Or something.
Also, if you were playing a drinking game while reading this post, you should be drunk if the game was to drink every time I asked a question. Right? You didn't cheat? Not once? And you were drinking alcohol?

The Muppets at IMDb

The Hunger Games (2012)

When you're the fan of a book or set of books, there is always a bit of trepidation when you hear that a movie is coming out based on it or them. Movies are never the book, there is just so much you can't do in a movie, though there is some argument that a mini-series (if done properly) can do justice to a book, but lets stick to movies. Sometimes, they get it very right like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first Harry Potter movie. Sometimes, they get it wrong, like with the Golden Compass. Thank god this is one of the former.
I watched the previews and ads along with everyone else before this movie hit the theaters, and then I tried to block it out since then, as I didn't want to hear any reviews, especially the internet forum type of thing where people listed what was left out or what was changed. There is time for that after you've seen the movie and decided for yourself if it was good or not. Before the release, I read that Suzanne Collins was very happy with how it turned out. And the only review I listened to after it came out was from the friend who had turned me onto the books, and she loved the movie. Both of those were good enough for me.
And I was not disappointed.
First the props - casting was amazing. Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherlin, Lenny Kravitz, Elizabeth Banks were all perfect for their roles and in fact looked very much like how I imagined the characters while reading the book. I expected Snow to be a little thinner and Haymitch to be a little heavier, but that was quickly forgotten. Interestingly, I imagined Snow as being Donald Sutherlin while reading the books. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth did not look at all how I imagined Peeta and Gale, respectively. But you know what? That's okay. Both of these young men put in performances that made me forget about my preconceptions.
The special effects and costumery were top notch. The fiery outfits for Katniss and Peeta were great, as was Katniss's interview dress, they were all toned down from the descriptions in the book though. But they still worked.
Now the cons - there are really only two that I have, and they're both small nitpicky fanboy kinds of things, well maybe more movie fanboy than Hunger Games fanboy, you be the judge. Caesar explaining tracker jackers as being genetically engineered wasps seemed out of place. They could have gotten by just fine with explaining the effects and showing the insects and let us work out what it was, which they did do the animal pack at the end. The other issue were the boys hair-dos for the guys from the 'professional' districts. They all looked very 2010, which is around the time they would have been preparing to shoot and I think they're going to look dated in a couple of years. I think if they had allowed for some variety in these four or five boys it would go a long way towards stopping this potential datedness.
As you can tell I'm very happy with what I saw and should not be surprised to hear that I'm eagerly awaiting the sequels. And I'll make sure and thank my friend the next time I see her, for turning me onto these books and suggesting that I will love the movie, too.

Hunger Games at IMDb

The Skin I Live In (2011)

This is one fucked up movie. It starts off as perhaps a medical thriller or maybe a sci-fi thriller, you are not really sure which way it's going to go. The answer is that it doesn't go either way. It's a story about what lengths people will go to for love and revenge.
So, Marillo has two sons, Vaca and Roberto. She works as a maid, and Vaca is fathered by another member of the household staff. He is too much for her to deal with so is put into foster care or adopted and then into foster care. She then has Roberto, fathered by her employer who's wife if barren so that they can claim Roberto is their baby. Marillo is the boys nanny and caretaker.
Roberto grows up to become a famous and talented plastic surgeon who marries the girl of his dreams. Vaca, on the run from the law, comes to his mother to be hidden, neither he nor Roberto knowing that they are brothers. Vaca and Roberto's wife start a lurid affair and decide to run away together, leaving Roberto and their daughter Norma behind.
Vaca and the wife get in a horrible, fiery automobile accident. Vaca runs away leaving the woman to die, but Roberto  finds he jsut in a knick of time. She is horribly burned, but through his mad skill as a surgeon saves her life. Because she is horribly scared, he removes all mirrors from her room and keeps it dimly lit with heavy shades. One day upon hearing the singing of her daughter, the daughter that doesn't know she's been horribly burned, the woman pulls open the blinds to see what the sound is. Upon seeing her reflection for the first time and just how hideous she looks, she throws herself out her window to her death, literally right in front of Norma.
Norma has a psychotic break and goes to live at a psychiatric facility. After many years of therapy there, she is finally learning to interact socially with people her own age, that is to say people in their early 20s. The doctor hosts a party with young people from the facility as well as from the town. Roberto is at this party to see how his daughter is coping. But, a young man, high on pills, is also at this party and his name is Vicente.
Vicente and Norma hit off over looks across the room and go for a walk together that culminates in him raping her, and when she starts screaming, he knocks her unconscious. But Roberto has already gone looking for her and sees Vicente fleeing. Unfortunately for Roberto, who is with his daughter when she awakes, Norma has had another psychotic break and now identifies him with the rapist.
After a time back at the hospital, Norma throws herself from a window, dying as her mother had.
Roberto, hell bent on revenge, kidnaps Vicente and holds him prisoner for a while. After what seems to be a couple of weeks, Roberto figures out his revenge. Against Vicente's will, Roberto performs a complete sex change operation. Roberto also begins to experiment on Vicente, now renamed Vera, with an artificial skin made from human cells with a pig's dna or nucleus or something. This goes for a little over four years until the head of the scientific academy finds out about the forbidden use of pig genetic material and demands that Roberto stop his  experiments, to which Roberto agrees.
Vera has half-heartedly tried to kill herself over the years, but Roberto always patches her back up. Now, Marillo councils her son who doesn't know he's her son to kill Vera and dispose of the body so that nobody can find it.
Vaca re-enters the scene, again needing hid from the law. His mother does not want to help him, but allows him in the house. He eventually ties her up and goes looking for Vera whom he has seen on a video display. Vaca remarks that her face looks just like Roberto's dead wife, his dead lover. When Vaca does find Vera, he takes her into her room and forcibly rapes her.
Roberto comes home while this is happening, takes the gun his mother had but couldn't use on Vaca and goes upstairs to Vera's room, where Vaca is still raping her. Roberto aims the gun first at Vera's head, thinking of Marillo's command to kill her now. After a moment of reflection, he then shoots Vaca twice, killing him.
Instead of killing her, Roberto frees Vera and they briefly become lovers until she gains his trust and freedom of the house long enough to get the gun which she uses to kill Roberto and Marillo before returning home to her mother.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Except I told you the story chronologically, not the order which it takes place in the film. But, hey, at least I've ruined the surprises for you.
The film is worth watching for the sake of seeing Antonio Banderas in action in a role that is not your typical leading man role. But, also be warned that this movie is pretty graphic in it's portrayal of violence towards women.

The Skin I Live In at IMDb