Catching up on 2010: July - 'Inception', 'Dinner For Schmucks'

Inception - A
I am a big fan of Christopher Nolan... from the Batman Movies to The Prestige to Memento, there is no denying the talent of this director. The commonality found in all of his movies is the strength of the script. When a director, as Nolan does, can couple a strong story with an incredible talent for craft and detail, the finished project will be sure to impress. That is what Nolan has done here; putting together a wonderful ensemble cast, a tight yet wonderfully told story and a beautifully made piece of visual art to create one of the best movies of the year, and possibly cracking the top 10 of the decade.

How much more of a universal concept can a storyteller use but that of a dream. We all have them, whether we remember them or not. In Inception, we are introduced to a world where technology exists to enter people's dreams. Cobb (Leo Dicaprio) is an extractor capable of entering a person's dream and obtaining valuable secrets from it. He's coveted for his ability, but because of the consequences of what he has done in his line of work he is doomed to live a nomadic life outside of the US, away from the children that he loves. To win back the life he once had and now desperately wants, he must perform the impossible by entering a dream... within a dream... within a dream... within a dream. Sound complicated? It is. His mission: Plant an idea in the head of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy) a soon-to-be CEO, telling him to dissolve his conglomerate utilities company. The problem, it's near-impossible to plant an idea in someone's head without them realizing it's not their own. Problems arise when Cobb's own dream world (in which he has been experimenting with for many years) blurs it's way into the other's dreams, causing the whole operation to be put in jeopardy.

Three words to describe this movie - Execution... Execution... Execution. This movie executes like none other so far this year. The dream worlds created by Nolan and his staff are hauntingly similar to those I have had each and every night. A neverending cityscape, a vast tundra wasteland with an evil fortress, anti-gravity, matrix-style fights, guns espionage... all of this I have dreamed of in the past. After watching this movie the second time in theaters I realized how nearly airtight the script was, almost every little minute detail had purpose and works towards the final payoff. Cinematography and visual effects are second to none, and serve only to enhance an already great movie. When this movie came out there was huge buzz about it's greatness and there is very little letdown throughout the film. Most of you have seen it so there's not much else to be said, if you haven't seen it then you certainly ought to.

Story - 9.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 9
Characters - 5
Believability - 5
Filmmaking - 10
Sheer Enjoyment - 9.5

Inception = 4.8 out of 5 yukes

Dinner For Schmucks - C
In theory, this movie had every chance to succeed. A cast of household names like Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell, Zach Galifianakis and Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords fame) lead one to believe this movie should be nothing short of hilarious. But as was the case with Date Night, great actors still need great material to work with.

A sub-par story line sees Tim (Rudd) seeking a promotion at work, only to find out the partners at his firm are self-righteous assholes who get enjoyment out of inviting outcasts to a dinner with the sole purpose of making fun at their expense. The movie doesn't seem to maintain any one emotion for long enough for us to enjoy ourselves. Did I laugh? Yes. The problem is that it was too few and far between for me to emotionally invest in the humor it was trying to present. My only recommendation is for you to rent at your own risk.

Story - 5

Comedy/Tragedy - 6.5

Characters - 3

Believability - 2.5

Filmmaking - 5

Sheer Enjoyment - 5

Dinner For Schmucks = 2.7 out of 5 yukes

Catching up on 2010: July - 'Despicable Me', The Kids Are All Right'

Despicable Me

This was the first of the animated films I saw this year. At the time I was fairly impressed with the movie, the unfortunate thing is that it’s impossible not to compare it to the two giants of animated film from this year, Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon.

