Making Zombies Roll In Their Graves.

WARM BODIES (2013)

There is nothing worse than watching a movie with a truly great concept fall on its ass. It's a little like a getting box of rich, German chocolates only to find that they're covered in homeless man piss. It's not only disappointing; it's offensive. Because now that idea is done and can never be undone and maybe, maybe in ten years if anyone cares enough they'll redo it and try to re-salvage it, but chances are, it's already left such a bitter, acidic taste in everyone's mouth that they really don't want to touch it again. 

Such is the tragedy of Warm Bodies. I loved the concept. Really, I thought the idea of getting inside a zombie's head and watching them come back to life was very clever. And, for what it's worth, the first five minutes of the film delivered on that promise. We got to see him complaining about moving so slow and we got to see him grunting out conversations with his "friend." Everything was moving smoothly...until the movie actually started. I don't know; maybe something got lost in translation in the book-to-movie adaptation. Maybe someone just fell asleep at the wheel. Whatever happened, the movie moved far too fast, couldn't seem to focus on one plot, and didn't give us any real reason to care about the main characters.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I hung in there was for "M," the zombie friend portrayed by Rob Corddry. His transition, at least, made a little sense and was enjoyable to watch. Other than that, the rest was just some lukewarm Shakespeare retelling with terrible CGI. I don't know why I thought this was a good idea; time to rewatch Shaun of the Dead (2004).

"What If?"

THE TIME MACHINE (2002)

Considering the fact that this movie has a tendency to attract bad ratings, I'm probably going to get some raised eyebrows on this one. Full disclaimer: I haven't seen the 1960s Time Machine. I haven't read H.G. Wells' novel. And I definitely did not go into this one expecting some full-on, H.G. Wells intellectualism. I just wanted to see a good, sci-fi movie. And I got exactly what I came for. I'm aware that this movie was made in 2002, but to me, it still carries all the innocence and charm of a good, pre-2000s adventure movie. When adventure movies were full of adventure rather than dead cat skins filled with a CGI stuffing. The good guys are good. The bad guys are bad. And there's just something very genuine about the whole film, a certain kind of honest simply hasn't existed in the past decade or so. 

Maybe the special effects weren't always all that great, but everything was much more organic. It was more believable because the actors were able to act with physical people wearing animatronic masks, rather than trying to respond to black dots on a green screen. Not to mention, there's a sense of wonder about it. Nowadays, characters have a tendency to stride onto another planet with a been there, done that attitude. But audiences remember the wonder they felt as they watched the beast of the Brachiosaurus lumber across the screen in Jurassic Park. They remember the awe of the prized artifacts Indiana Jones dug up from the dirt. Now, The Time Machine is in no way comparable to those two classics, but it carries with it that same, unpolished curiosity as we travel through time and get to experience flashes of the world at different times. And since I am a sap and apparently completely nostalgic for a good, solid adventure movie: four stars to you, Time Machine.

As for the content itself, it's just a fun movie. There isn't actually a whole heck of a lot of plot, more like a starting point, some random stuff in between and an ending point. That said, the acting is all on point. Guy Pearce plays a great, obsessed scientist. With a time machine. Orlando Jones is incredibly likable as a hologram librarian. Jeremy Irons is an crazy albino Legolas. Everyone was exactly what they needed to be and pulled together an engaging, creative movie. 

"But You Ain't Got No Legs, Lieutenant Dan."

FORREST GUMP (1994)

In the spirit of Mother's Day, I decided to do review of my mother's favorite flick, since she's my biggest fan (how she puts up with the crazy shit I write, I will never know). Still, Forrest Gump just happens to not only be her favorite movie, but one of mine as well. It may not be a particularly deep or visceral movie, but it's just really well done. It's an all around good movie--from the period-appopriate music to the balance of history and fiction to the bare bones of the act structure. The best part about it is, it makes good writing look easy. And, yes, it's one of those movies I could probably recite from memory. 

