For the first entry in the Movies category that isn't a review, I'm going to write about remakes.

Hollywood has been no stranger to the remake in recent years and have brought us movies such as The Dukes of Hazzard, Bad News Bears and The Longest Yard -- to name a few in my DVD collection. All three of the originals were from the 1970s, before my time.

But now they're going too far. They're screwing around with things from my childhood. On top of these idiots remaking classics like Back to the Future, 2007 will bring us movies like Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

If you ask me the '80s weren't long enough ago to start redoing the best movies of that decade. The Hollywood execs aren't allowing these films (referring to BTTF) time to become true classics. By releasing a remake so quickly (I know twenty-plus years isn't really quick, but you get my point) you are robbing the film of any chance to cement itself in the mind of those who saw it when it was somewhat new.

That being said, I still want to see Miami Vice and am really looking forward to seeing the new Transformers and TMNT movies. I dunno, I'm just pissed that they're remaking Back to the Future.

Posted by Stephen at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was looking for a movie to watch and nothing in my DVD library really popped out and struck me with an urge to watch, so in checking the Movie Central channels as I often do, a movie I had never heard of was about to come on and it was starring Owen Wilson. So I decided to check it out. This movie was The Third Wheel.

I'll admit that I sometimes enjoy watching a romantic comedy (Hitch is a really good one that comes to mind) but am not usually willing to stick my neck out and spend 90 minutes watching something I don't have a really good idea will be funny. This flick was worth checking out without any preconceived notions.

Most romantic comedies are predictable and follow very similar story lines. Not this one, it was fresh, funny and really didn't follow many of the formulaic plot elements that make up 99% of romcoms. Owen Wilson and Denise Richards worked really well together and the supporting cast was equally good. If you have a chance, check it out. imdb

Posted by Stephen at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Winter movies make me sick. Especially right before winter, and the day after the first bit of snow flew (yeah, it snowed yesterday... sick). However, there was naught on television and The Ice Harvest was on Movie Central. I'd seen the previews, and it looked mildly entertaining, so I decided to change the channel.

Movie Central gave it 3 stars (out of 4) which I think is a little overrated but it was, as I had expected, mildly entertaining. Besides Billy-Bob and John Cusack, some of the acting was quite bad, and the storyline had holes like crazy but it was still watchable. Don't think I'll pick it up on DVD though. imdb

Posted by Stephen at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've wanted to see Enron since I heard about it quite a few months ago, and finally had the chance about a week ago on Movie Central. I'm not much of a documentary watcher, but something about large corporation and white collar crime grabs me.

The filmmakers really did a good job in getting most of the story across and really delved into the "conspiracy" in a way that was very easy to relate to and understand. Some of the things these guys did is just unbelievable. It's crazy that they got away with it for so long, and how many people were actually involved. imdb

Posted by Stephen at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I finally finished reading The Constant Gardener by John Le Carre a little less than two weeks ago. My early apprehensions of the book were corrected later, when the story actually turned into the spy novel I was expecting and it turned into a really entertaining read.

Shortly after finishing the book I went out and purchased the DVD of the film adaptation. All the film did was once again establish that most novels should not be converted to film. The movie was ... well ... alright at best, but didn't do the book justice. Not even Canadian justice. Hell, not even American justice. They changed some of the best parts of the movie! Trash!

Posted by Stephen at 12:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Despite all the bad reviews I've been hearing about the movie, after reading The Da Vinci Code numerous times, not going to see this movie simply was not an option. This occasion marks the first time in many years that I've gone to see a movie on it's opening weekend.

Marc and I headed to the 8:30 showing tonight with high expectations. First off -- I don't think the negative reviews of this film are justified, well, most of them anyway. Directing a story that is so well known has got to be a tough thing to do, but I think Ron Howard did an excellent job. Tom Hanks was outstanding in his role as Robert Langdon. Foreign film actress Audrey Tautou introduced herself to mainstream America in excellent fashion in her role as Sophie Neveu, and the rest of the cast, for the most part, were good.

I didn't really like Paul Bettany's portrayal of Silas the albino. I'm not quite sure what it is that I didn't like about the role, but throughout the entire movie I was pulled away from the story by his character. Another part of the movie I didn't necessarily like were the flashbacks, which I found visually unpleasing for the most part, and it seemed as though all of them were done in different styles which kind of took away from the whole deal.