The idea is clever enough; a dastardly evil villain with unresolved child issues exploits three orphaned children by adopting them and using them for his own gain with hopes of destroying his nearest competition. The problem he finds is that he creates an unexpected bond with the girls as they unknowingly do his bidding. I really like films that aren’t just about superheroes, but instead take a step back and comment on the culture of superheroes. Examples of films that have done this to some extent are The Incredibles and Watchmen. Maybe it comes from mine and every young boy's (and maybe girls) fascination of becoming a superhero growing up, but the more movies address the background of the superhero culture, the more I think it’s an attainable career possibility. But I digress…

I think the brief synopsis above is as succinct as I can describe this movie. What sets it apart is its venture into darkness. It certainly doesn’t go as far as something like Coraline, but to ask an audience to immediately connect with a clear-cut villain is to create a tone unlike other animated films. One of the places this film succeeds the most is in connection with the characters. I explained in my review of Toy Story 3 that relatable characters are what have allowed that franchise to succeed. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a character you can’t help but like because of his lovable clumsiness. I couldn’t help but connect with the three girls because they’re so perfectly different, just as three sisters ought to be. And the youngest one is almost too cute… “It’s so fluffy, I’m gonna die!” Also, Gru’s minions are a great addition. The story isn’t perfect, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t distract from the overall experience. When it needs to be funny it is; it won’t WOW you, but it also isn’t lacking or overwhelming in the humour department. A respectable choice for sure, but not enough to reach the standard of animated films set this year.

Story – 7.5

Comedy/Tragedy – 7

Characters – 4.5

Believability – 3.5

Filmmaking – 7.5

Sheer Enjoyment – 8

Despicable Me – 3.8 out of 5 yukes

The Kids Are All Right

It’s a scary proposition to make a movie that centers around modern day, generally uncovered themes, case-in-point The Switch. Don’t worry, The Kids Are All Right  is the classy version of movies centering on the idea of artificial insemination. Upon finding out that he’s fathered two children by artificial means to a lesbian couple, Mark Ruffalo's character is thrust into the world of parenthood. This post-modern film subtly explores the nature vs. nurture debate from the parental viewpoint instead of that of the children. To what extent is Ruffalo’s character entitled to being a part of his ‘kids’ lives? And what right of protection do their mothers have control of?

As you will have read if you have been reading my blogs, one of the greatest things I believe a movie can do is to, at its core, relate to its audience. This movie achieves this. That’s not to say that I can relate to two lesbian mothers losing grip on their teenage children. I also can’t relate to a man who’s just found out that he’s responsible for the existence of two fully grown teenagers. What I can relate to is feelings of surprise and inadequacy that Paul (Ruffalo) feels when he finds these things out. I can relate to combative feelings Nic (Annette Bening) has when she realizes that things are slowly slipping from her control. Though it isn’t to do with sexual orientation, I have surely experienced the confusion Jules (Julianne Moore) is feeling when it comes to her identity. I think we can all relate to the idea of questioning, deep down, who we really are.

Indulge me for a few sentences with some OSCARS talk. If you don’t care about this, skip to the scores at the bottom of this review. This movie will be nominated for OSCARS, mark my words. They will most likely come in the categories of Best Picture, Annette Bening for Best Actress (though it won’t be fully deserved), Mark Ruffalo for Best Supporting Actor, Julianne Moore for Best Supporting Actress (more of a longshot), and Best Original Screenplay. With that much recognition this makes it a must watch movie. The characters certainly propel this story much more than the story itself, and it’s a joy to watch. I say Annette Bening doesn’t deserve a nod not because she doesn’t give a great performance, but because I believe Julianne Moore is more of a lead in this film, and Bening takes on more of a supporting role. If she was nominated for Best Supporting I would have no hesitation leading the charge for her to receive a golden statue, but alas, my voice will not be heard. Anyways, this movie is still worth your time.

Story – 7.5

Comedy/Tragedy – 7.5

Characters – 5

Believability – 4

Filmmaking – 8

Sheer Enjoyment – 7.5

The Kids Are All Right – 3.95 out of 5 yukes

... you just got yuked!

CU

(P.S. - I will also have reviews for Inception and Dinner for Schmucks tonight... please make sure to read all my reviews if you have time, and comment on this page... it's nice to know people are reading)

Catching up on 2010: June - 'Toy Story 3', 'Winter's Bone'

Sorry for taking a couple days off from catching up on reviews. I had started Winter's Bone a couple of days ago and had to take a break from movies to finish a paper. With that paper out of the way and the next one not due until Wednesday, I'm going to try and knock off 2 months worth of reviews over the next two days.