The real appeal of Forrest Gump, when you get down to it, is the fact that it's a very human story. We believe in all the characters as they appear--from the misguided Jenny (Robin Wright) to the bitter Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise), it's hard not to love every character that comes on the screen. And the movie does a good job at making sure each character has an arc that they complete, giving the movie a very satisfying feeling. And then, of course, there's Forrest Gump himself. Tom Hanks delivers what is, in my opinion, one of the best narrations of all time, and gives us a character we can't help but fall in love with. Really, who doesn't want to me Forrest Gump's best friend? Then again, it probably helps that he didn't go full retard. 

"We Thought You Was A Toad."

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? (2000)

Ah, the Coen Brothers. That name is really all you need to say and I'm running to the theaters with my ticket in hand. The Coen Brothers have yet to make a movie that's really bored me to tears. Sure, some are better than others. Some are cleaner than others. But no matter what, they have a knack of making movies that really stick with you. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a translated version of The Odyssey, featuring three convicts who break out of prison in the 1930s and run away to find an alleged treasure. They meet various folks along their journey, including a man who sold his soul for the guitar, a one-eyed con-man, and Baby Face Nelson himself.

I'll start off with the actors and just say they're all fantastic. George Clooney plays the articulate ring-leader, Everett, and he nails the role. I mean, he's George Clooney. He's always a pleasure to watch. Then we've got the extremely underrated John Turturro, who just looks like he belongs in the wrong end of a jail cell. And Tim Blake Nelson, also underrated, is something of a comic relief as the convict with a heart of gold. It helps that they have a great script to work with, delivering brilliant lines of dialogue one right after the other. Is O Brother, Where Art Thou? problematic as a movie? Sure, the acts don't quite jive, the narrative jumps around a little too much, some solutions are just too "convenient." But have I seen it so many times I can quote it? Yes, yes, I have. If that's not the true testament to a good movie, I don't know what is. 

"Clever Girl..."

JURASSIC PARK (1993)

When writing a review of Jurassic Park, it's tempting just to write the word DINOSAURS over and over again with a plethora of exclamation marks and call it a night. But Jurassic Park is so much more than just a dinosaur movie. As if it needed to be more! Really. We all would have been plenty happy with watching dinosaurs run around and eat people for a couple hours. You know you've watched those re-imagined dinosaur specials on The Discovery Channel. But here we have flesh-and-blood human characters, a strong script, solid acting, and a soundtrack that will go down in history. Between the swell of the human, the awe on the character's faces, and the vast landscape as they settle their helicopter down onto the island, there's a moment when everyone watching turns into an ecstatic child. Steven Speilberg, you've done it again. 

I could go on about the actors. About how Sam Neill delivers, and Laura Dern is a badass, and Jeff Goldblum is hilarious and classic. About how Richard Attenborough gives us an amazing John Hammond, and Samuel L. Jackson makes a wonderful computer nerd, and even the children are likable. Or I could talk about how epic the music is, how timeless, how John Williams owns it. Hell, I could even mention how awesome the dinosaurs are, how even the special effects stood the test of time. But the real magic of this movie is the beating, bleeding heart of it. All of the characters have very real, very emotion motivations and aspirations. But it's the awe and wonder they feel in the presence of such awesome creatures like the dinosaurs that really brings us back to what's important--nature is a beast. Life will find a way. And dinosaurs are awesome. 

"What Kind Of Devil Bird Chirps At Night?"

FAILURE TO LAUNCH (2006)

If there's anything I hate worse than a Matthew McConaughey movie, it's a Sarah Jessica Parker movie. If there's anything I hate worse than a Sarah Jessica Parker movie, it's a poorly written Sarah Jessica Parker romcom with Matthew McConaughey. It was as though someone in Hollywood decided to take everything I hate and crammed it all into one unwatchable 90 minute mess. Failure to Launch is about an unmotivated slacker, Tripp, who lives at home with his parents. Just by his name alone, we can already tell he's going to be obnoxious. The thing is, I don't always hate Matthew McConaughey. I was one of the few people that actually enjoyed Sahara (2005). And I thought he was great in Tropic Thunder (2008). It's just that awful cheesy smile he reserves for the worst kind of romantic comedy that grates on my every nerve. Sarah Jessica Parker is something else. I've never liked her, I never will. It doesn't even have anything to really do with her acting, it's just an irrational gut feeling of revulsion every time I get when I see her. Kind of like a gag reflex. Between the two of them, it was hard for me to watch this movie from between the spaces in my fingers.

