Point-by-Point: Buried - 7/10

A contract trucker gets buried alive in Iraq. We spend the next 90 minutes in a coffin with him.

The Good: This movie takes it's concept and runs with it. I was skeptical that it could never leave the coffin without getting dull, but the film held my attention throughout. Really, it's impressive that they were able to make such a tight thriller with so little, and should serve as an example for modern thrillers that seem to get more bloated every year. Ryan Reynolds does an admirable job, and they seemingly (and impressively) light the entire movie with items he has in the coffin.

The Bad: There's nothing really profound about the story, and some of the political aspects seem a bit thrown together. And of course, if you happen to be a person who has nightmares about being buried alive, such as my wife, you should probably just find another movie.

The Ugly: Not to spoil it, but the last thing the kidnapper has our hero do is basically awful. Probably unnecessary, but it definitely upped an already tense movie.

Points Pondered  

-I would guess that the most important trick in keeping your cell phone battery up is turning down your brightness, not turning off the vibration.

-Really, why would any actor agree to do this movie? I guess there's a thin line between challenging and hellish.

-One day, the people of Movieland will figure out how to build a flashlight that works as well as a real one and isn't constantly flickering off and on.

-If it's the policy to never pay these kidnappers, why do they keep burying folks in the desert? and really, 90 minutes seems like an absurdly short deadline for a large money transfer.

Point-by-Point: The Man From Nowhere - 8/10

A pawn shop owner befriends a young girl, who is then abducted. He objects, and decides to hurt everyone he meets until he finds her. It's a solid mix of Leon: The Professional and Taken.

The Good: Pretty much everything here is good. The acting from our hero and the little girl seriously impressed me, and the action sequences were stylish and brutal. In general, the story is well told and I really found myself pulling for the guy, even as he was beating up cops and stabbing gang members repeatedly.

The Bad: The movie could afford to cut down a little on the melodrama, but it wasn't awful. The only things truly bad were the comic relief characters, which seem to be required in Asian films, no matter how out of place.

The Ugly: Despite several savage fight scenes, the child-organ-harvesting ring wins.

Points Pondered  

-I can't imagine business is very good at his pawn shop. It seems a bit out of the way, and he exudes "you don't want to talk to me."

-I really like the build of not showing him commit any violence in person for the first half of the movie or so - all we get to see is the resulting carnage he creates.

-Our guy runs down a hallway, jumps through a window, smashes the glass, hits the ground a story below, rolls and keeps running - the camera follows him THE ENTIRE WAY. Not quite sure the specific way they did it, but it's awesome. 

-He definitely looked a lot more suspicious when he put a hat on to hide from the police. Really, anyone wearing a suit and a baseball hat is going to seem a bit odd.

-Yes, the knife fight at the end is truly cool. Cutting out the soundtrack during the scene is a nice touch.

Point-by-Point: The Warrior's Way - 7/10

A samurai runs away with a child and hides in an American near-ghost town. Stuff happens, but what you really care about is that yes, you get to see who wins if a cowboy fights a samurai. 

The Good: I really like the comic book stylings of this movie. It excuses (or can lead to, depending on your point of view) the over-the-top action, absurdly evil villains, and some of the excesses in acting. Bottom line, this is a throwback Western that looks cool and is a lot of fun.

The Bad: The same things I like about this movie will probably cause many folks to hate it. Also, the movie occasionally stalls when the action abates, and some of the acting is a bit rough.

The Ugly: Even though this movie has a perfectly good Kate Bosworth hanging around, we're stuck with Geoffrey Rush's naked butt.

Points Pondered  

-More babies need handles.

-This movie nailed the comic book feel so well, both in plot and cinematography, that I figured it was based on one. Nope.

-What was Geoffrey Rush doing here?

-I think we can all agree that the French clown is the worst sort of clown.

-Did this movie really need the last scene? It seemed like a stupid add-on to a fine ending.

Point-by-Point: 30 Minutes or Less - 4/10

A pizza driver gets a bomb attached to him by a couple of crude dopes and is forced to rob a bank. He's given significantly more time than 30 minutes, which seems like false advertising. 

The Good: The Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari parts. The two work well together, and their bank robbery prep and execution were the funniest parts of the movie. Really, the story isn't bad, and both of them react at least semi-understandably to the situation.

The Bad: The Danny McBride and Nick Swardson parts. I guess if you like Danny McBride's schtick, this won't be an issue for you. But basically every time they came on screen the movie dragged to a halt, and he did 4 minutes of dick jokes. Totally killed any hope they had of setting up a tense "watch the timer" situation, and in general ruined the movie for me.