Although not as good as the book -- not even close -- the movie does it's job of telling Dan Brown's story quite successfully. Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman stuck to Brown's story quite faithfully and it makes for an interesting watch. If you haven't read the book, you might want to read it before you run out to the theatre -- chances are you've already seen it though, as apparently it's taken in just under $80 million dollars on it's opening weekend.

Posted by Stephen at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It took quite a while but I finally got around to watching Capote. I can definitely see why this movie reaped all the awards and nominations it did. Shot on a paultry $7,000,000 budget, this flick was worth every cent and then some.

Philip Seymour Hoffman did an outstanding job portraying the massively eccentric Truman Capote. For the first half hour or so, I was so put off by his voice and demeaner that I almost hit the stop button, but I then found myself so enthralled that I couldn't step away.

The supporting cast was outstanding. I am growing more and more respect for Catherine Keener every time I see her in a new film (which seems to be growing more and more often as of late). Everyone else did their jobs excellently.

The director, Bennett Miller did a wonderful job of putting together this movie. Which is surprising, because the only thing he'd ever directed before was a $140,000 documentary.

If you haven't already, you have to check out this film.

Posted by Stephen at 3:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fun With Dick and Jane

It was cheap night at the theatre last Tuesday night (over a week ago now, woo), so Lana and I decided to go check out Fun With Dick and Jane.

It proved to be a good way to spend $11.00 for the two of us to be entertained. I am a huge fan of Jim Carrey, and this movie did nothing to let me down. Téa Leoni was also outstanding, and Alec Baldwin* did a great job supporting them both.

I'm not going to say too much about it, but I liked it a lot. You should see it. The trailers were pretty good too - R.V., Click and some other one caught my eye... bastards.

* For some reason, IMDb does not credit Alec Baldwin on his role in this movie. I have no idea why

Posted by Stephen at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've witnessed a few movies on the big screen lately,but for some reason and finding myself reviewing terribly old movies that windup in my DVD player before I get around to them. I'm not too sure what it is, maybe I'm afraid of being up-to-date, or maybe I paranoid of having the same content as everyone else.

I see no less than two inherent flaws with the latter of my statement above:

1) Everyone reviews movies on their blog. That's just the way it is.
2) Similar content is better than the no content I've been showing as of late.

Really though, none of it matters. I'm babbling, and not reviewing this movie. But, I suppose it all goes hand in hand with The Ladykillers.

I found the beginning of this movie a painful experience to sit through, and that pretty much set the tone for the entire piece. I awkwardly enjoyed the visual style of the flick, and Tom Hanks' performance was awesome, although some of his windy monologues were a little hard to follow as a casual observer.

If I had actually dedicated myself to the 90 or so minutes this movie asked of me, I might have come away with a little better understanding of what the filmmakers were attempting. However, it just didn't hit for me. The ending fell pretty flat. At least one of the characters (I believe his name was "Lump") completely threw me out of the story every time he took over my TV screen.

Meh, I could've lived quite peacefully without ever having seen this movie. It's nowhere near any "must-see" lists I'm going to write.

Posted by Stephen at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My roommate and I made a rare trip to the video store to rent a movie. After spending about 25 or 30 minutes walking around blindly, looking at almost every flick they had available to watch, we decided our best course of action would be to pick up some stand up comedy.

Our options were limited to pretty much: Eddie Murphy Raw; Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat; some old Bill Cosby piece or (according to the lady) some trash by Eddie Griffin. Ugh. Then we came across Jerry Seinfeld in Comedian. Even after reading the back of the DVD case, I was expecting stand up.

Wrong.

Not stand up. Really not funny except for few (and far between) scenes. I am glad to have seen this film, but it really was a let down to a couple of guys looking to see a good stand up routine.

The film is a documentary that follows Jerry Seinfeld's journey to get back in to stand up with a new act. At the begin he vows to not do any of his old jokes, and he starts hitting the clubs.

Also featured in the movie is an asshole up-and-comer Orny Adams. Who really is quite funny, but his unearned sense of entitlement is very off-putting. At the end of the movie, we learn he goes nowhere. A quick check of the IMDb confirmed that.