The real tragedy of this movie is that the supporting cast isn't that bad. Justin Bartha just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. His comic timing is always spot on, even in subtle ways like The Hangover. Knowing that, it's a little painful to watch him downgraded to slapstick humor. Not that I have anything against slapstick, it's just...hard to watch when it's not really his style. I even enjoyed Zooey Deschanel, even though she only plays...Zooey Deschanel. But she had great chemistry with Justin Bartha and the few redeemable moments of this movie happened within the small subplot of their relationship. In short, those two are the reason why this film has a star at all. Also, a shout out to Bradley Cooper, just because it's fun to watch him alongside his Hangover compadre without them running around like headless chickens going "what happened?". But really, Hollywood. What happened? 

The Good, The Bad, And The Disappointing.

DREAM HOUSE (2011)

Here's the thing: I'm okay with bad movies. Really, I am. If a movie is bad, but understands that it is bad, even better. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Deep Blue Sea (1999) and thoroughly enjoyed it. What I can't stand is a disappointing movie. A movie that has a lot of potential, but tries too hard to be greater than it is. Dream House unfortunately fell under the disappointing category. The plot was promising. A man named Will Atenton (Daniel Craig) moves into a house with a dark and bloody history with his wife (Rachel Weisz) and kids. Maybe it's a story that's been told before, but it's one that, for the most part, has a good history of always delivering a satisfying tale.

The actors themselves are all very talented and they make of the script what they can, but you can only breath so much life into something that refuses to live. I understand that the case could be made that half of the movie takes place in Will Atenton's fantasy land and therefore you can make the argument that his fantasy is stilted and flat. Except for the one simple fact that Will is supposed to be a successful writer, and therefore he should be able to dream up some better dialog. Still, the film limps along--wounded, but still pushing through, mainly by way of the excellent chemistry between Craig, Weisz, and Watts. It's not until the third act that it really falls flat on its face, pulling in unnecessary characters, trying to make things fit where they don't belong, and generally mucking up the entire structure of the story. In the end, the film's biggest issue is that it simply tries too hard: on one hand, we have a movie about a man gone mad with grief, on the other hand, we have a whodunit helmed by an unreliable narrator. It was Fight Club (1999) and Taken (2008) with just a splash of The Shining (1980). It couldn't chose between being a dark psychological thriller or a campy horror movie, and instead fell somewhere in the dead-end grey area between "a feel good" film and a "good feel bad" film.

My only advice to someone who wants to see this film? Don't watch the trailer. It gives away a twist that might have bumped the movie up a star for me if I hadn't been waiting for it to come around. 

With Great Power, Comes Youtube.

CHRONICLE (2012)

It's an age old question: if you were a superhero, would you use your powers for good or evil? Some of us like to imagine ourselves saving children from burning buildings. Others like to imagine what it would be like to get back at the old lady downstairs who knocks her broom handle through their floors.  Chronicle takes the question to a literal level by testing it on three high school boys--the class president, the intellectual tool, and the downtrodden loner. They stumble upon something unknown and absorb superhuman powers, but the true test, as always, is learning to control these powers. The entire movie is "chronicled" via various different videocameras, which is an interesting devise for a movie like this even if it distracts from the actually content on screen from time to time. The plot runs through the familiar teen-movie themes of bullying and disconnecting from those around you, but the actors manage to pull it off to at least make the familiar ride enjoyable the second time around.  

Is it a tired and old morality play about the consequences of too much power? Of course it is. But if it ain't broke, why fix it, right? So maybe the message was a little heavy-handed, and maybe it was all something we've seen before a thousand and one times. Still, I went it knowing exactly what I was getting into, and on its own standards, the movie delivered everything I expected from it. I got into the characters, felt for their plights, and all at a good pace. Predictable and cliché at times, but a solid and just plain fun film, which is more than most mainstream movies seem to be able to brag about these days.