The Ugly: If you listen to Danny McBride for 30 seconds, you'll find something for this section.

Points Pondered

-I'm actually slightly impressed that the movie took a rather dark subject and was able to make it in to an acceptable thing to laugh at.

-I imagine reacting very similarly if a bomb vest was placed on me - Spend some time googling on how to disable a bomb, then use my movie knowledge to try and rob the bank. 

-This movie would have been better with a more serious villain, even if they were slightly inept. Where's Sean Bean when you need him?

-In general, a flame thrower is a poor weapon choice. Cool, but still poor. 

Point-by-Point: Tell No One - 8/10

A man who was suspected of killing his wife 8 years ago finds himself having a really crappy week when two bodies are dug up near where his wife was attacked. A bear-dog, hitmen, and an impromptu game of real-life frogger are all involved. 

The Good: This is a classic thriller, with a really well contained setting and plot. Pretty much every character makes understandable decisions, which speaks to how well this was written. It's got a nice look to it and all the actors deliver solid performances. 

The Bad: The ending drags a little, but it's a problem that a fair number of thrillers have. There's no great way to have someone do the big reveal at the end and tie all the strings together quickly and interestingly. This film does a decent job, and avoids the "Villain gloats and tells his entire plan while holding the hero at gunpoint" thing. Still, definitely a flaw.

The Ugly: Now, my wife disagrees, but that was a seriously dopey dog. 

Points Pondered

-Our main hero sure spends a lot of time with his sister's wife. That, combined with early (intentional?) misdirection as to his relationship with her had me confused about a potential incestuous threesome.

-Based purely on watching european movies, all thugs play FIFA video games.

-There's a lot more intrigue in the horse-jumping world than I would have guessed. 

-This film had a surprising lack of loose ends. On multiple occasions I found myself thinking "but what about . . . " and the movie would inevitably have an answer. 

Point-by-Point: Intruders - 4/10

A ghost (or something) named Hollow Face goes after two kids in different parts of the world that are both writing about him for some reason. It seems to do the usual ghost stuff, but, as in apparently every modern supernatural thriller, all is not what it seems.

The Good: The director gives us a nice looking movie, and all the actors do a decent job.

The Bad: Really dull. The shifting between two stories might have been interesting if handled better, but it ends up feeling like two forgettable scripts tied together so you can have something movie-length.

The Ugly: The special effects are rather rough.

Points Pondered

-I'm glad the cat made it.

-Did anyone think that Clive Owen's co-worker would grab those parts he needed without incident? Anyone?

-"We were just playing" is really a poor excuse for creating an impromptu bonfire in your yard.

-Was there any reason for this to be rated R? I mean, if you cut the one brief nude shot and (maybe) some of the language, you've got an easy PG-13.

Point-by-Point: Grave Encounters 2 - 4/10

It turns out the first Grave Encounters was actually real, and our new protagonist is out to prove it. Of course, having seen the first movie, he should probably have guessed it wouldn't go too well.

The Good: This is an interesting premise for a sequel, and they pull it off reasonably well. Like its predecessor, quality-wise it's a step above most other found footage movies, both in story and general competency.

The Bad: Like a lot of sequels, it feels a need to outdo the original in scares and intensity. This, combined with the fact that it takes the team awhile to even get to the hospital, causes the actual horror part of the movie to feel rushed and overly stupid. It loses the great build-up of the first movie, which was half the fun.

The Ugly: Did we really need a tea-bagging? I mean, sure, it was absolutely VITAL to the story, but it still seemed a little over-the-top.

Points Pondered

-If you're video-blogging, pick a better backdrop than your bed.

-Now, if you're totally convinced the first movie is real, why the hell would you step foot in that hospital?! I mean, the whole point of the first movie is that it's impossible to escape! At least have the decency to not act surprised when your original exit disappears.

-So while there are apparently patterns and rules to how rooms shift, the hospital can still totally ignore all that and just screw with your mind.

-Having the "spirits" or whatever pick up a bunch of cameras so suddenly you can get your usual multi-angle movie shots really seems like cheating.

Haiku: Seeking a Friend For the End of the World 8/10

Asteroid ahoy!
An unconventional arc
Makes this powerful.

love and a bit with a dog

What would you do if you knew the world was going to be vaporized in 3 weeks?