I'm really quite disappointed with this film. I found a lot of it was done in a very artsy student film type of way, which I found very distracting while trying to laugh. I got a new piece of Seinfeld, which is always good. Ok, I can't even form a decent sentence this early in the morning. This movie sucked. That's all I have to say.

Posted by Stephen at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have been hearing conflicting stories about the strength of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds since the day it came out.

Good friends of mine, whos filmic opinions I truly respect have for, have given truly polar reviews of this movie. Some loved it, some hated it and it was pretty much split right down the center.

So when I picked the movie up last night, I watched it with anxious skepticism. A part of me thought it would be great, the other half was scared that the next two hours were going to become a bad memory.

Cut to today. The next day. I'm with everyone. I thought it sucked, but I thought it was awesome at the same time. I will try to explain what I mean here.

Steven Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the best story tellers alive today, and that comes off in this movie as well. While I didn't like some of the things he did visually -- mainly with the lighting of the early scenes -- the man can sure put an interesting visual on the screen with ease. He got great performances out of all of his actors, a feat I became even more impressed with when I thought about the actors jobs in this movie. Imagine having to act out all that fear, only imagining what is going on. That leads into part of my hate.

I have never been a fan of sci-fi movies, with a few exceptions: comedies, and movies set "realistically" in the future (ie: I, Robot, etc.). The premise of this movie is ridiculously far-fetched, I found it hard to buy in to. I'm sure the ridiculous premise was the whole point of the movie, but it just doesn't do it for me. The idea that these "tripods" were planted in the ground a million years ago is ridiculous. Especially considering that they end up looking a lot like something a human might produce - same metals, look, etc. Just outrageous.

Expectedly, Tom Cruise was good. Any less than good from Cruise and the movie is useless. I really bought his character, and loved the arc he followed. From a throwaway dad to the savior. Wonderful.

Dakota Fanning, ahh Dakota Fanning. I really can't believe how good of an actor this 11 year old child is. Personally, I think she out-acted Tom Cruise. Which is a bit troubling. I really don't want to see her become victom of the child-star syndrome. I hope she takes about 10 years off, on her own accord and then comes back big time. I really see it as the only way for child stars to make it.

I will probably watch this movie again, and will undoubtedly buy it on DVD. It's no E.T., but I would recommend you to watch it.

Posted by Stephen at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This movie proved to be an evasive two hours of my life. I had plans on going to see the film when it was first in theatres, but that never did pan out. Earlier this year, I purchased it on DVD for the first time.

I must have owned it for a good two months without ever watching it. I'm not sure why, because I watch a lot of movies - always have. I just never got around to it. It's not like I didn't want to watch the movie, because I have heard a lot of good things about it and tend to watch based on other people's gathered opinions - sometimes.

It just never happened. Then, as with a large number of my DVD's over the next few months, it was stolen. I have a pretty good idea of who stole it and why, but that is of no consequence. Matter of the fact, I couldn't watch the movie any longer.

Since I am not big on renting movies - I find it to be quite a waste of money, when for close to the same price I can buy the damned thing - unless I'm with Lana, this movie was pretty much out of the running. Lana has seen it and did not like it, so getting her to sit through it again proved impossible.

Last week I went on a bit of a DVD-kick and managed to pick up Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind for the second time. It sat on my shelf for no less than two weeks and I finally watched it last night.

Well, I'm glad I watched the movie. As a huge fan of Jim Carrey, I came in expecting the movie to be funny. Which it was - in parts. Most of the movie was seriously dramatic and just plain twisted. Jim pulled the role of Joel off flawlessly. His dramatic ability really shows through in this film, and is probably doing a lot for his career, and helping him jump out of his physical-comedy schtick.

Kate Winslet was equally good. Having not really seen her in anything of note since Titanic, I was a little skeptical to say the least. Even though she starts out in terrible blue hair, she is outstanding throughout. She plays the role of an unstable twenty-something perfectly.

Before I watched it I was surprised that noone gave the movie away to me. By the end I understood why - it would have been nearly impossible to explain the movie well enough to kill it for me. Charlie Kaufman is an absolutely incredible writer. How he comes up with stuff like this is beyond me. I am a huge fan of his work: Adaptation.; Being John Malkovich; Human Nature, etc.