I was thinking today as I watched the finish of Winter's Bone, my letter categories are flawed. I'm not about to change them, but some movies I wouldn't watch again, and I may or may not recommend them because some people just might not enjoy them. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be in the top category. My examples of this line of thinking come from last year's movie crop; The Road and A Serious Man were both movies that fit this mold. While neither were swimming in money from the box office, they both beautifully told a story through the art of film. Both films did this exceptionally, yet I probably wouldn't have recommended them to most people. I have since gone back and changed them in my records from B movies to A movies. All this to say, use the categories as a guideline. Read my review and I will usually make mention of the types of people I think should see these movies.

Toy Story 3 - Emphatic A
I was 11 when the first installment of the series came out. Though I may have been a little older than the intended demographic, the movie captivated me then, and it still does to this day. It changed moviemaking for the better. When Toy Story 2 came out, I was still moved because of my connection to the characters, but it took numerous viewings before the story grew on me. As I sit here to write this review, I have watched each of the movies somewhere close to 20-30 times, and over time, the second one may have surpassed the first one in my heart. Enter Toy Story 3, I have now watched it twice over the last 6-ish months. Between the first and my most recent viewing, it's captivated my heart just as if I was 11 again. The first time I watched it I wouldn't have said anything like this, but after watching it again I realized the epic scope it tries to explore, and the incredible success it attains. It's safe to say that this installment will soon become my favorite of the three.

Role call: Woody, Buzz, Jesse, Bullseye, Slink, Rex, Ham (Evil Dr. Porkchop), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Ken and Barbie are all back. When faced with the reality of Andy going off to college, the toys start to entertain ideas of what life might be like without Andy. When Andy chooses Woody as his only college-bound toy, the other toys mistakenly get thrown to the curb. After narrowly escaping the garbage truck, they decide their best course of action is to jump in a box destined for Sunnyside Daycare. They arrive with hope and excitement only to find out the daycare is run by an abandoned, bitter old stuffed bear named Lotso. The rest of the movie follows the band of toys as they try to escape the prison known as Sunnyside and return to Andy to live the rest of their days in the attic.

The toughest thing with sequels, and especially one with this magnitude, is meeting the standards set by previous installments. Introducing new characters is always tricky and must be done with care and understanding. Toy Story 3 does this with precision, creating a myriad of toys that any of us can relate to. The storyline is clever, creative and tugs at our heart strings with every twist and turn. There's almost an unfair advantage because of our deep emotional connection with each of the characters; any feeling we might have in any other movie is magnified because simply, we love each of them as if they were our own toy. Look at me, I'm gushing... Like any good animated movie nowadays, there's enough humor for children in it to last a lifetime but just enough adult oriented jokes for parents to enjoy the movie just as well. Though there isn't a whole lot of improvement on the techniques from the first two movies (there may be, but I'm not technically inclined enough to notice), the precision by which they execute is amazing. There's very few movies that will strike me like this one did... and thus deserves any credit it gets.

Story - 9
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 5
Believability - 5
Filmmaking - 9
Enjoyment - 9

Toy Story 3 = 4.55 out of 5 yukes

Winter's Bone - A
That was a long review, I'll try and keep this one nice and short. This is the type of movie I'm referring to in my rant above. This movie is good, the story is good, the feel is good. Why? Because it's real. This is the type of movie that doesn't get any mainstream recognition, yet OSCAR loves it. I am telling you right now, you may think it's boring, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it.

On the surface, this movie is about 17-year old Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) and the search for her father to ensure the survival of her and her two younger siblings. Her father, a noted meth cooker, missed a court date and is being searched for by both the bail bondsmen and the law. The unfortunate thing is that he put up the family house for his bail and, as he has skipped town, Ree must find him or risk losing everything. On a deeper level this movie speaks to the importance of perseverance, hope and selflessness. There's not a lot of bells and whistles here, yet it resonated so deeply with me. Lawrence's performance is one that grows throughout the whole movie. She continues to get better as the movie progresses, and as her character becomes more and more aware to the battles she must face to survive. Her finest scene finds her on a canoe in what I believe was a lake, I won't say anymore, but when it happens... just watch and enjoy. Truthfully, as I started out, I found myself uninterested in the movie. However, as the story unfolds you can't help but find yourself walking along the journey with Ree. Every step she takes, you take. Every setback she suffers, you suffer. Every times she defies someone, you stand behind her. This is a movie worth watching. So watch it.