Point-by-Point: Side Effects 7/10

The Good:
I watch a lot of movies: some of them are good, most of them are bad (let's be honest: my tastes, when indulged, run toward soggy costume dramas, pseudo-art bullshit and serial killers-on-the-lam). If my tendency to watch fluffy movies has taught me anything, it's how to recognize bad editing and worse pacing; if you want a master-class in tight pacing and excellent editing, watch a Soderbergh film. I just love how this man makes movies. They're generally not flashy, but you always feel somehow taken care of: in the hands of a master. Side Effects is no different. It may not be his best work, but it's still so competent you can't take your eyes off of it.

Another perk of Soderbergh's movies is that you can always expect spot-on performances from actors and for as much as I want to hate Rooney Mara (lady is just too perfectly pretty-and-delicate-and-otherworldly-and-talented-and ...), I can't and she's a revelation here.

My favorite part about this movie, though, was how real the depiction of Emily's depression was. As someone who's been there, this rang very true. Most movies that attempt to illustrate depression (especially debilitating depression or suicidality) get it wrong. Sometimes it's hard to put exact words to how it's wrong, but it feels thus. Side Effects gets it right. Maybe that's not supposed to be a compliment, but I appreciated it greatly.

The Bad:
This is one of those movies that is, for all its competence, a one-time affair. I do not feel compelled to own this, nor watch it again. I would tell other people about it -- go see it! -- but I am not champing at the bit to take them to it. I'm not sure exactly what generates that sense, but I think it may be the denouement. While the majority of the movie is a tangle of intentions and claustrophobic camera angles, the conclusion just feels a little too neat. There's a special kind of open-ended ending that makes one want to start again at the beginning; Side Effects does not have one of those.


I feel like this movie wanted to say something damning about SSRIs and America's (pharma) drug culture. If it did, it got lost under the political maneuverings, financial scandal-mongering and lesbian gesturings. This isn't a terrible thing (don't get me started on "message movies"...), but  I feel like there was just enough of a gesture in its general direction that I ended up confused.


The Ugly:
Can we just admit it? The reason Channing Tatum still gets roles is not because he is an talented man. To be fair, his entire role here was pretty much scripted as "good-hearted, slightly-douchey meat sack of a husband-character", for which he was perfect... but the dude's just kind of useless on screen, especially when paired with people who are much better actors. It's awkward.

Points I Pondered:

• What do drug companies think of this movie? Especially as they do name-check a fair number of real anti-depressants and make no bones about some of the less appealing side-effects (heh) and quite accurately skewer the existing marketing campaigns.
• Reviewers keep mentioning Catherine Zeta-Jones's "mannish" wardrobe -- it turns out what that means is "not skin-tight latex" (read: what a well-paid, 40-something professional woman would wear). Is that all it takes to "dress like a lesbian" these days? Good to know.
• The oldest Hollywood trope in the book is the "small town kid goes to The Big City to make it big in his/her dream job". Do people really do this? Somehow, it just seems backwards logic. I guess I just don't know how much truth is in the stereotype.

Yea, this is a gratuitous illustration. But she's pretty and this is my page.

• [Spoiler ahead]: What kind of spouse blabs enough about his insider trading dealings to his wife that she's able to tutor someone else in how to conduct a multi-million dollar heist? I am feeling a little left out of my husband's life right now, that he doesn't tell me enough about his job that I could essentially take it from him!

Haiku: Half Nelson 9/10

Choking loneliness.
Good at his job, bad at life.
Eviscerating.

Haiku: Bernie 8/10

A bad joke's set-up:
Mortician kills old lady.
Linklater has fun.

All snarking aside, this was a superbly quirky and engaging docudrama. I do rather wonder how close it was to the actual story... but given the number of townspeople interviewed in it, it couldn't be that far off?

Point-by-Point: Toy Story 3 6/10

I realize this review is approximately 3 years late, given that Toy Story 3 came out in 2010. Forgive me. I avoided seeing this for a few reasons: I hated TS2 with a passion (mainly because of Jessie "The Worst Character Ever" Cowgirl) and I was informed that if I cried at Up, I'd lose my head at this. I can't even listen to the soundtrack to Up without bawling: stories about aging, obsolescence and loss are kind of my kryptonite. Given this auspicious lead-up, I was prepared for something big when we popped it in the DVD player.

Imagine my surprise when, 2 hours later, I felt ... nothing. TS3 is very competent. It's cute. It had some nice bits. It just wasn't anything special.

The Good:
Pixar doesn't put out half-baked films, and given its pedigree, Toy Story 3 got the royal treatment. It's a very pretty movie that both hearkens back to the original(s) and utilizes the technological advances that have come into use in the intervening years. From Randy Newman's soundtrack to the return of most of the principal voice characters, this has all the trappings of the original Toy Story my generation grew up on.