The visual style of the movie was very dark and depressing. Something I generally try to avoid in a film. And to tell you the truth, I was a little skeptical about putting the movie into the DVD player as a result of this (I had previously seen the first 15 or 20 minutes of the movie). Although not my favorite visual style of film, it was done elegantly, and I did not feel put-off by it for the most part.

If you haven't seen this film yet, which I doubt, I implore you to go out and purchase (or rent, you cheap bastards!) the DVD and give it a watch. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

Posted by Stephen at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I went to Blockbuster yesterday to see if they had any decent Previously Viewed flicks for sale at decent prices. They did!

Lords of Dogtown was on sale for $9.99 so, since I had a very pleasurable experience watching the documentary (Dogtown and Z-Boys), I decided to pick it up.

Lords of Dogtown was penned by the director of the documentary, Stacy Peralta, who actually happens to be one of the main characters in the story. Stacy is one of the original Z-Boys, and is now a successful filmmaker, so it just seems like a natural fit.

The documentary was outstanding, so I came into this movie with pretty high hopes that were quickly dashed. I had no idea what was going on for the first 15 or 20 minutes, which is a shame because I pretty much knew the whole story from the documentary. Just a terrible first impression.

I was surprised to see Emile Hirsch in one of the title roles (Jay Adams). After witnessing the disaster that was The Girl Next Door, I thought this was doomed at the mention of his name in the opening credits. I was wrong. Emile showed some pretty good acting chops throughout the film, and I found that Jay Adams was probably the toughest role to pull off in the entire film.

The story seemed very loosely strung together, very choppy and hard too follow for a major (yes, a $25 million budget is still huge in my books) movie. I'm not sure if it was the very broad scope of the story that led to it's demise or Catherine Hardwicke (director) was ill-prepared to deal with such a large leading cast. Either way, it sucked.

The film was pretty entertaining, but definitely not what I was hoping for, especially after seeing the documentary.

So, if you haven't seen the documentary, watch this first, then watch the docu. The other way around, and it's not even worth watching the "fictional" version.

Posted by Stephen at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday night is cheap night at Rainbow Cinemas - the second run theatre on the East Side - $3.00 marked down from $4.00. On either Thursday or Friday night, Lana had gone to see Prime with a few of her girlfriends, and fell in love with the movie. Actually, she fell in love with the star, Bryan Greenberg. Apparently, he dresses well and I need to watch this movie to learn from him.

So, we went to the movie. From the previews I'd seen, I was expecting a mildly-entertaing two hours. However, after Lana saw it late last week, she hyped it up and made it sound like the movie of the year, so my expectations were hightened a little. This movie is the definition of a chick-flick, and as such, I'm not really sure how I feel about it. The movie started out very slow and took a while for me to get into.

Meryl Streep was (expectedly) outstanding in her role as the psychiatrist/mother. Absolutely outstanding. She was funny throughout and really pulled off the role. However, that is to be expected from someone like Meryl Streep.

I have never been a fan of Uma Thurman, and this movie changes nothing. She is overrated, and I find she is a tough person to stare at for two hours. This role the best I've seen her in to date.

This Bryan Greenberg character, however, is quite the comer. Aside from the fact that Lana fell in love with him, for some unknown reason, he was pretty damn good! He looked very experienced for the few roles he has had. And Lana was right, he did dress well for most of the movie, some of the stuff he wore was not so good, however. He was funny throughout and I found it quite easy to relate to the guy.

Anyway, check out the movie if you are with a date. Guys, this isn't a movie just for you, or you and your buddies. As a matter of fact, suggesting it might result in a black eye.

Posted by Stephen at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was suckered into renting Bewitched on Friday by Lana. It definitely was not my first choice of film, but it was offered to us for free by one of her friends that works at the video store, so how could I say no? Besides, Will Ferrell stars, how bad could it be?

Apparently, pretty bad. While the movie started off alright, and the story takes place in the entertainment industry that I want to be a part of. So, after the first ten minutes, things were looking alright. Then it all went to hell.

First of all, Nicole Kidman sucks. I have never liked her, at all, and find that she is a very over-rated actor. Throughout this film she acts as though she is half-retarded (note to you PC-people: I am not politically correect, nor do I intend to be anytime soon, so live with it). Just because she's a witch, does not mean she needs to be half-retarded.