I would also like to know what you think specifically about this movie. Please, if you read this review and go out and watch the film, comment on this blog and give me your opinions. I want to know whether a movie like this resonates with others as it has with me.

Story - 7.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4.5
Filmmaking - 8
Enjoyment - 7


Winter's Bone - 4 out of 5 yukes

... yuke and ooh wit! (a little mad gab for you)
CU

Siskel & Ebert on Film Criticism

This is a video of Siskel and Ebert talking about how to review movies. I like these guys. It's unfortunate that Siskel is no longer with us. But if you care at all about movie reviewing it's worth a watch or listen. Don't worry, I won't do this normally. Next review coming soon... Winter's Bone and Toy Story 3... and maybe Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

Catching up on 2010: April - 'Date Night'

Date Night - B 
What do you get when you pair two of the funniest people in television together? A realization that, as talented as they are, they still need a script writer to give them good material to work with. Now, don't get me wrong... I enjoyed it. I have frustration simply because I had higher expectations going into the film. As unfair as that seems, it's a part of every movie. Every viewer has some level of expectation going into any movie they see, and as much as we try to ignore them, it will always have an affect on our enjoyment of a film. I've loved everything Fey and Carrell have done over the last 5-10 years, and thus Date Night needed to do more than the average film to impress me.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carrell, Fey) are a couple trying to re-ignite the flame of a stagnant marriage after they hear of a friend couple's imminent divorce. Heading into NYC for a fun night turns sour when they steal the reservation of a couple in hot water with the wrong people. A chase pursues and the couple begins to leave their boring selves behind in exchange for excitement and thrill... not to mention survival. A great cameo by a shirtless Marky Mark gives the Foster's every technological advantage known to man to try and escape. At times it's a little far-fetched, but I guess it shows that life and excitement can be injected into any relationship. Possibly one of the funniest scenes in a movie this year is found here; 2 cars stuck together facing towards each other, a screaming cab driver and a frantic Steve Carrell always leads to laughs. A better rom-com than most, but doesn't live up to the potential it could be.

Story - 6.5
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 3
Believability - 2
Filmmaking - 6
Sheer Enjoyment - 6.5

Date Night = 3.15 out of 5 yukes

...yuke on that!

Catching up on 2010: March - 'How To Train Your Dragon', 'She's Out of My League', 'Hot Tub Time Machine'

How to Train Your Dragon - A
I just watched this movie over the weekend. For myself, this movie executed to near perfection. I felt the whole spectrum of human emotion. When it was funny, I laughed. When it called for it, I was sad. At crucial points I felt concerned for both Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and his dragon (some CGI sound I'm sure). When Hiccup's father (Gerard Butler) tells his son "You're not a viking, you're not my son." My heart was aching. Job well done. First A Category movie review of the year.

This animated feature follows the story of Hiccup, the son of the head of a viking tribe. He also happens to be an outcast in the viking world, not strong enough to fight, not big enough to command any attention. Yeah, it's a classic storyline. Lead character doesn't fit in. Lead character meets someone/something that gives him an escape. Village has something against said someone/something. Village finds out. Village uses said someone/something as a means to their own ends. Lead character summons up vigor and courage to save village. I won't give any of the details of the plot line... but you get the picture. The reason I truly loved this film is because of it's execution. Many movies come out every year with intentions of being the next big thing, but lack in getting the point across because they forget about the basic tenets of a movie. A movie needs to connect with its audience. This movie does that in full, drawing on the basic relationship of an owner with their pet.

The story isn't anything spectacular, but there are very few flaws, which make it both noticeable in a good way and very enjoyable. Casting for voices can sometimes be hit and miss, and when big names are included usually falls into the latter category. Baruchel, Butler and America Ferreira casted as the main characters were perfect, they all breathed life into their characters. As a supporting cast, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig did the same, and its the perfection of these subtleties that really strengthened the movie. Music fit nicely throughout the film, and the animation was top-notch. Dreamworks really came to bat with this picture in it's fight against the two-headed, nearly unstoppable Buzz & Woody monster that is Toy Story 3. This is definitely a must-see movie for anyone who wants to be shown what a movie is meant to look like.