The boys are back in town

The junkyard/trash-compactor sequence is one of the better animated action sequences out there. It's inventive, tense and interestingly drawn. I'm not sure I'd show it to small children, but it rivals many of the escape scenes in adult movies.

The Bad:
I remember reading so many reviews raving about the emotional affect of this movie: the brilliance of its commentary on old age and the trauma of being pushed to the wayside. I'm sorry -- I didn't see it. I just didn't. Again, this was a hype thing: I was just expecting something more in line with what a lot of commentators I respect had written.

Additionally, I felt like this movie felt like a sequel. The nuance in the original was brilliant (it, in fact, improves as one revisits it with adult eyes), and yet here, when the stakes are bigger and the psychological punch should be more profound, the jokes are more facile and the characters' motivations are simpler.

The Ugly:
Pixar can animate beautiful, intricate hair and water, and yet for all that attention to detail, the animators seem to obstinately continue to create people who look freakish, disgusting and somehow more plastic than the toys this movie is about. I realize this is a stylistic choice, but it seriously  detracts from the (my) enjoyment-factor. Especially given this studio's talent for hyper-detailed creations, this irritates me more than is rational. For a better illustration of how to animate people with style, watch Laika Studio's films Coraline or ParaNorman.

Do not need. Ever.

Points I Pondered:

• How did the "ooooOOOOoooo" aliens get into Andy's toybox? I thought, in the original, they were left in the arcade game?
• Does anyone like Jessie the Cowgirl? Am I the only one who can't stand her? I may have issues. I never saw the end of Toy Story 2 because she was just too annoying to push through the pain.
• Do parents really make kids strip their rooms before college? I'm 28 and I'm pretty sure my bedroom is still pretty much set up like it was when I moved out a decade ago. 

Point-by-Point: Warm Bodies 9/10

The Good:
Warm Bodies has a silly plot on paper, but somehow it works perfectly on film. The panache with which the story is approached brings just the right balance of sweetness and snark to this riff on Romeo and Juliet and all involved are in on the joke.

This is one of those rare movies where I genuinely liked all the characters -- even the side-roles are well-drawn and sympathetic. Most importantly, there is no crude, slapstick sidekick character; I hate that trope with a passion! Nicholas Hoult is pretty much adorable no matter what, but his slightly-cockeyed stare works excellently here (he has truly mastered the smize).

Smize!

The voice-over monologue is also one of the best I've encountered in a long time. It's a perfect balance of exposition (which, when your character isn't all that verbose, is a good thing) and self-aware sarcasm. The intelligence of R's inner thoughts also helps steer the movie away from coming off as super-creepy kidnapping/Stockholm Syndrome fantasy (which is very much could have become, in clumsier hand).

Bonus points for the soundtrack and the way it's utilized, as well. Many of the songs are played in-movie/in context (record players, iPods, etc) and this creates a great foundation for the action. As the characters experience the music, you experience them. It's fun.

The Bad:
Let's be honest: you probably shouldn't apply logic too strenuously to this movie. At all. Just... don't.

While we do get a fair bit of backstory on the characters, the backstory on the history of how this came to be is left entirely vague. This makes the ending a little more uncertain than I feel comfortable with: what if whatever caused this in the first place comes back?

The Ugly:
This is a personal thing (hey, this is my space!), but it freaked me out that R's speech, typifying him as a zombie, is almost entirely composed of stuttering management techniques. I realize it's something that I am far more attuned to than the average, fluent bear, but it was admittedly rather disconcerting to hear how I'm theoretically "supposed to" sound being used to indicate being a mindless corpse. Excellent ego-boost right there.

I'm trying to find a Youtube clip demonstrating what I'm referring to, but unfortunately, I can't find one. Plenty that include voice-overs, but none that show R's zombie-verbal capacities. Dang it!

Points I Pondered:

• I guess I'd never really thought about it before, but I guess it makes sense that as a zombie you wouldn't need to sleep (sleep being a way for a body to heal and restore itself from the wear-and-tear of life). I never realized before that you don't ever see sleeping zombies in any movies, but you really don't. Nobody ever sneaks up on a nest of napping undead!
• It's kind of nice to see that Annaleigh Tipton continues to get roles. Reality TV stars (well, if you count getting third on America's Next Top Model "being a star") can make good! 
• How well do brains keep, if you don't refrigerate them? 

Haiku: The Talented Mr Ripley 10/10

The Talented Mr. Ripley

Sun, jazz, sticky lust.
Balancing lives and lovers
there's no denouement.

Damon's upper lip really deserves special credit for its Method acting