Will Ferrell did have his funny parts, of course, but not enough to keep this movie going. By about the half-way point I wanted a bullet to enter my head, at any speed. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was over. It was about thirty minutes too long, the story cheated it's audience and was distasteful for a good majority of the movie.

I was actually impressed by Michael Caine, who had quite a few good moments throughout the film, and stole quite a few scenes.

I never watched the original Bewitched TV show, and I wish I never saw the movie either.

Posted by Stephen at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I went to see Just Friends last night with Lana, and about five of her friends. I walked into the theatre having heard good things but was admittedly a little skeptical. I mean, how good can any movie made mostly in Regina truly be?

My skepticism was unneeded, that much is for sure. Now, this movie will not win any awards, and will probably not go on to be a huge box office hit, but wow was it enjoyable! Ryan Reynolds just keeps getting funnier; Amy Smart pulled off her role perfectly; Chris Klein stole a couple of scenes.

The entire theatre was laughing hard. Very hard. Throughout most of the movie. I will have to see it on DVD to see if translates to the small screen, but I definitely think it will.

Ryan Reynolds reminded me a lot of Jim Carrey throughout various parts of the movie, and pulled it off! Like Carrey, he doesn't seem to be trying very hard, it all comes off seamlessly with his character. It's a pretty tough thing for me to say someone reminded me of Jim Carrey and liked it. Jim Carrey is probably my favorite comedic actor workign in film right now.

It was enjoyable watching the movie and picking parts of Regina out of the background, but I think it took away from the film. I will have to watch it again and try to forget that it was filmed in my province. That my dream career is happening so close to home.

Anyway, go out and see this movie.

Posted by Stephen at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I finally went and saw Wedding Crashers at the cheap theatre last night with Lana.

With all the hype that surrounds this movie, I walked into the theatre with very high expectations, especially after watching The 40 Year Old Virgin a couple of weeks ago.

The movie was laughs from start to finish. The story line is fresh, inventive and hilarious. I am quite surprised actually that they were able to turn the premise into a full-length film and keep it very entertaining.

The surprise character at the end is awesome, and I won't give it away for anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

I highly suggest seeing this movie.

Posted by Stephen at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm not usually much of a horror movie viewer. Actually, I generally try to stay away as much as possible. I'm not sure why. It's not that I dislike being scared, as a matter of fact I find it to be quite a rush.

However, I hate movies that falsely scare you... "jumpy" movies so to say. Movies that need to have unexpected things jump at you on screen to get you to move in your screen.

Last night, I watched House of Wax with four friends.

I should give you some background before getting into this movie. The only place I ever saw advertisements for this movie, was on MuchMusic. Based on that alone, I wasn't expecting much. To further my low expectations, every ad I saw featured Paris Hilton. I have no idea what the marketing team on this movie were thinking.

Second, the cast - although featuring a lot of big(ger) names like Elisha Cuthbert, Paris Hilton, Chad Michael Murray - appeared to be assembled as a kind-of, uhm, "fun project" or something. I don't know, I just didn't take the cast seriously before watching the movie.

So, anyway, I have never experienced a movie-viewing like I did last night. All five of us were screaming at the TV, engrossed in deep conversations about the movie, while the movie was going on. Trying to help out the "heroes", and getting mad at them, then cheering them. What an awesome experience!

While the movie starts out rather poorly, as is to be expected for any movie where Paris Hilton opens her mouth... don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Paris Hilton, I just don't think she can act. Overall the acting in the opening 15-20 minutes is horrible.

However, that picks up quite a bit once Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray take over. And wow, what a thrill ride from here on out.

This movie does a lot of things I never thought I would see in a movie, so I don't want to say what they were. You know when you are watching a movie and you say "why don't they ever do this in a movie?"... well, chances are they do it in House of Wax.

According to IMDb, the movie made $32,000,000 at the box office on a budget of $30,000,000. For this, I think the entire marketing team should be blacklisted from Hollywood. Also, the director should be sent back to doing music videos or whatever he was doing before this for hiring Paris Hilton, who, quite obviously, did not have to audition for her part.

Watch this movie!!!! 5/5 (for a horror, that has never happened before).

Posted by Stephen at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)