Story - 7.5
Comedy - 8.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 4
Filmmaking - 8
Sheer Enjoyment - 8.5

How To Train Your Dragon = 4.1 out of 5 yukes

She's Out of My League - C
It's funny that after my glowing review of Jay Baruchel in How To Train Your Dragon, I have to give him a sub-par review in this movie. The plot line basically tells the story of Kirk (Baruchel) who finds himself at the end of a relationship at the outset of the movie. His self consciousness seems to be holding him back from moving on, until he meets Molly (Alice Eve). He falls for her, and oddly enough she seems to be interested in him... one problem... she's clearly 'out of his league' (cue Peter Griffin saying "oh there it is, he said it... I wondered why it was called that). Through fumbles, mishaps, ex-girlfriends, ex-boyfriends, people's clear opposition to their dichotomous relationship and Kirk's clear insecurities, the story winds its way to a climax at the ever popular shooting destination... the Pittsburgh airport.

It's kind of cute, maybe a bit charming, but mostly it frustrated me. It takes longer to get to where it's going than it needed to, it's trying too hard to be different... and failing, and it's actors just aren't strong enough to carry the film. This is something I'm finding with more regularity as of late; it seems studios are getting tired of the same old, same old lead actors/actresses and testing the waters with possible new leads. They tried, good on them. They failed, too bad. Baruchel has enough right now to carry an animated film (see above review), but not a full-length feature. Overall, it's a film that's worth a rental if there's not much for selection, but isn't a must-see. Execution just wasn't strong enough.

Story - 5.5

Comedy - 6

Characters - 3

Believability - 3.5

Filmmaking - 3.5

Sheer Enjoyment - 6

She's Out of My League = 2.75 out of 5 yukes

Hot Tub Time Machine - C

As simple as I can put it. John Cusack. I love John Cusack. Divorce. Darrel from the Office. Unhappy. Louis CK. Louis CK. Some angry kid. A weekend getaway. A hot tub. Alcohol. Radioactive somethingorother that makes it into a time machine. Depression. Fun times. Fixing mistakes. Finding true love. Growing up. Learning lessons. Louis CK finding out he's the father of the angry kid. Weird. Funny. Maybe a rental. Enjoy. It's tough catching up on reviewing 20 films. I pretty much mailed this one in.

Story - 6

Comedy - 7

Characters - 2.5

Believability - 1

Filmmaking - 2.5

Sheer Enjoyment - 7

Hot Tub Time Machine = 2.6 out of 5 yukes

... you just got yuked!

CU

Catching up on 2010: February - 'Shutter Island'

Before I ramble on about this Scorsese epic, I have to admit that I am going to add a reviewing category. Shutter Island is mainly the reason for adding a criteria that focuses on the filmmaking techniques in the film (cinematography, musical score, costuming). It will be worth 10 points, creating my greatest nightmare of a score out of 5. Oh well, 5 yukes it is.

Also, I would like to welcome SP to the blogging world, he's going to take care of Horror movies for the most part at skochscorner.wordpress.com, read him. NOW! Oh, fair warning, as the warning says... there were some phrases that just didn't have the right effect without a curse word.

Shutter Island - B (would recommend... may/may not watch again)
Part of the reason I delayed viewing this film for so long was because I don't do very well with creepy mind 'f'-ing thrillers. I caved and watched it at work last night, poor choice. Locking up a school nearing midnight having just watched a movie with some creepy shit it is a bad idea. Every darkened window felt like someone was on the other side.

The movie centers around Teddy Daniels (Leo Dicaprio) and his investigation of a missing person on a secluded island home to a dangerous patient's mental hospital. Enough trying to be epic for you Scorsese? Daniels, a US Marshal with ulterior motives, is actually searching for the man responsible for his wife's death. Though most reviewer's I've read had a problem with the predictability of the plot twists, I let myself enter the world of the island. Maybe it's my lacking knowledge of movie history or a general apathy for 'trying to figure it out', but I much enjoyed the path the story took. From it's epic musical set-up to it's well-shot darkened feel, Scorsese used art to tell this story. Part of the reason I go into movies with no intentions of 'trying to figure it out', is because some movies aren't made for the soul purpose of messing with us. This is one of those movies, a story that is told through the artform. Avatar is another movie that fits into this mold, it will never be the perfect film because the story for many is sub-par, but it still ranks high on my movie lists because it employs techniques that can't be overlooked when deciding whether it is great or not.

One of my favorite things about this movie is the acting. I rarely caught myself thinking I was watching Leo, he did enough for me to lose myself in the character. Mark Ruffalo (his partner), whom I have a little bit of a man-crush on, and Michelle Williams (his dead wife) were superb. I found all of the supporting cast to work just well enough without any scene stealing.

To be honest, I enjoyed this film a lot. Maybe it was a lack of hype but I thought Scorsese did much better than 66.4% positive rating on moviereviewintelligence.com.

Story - 8
Comedy/Tragedy - 7.5
Characters - 4.5
Believability - 3.5
Filmmaking (cinematography, music) - 8.5
Sheer Enjoyment - 8

Shutter Island - 4 out of 5

Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU

Catching up on 2010: February - 'Dear John'

Dear John - D
My last review said that most romantic comedies fall into category C because a date movie generally doesn't have to reach the same standards to be watchable. I also saw this movie on a date, but this movie didn't attain any level of decent filmmaking. A lack of real chemistry between Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried permeated the whole movie. There's not a whole lot to the plot line but cliche love story telling. People who like these kind of movies will like this movie. Myself and 90% of the rest of the population will not.

*Spoiler Alert*
Things I like about it: Richard Jenkins' turn as an autistic father actually got me thinking he a) deserved his nod for best actor in 'The Visitor' two years ago and b)he may even deserve some sort of recognition for his work here. Here's the *spoiler* if you care...
Things I didn't like about it: They kill the father (Richard Jenkins) off halfway through the movie and the second half suffers because he isn't in it. The story arc is weird (see Leap Year review), it doesn't follow the normal expectations and seems like a poorly hashed together script to take $13 from every 12-23 year old girl in North America.

Story - 4
Comedy/Tragedy - 6
Characters - 3.5 (mainly because of Richard Jenkins)
Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3
Sheer Enjoyment - 2.5


Dear John = 2.15 out of 5 yukes


Until next time... you just got yuked!
CU

Catching up on 2010: January - 'Leap Year', 'When in Rome'

Though we are nearing the end of the calendar year, I still think it's a great idea to write reviews and give ratings for every film I have seen until this point this year. This gives a broader perspective as to how movies line up in my yearly review. I have 15 movies to catch up on so each of these reviews may be brief. I will write a small blurb about each of the films that were released in the corresponding months. This doesn't mean I first viewed these movies in the month I am writing them for, it simply tells when they were released. Here goes...

Leap Year - C (may/may not recommend... may/may not watch again)

I have to admit that I am normally a sucker for anything that includes Amy Adams, and this still fits into that category to some degree. The movie centers around an oh-so 'modern' woman trying to make up for a clueless guy by turning the tables of engagement around on him. He's clearly stringing her on and she isn't bright enough to catch on. Like any romantic comedy, the story doesn't go as she'd expect it (though you see it all coming a mile away), and Anna (Adams) finds herself with a stubborn, love scorned barkeep and adventures ensue. I won't spoil anything, but come on... it's about as predictable as my choice every time I go to Chili's (Chicken Fajitas. 8 Years Running.) 

Things I like about it: Ireland. Irish Accents. Amy Adams.

Things I didn't like about it: The relationship she has with her fiance is contrived. I know it's to set up your hopes for the new guy, but this one frustrated me. It's predictable. Sometimes changing a story arc or the way you go about telling a story is a good thing, NOT in a romantic comedy, it simply doesn't work.

Story - 5.5                  

Comedy/Tragedy - 5.5

Characters - 3

Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3

Sheer Enjoyment - 5.5

Leap Year = 2.5 out of 5 Yukes

When In Rome - C (may/may not recommend... may/may not watch again)

I don't remember much of this. I didn't like it much. I actually like Josh Duhamel as a leading guy, but I don't know if Kristen Bell has enough draw to be considered for a leading role. It does get bonus points for being set in Europe, deal with it. That's all I have.

Story - 6                  

Comedy/Tragedy - 4.5

Characters - 3

Believability - 2.5
Filmmaking - 3

Sheer Enjoyment - 4.5

When in Rome = 2.35 out of 5 Yukes

Until next time, you just got yuked...
CU

(editor's note - most romantic comedies fit into category C because of their date movie possibilities)

Embarking on a Journey - Reviewing Criteria

At the counsel of some close friends, all of whom share the deep passion I have for the cinema, I have decided to begin this movie review blog. Films have always been a way for me to spend my time, engage my senses and outlet my opinions. More recently, I have become more interested in the artform of moviemaking; this is in part thanks to SP. The artform of moviemaking requires an attention to every detail involved in the movie. I will give a brief rundown of my reviewing criteria at the end of this initial blog. 


I give you fair warning that I've never had much of a sense for grammatical correctness, deal with it. My expectations of you as a reader are never those of agreement, instead, I welcome differing opinions on any review or article I may write based on my own thoughts. If you do agree, you're better than the rest. There will always be some sort of bias included in anything I review, quite simply, I am seeing each movie through the lens of my own worldview and therefore find it impossible to strip who I am from what I think of a piece of art.


My intention for each of my reviews is to explain, with as much sensitivity to anyone who hasn't seen the movie, how all of the criteria worked to serve the purpose of the film. I will always take into account things like story, use of genre, characters and other things. I will also give a general explanation of how much I simply liked the film. My final hope is to make conjecture as to whether the general public, this blog's readers or my friends will actually enjoy the movie.


Without further ado here is my scale, and hopefully a satisfactory explanation behind all of the criteria involved.


Level One
My first level of rating is one meant to give the reader a basic answer to the question "Should I see this movie?" I separate movies into these 6 categories:


A - I would recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
B - I would recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it again. 
C - I may/may not recommend it to someone. I may/may not watch it
D - I would not recommend it to someone. I would watch it again.
E - I am disappointed that the studio signed off to make this awful movie!
H - It's a horror film, it's hard to judge on this scale. It's also SP's domain.
(Category C is an ambiguous category. I may only watch it again in the right mood, and I would only recommend it to someone I knew would enjoy that type of movie)

Level Two

My second level of rating is meant to go deeper into the inner workings of a movie. As I said before, it's meant to explain how a movie serves its overall purpose. The 5 (6 as of Nov 20/10) criteria I use are as follows (weighting in parentheses):

Story/Plot (10) - Are there plot twists? Is there sensible conflict. Sneakyness. Is it done creatively? Or is it just re-hashing an old tale?

Comedy/Tragedy (10) - This is where I ask how well the movie serves it's genre. This allows movies like the Hangover to compete with much weightier dramas. What purpose do any generic conventions serve the movie?

Characters (5) - How are the characters developed within the movie? What is their level of interaction? Is the story character driven? 

Believability (5) - Sell it to me! Movies (for the most part) are an artform created to represent real life situations so we can all relate. Can we relate? Sometimes a movie may superficially look impossible to relate to, but when we look deeper we see themes of humanity. e.g. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Filmmaking (10) - How well are cinematic techniques used? Things like cinematography, musical scoring, art direction, costuming, sound mixing/editing and visual effects. Pretty much all things we don't fully understand, but get recognized by prolonging the OSCARS. 


Sheer Enjoyment (10) - When the movie's over, how much do I like it? This is where my biased guilty pleasures may rank higher in any scale. 

At the end of all that a movie will receive a letter rating and a score out or 50. I then divide that score by 10 to arrive at my final grading out of 5 yukes! I reserve the right to change any rating at the end of the year if, when I compile a list of all the movies I've reviewed, I find the list not an accurate list of my favorite movies of the year. Please let me know what you think; agree or disagree. Until next time... you just got Yuked!