Point-by-Point: The Man with the Iron Fists - 4/10

We start in China at some unspecified-but-long-ago time. There's a gang that was taken over by a traitorous lieutenant, there's a rightful-but-out-of-power leader to said gang, there's a blacksmith, there's a madame and her prostitutes, there's a western badass, and there's a buttload of gold that they all are somehow involved with. A variety of things happen, but any plot is mainly an excuse for kung-fu action.

The Good: While none of the action is outstanding, the variety of characters and weapons is entertaining. I especially enjoyed Zin Yi's knife armor that would sprout blades wherever needed. The movie is ridiculous in a campy / throwback sort of way, and there are enough fun bits that you begin to think it would have been very possible to make a better movie than what they ended up with. Russell Crowe is fun to watch and seems to be having a good time, although he does end up making the rest of the cast look bad.

The Bad: RZA. He's a pretty mediocre director and an utterly horrible actor. Since this is his movie and he was the main character, that inevitably led to a crappy outcome. There are some interesting style choices, especially when it comes to music, but the movie begins to drag towards the end and some of the fight scenes rely on CGI gore instead of actual fight choreography. The story is a little thin, but you can chalk that up to the genre. Even with all of that, the movie could have been salvaged if RZA had picked someone better in the lead role instead of trying to do it himself. He doesn't have the acting chops to pull off the dramatic parts and looks downright silly during the action scenes. I don't know if he chose to be the main character because of ego or just because he thought it'd be fun, but he should have hired a real actor.

The Ugly: With all the gore in the unrated version, there are a lot of scenes to choose from. However, probably the ugliest was just how the Man with the Iron Fists comes by his name.

Points Pondered

-Were I Russell Crowe's character, I'd think about carrying an actual gun along with my knife gun.

-Mirrored battle rooms seem far more confusing in movies than they'd actually be in real life. If the average 8 year old can make their way through a hall of mirrors at a carnival, a trained martial artist can figure out where the bad guy actually is.

-Taking a 10 or 15 minute timeout to learn the Blacksmith's history was a bit much, but then watching the RZA try to fight people made the whole exercise laughable. If he doesn't fight like a badass, no amount of backstory will convince us.

-Knife Armor seems like a risky proposition, and would probably be a hassle to put on and take off. Still, pretty cool looking. 

Point-by-Point: The Frankenstein Theory - 4/10

A researcher finds out that his ancestor was the basis for Dr. Frankenstein. He thinks the monster is still alive, and he hires a documentary crew that accompanies him to the arctic circle to track the creature down. It goes about as well as you'd expect.

The Good: This is an interesting idea for a movie, and by framing it as a documentary, there's slightly higher production value than the average found-footage film. Also, the acting (save for the main character, sadly) is well above par for this kind of movie. They actually spent some money on real actors for the side characters - the meth head and the guide both did standout jobs. 

The Bad: Our hero Dr. Venkenheim veers a bit towards Gene Wilder in a supposedly serious film, and it doesn't quite work. But the main problem is this movie just doesn't deliver on it's promising premise. It's a very slow build up to an utterly underwhelming conclusion, and there's nary a startle along the way. 

The Ugly: The weather. I really hope they didn't drag the entire crew up to the arctic circle, but wherever they were looked miserably cold. Oh, and I guess you see a corpse that was ripped in two. But mainly the weather.

Points Pondered

-At first I was about to give the movie a 6, but then I realized I had just watched Greystone Park and in comparison everything looks like Shakespeare. Just because a movie isn't terrible doesn't make it good.

-Christine Lakin of Step by Step fame plays the doctor's girlfriend, which I only realized after I saw her name in the credits. I would say she should be in more stuff, but a quick check of her IMDb page shows she's in about 5-10 things a year. Might be time to raise her standards.

-There's absolutely nothing in the movie you don't see coming from miles away. Halfway in and most people could give you the order in which the cast is culled.

-Be warned - the cover is much cooler than anything you see in the movie.  

Point-by-Point: The Chaser - 4/10

An ex-detective turned pimp tries to track down his missing girls who, despite all evidence to the contrary, he believes have merely run off. Turns out, there's a creep involved, and then the chasing begins.

The Good: Taken individually, there are some interesting and well done scenes. There are moments in the direction and story-telling where I can see why people really like the film. Also, despite our hero basically being a total jerk, the performance is able to humanize him, making us truly end up on his side.

The Bad: The plot holes and sheer stupidity of the characters ruined this movie for me. Usually I'm pretty good at turning my brain off and just enjoying the ride, but The Chaser pushed me over my limit. Your story has serious problems when you rely on multiple people being idiots in order to get your characters out of sticky situations. Once is annoying, but it was almost a motif. For me, this killed any suspense they were trying to build, which then destroyed the pacing because I was sitting there going "There is no way this should possibly be happening" instead of focusing on the actual story. 

The Ugly: The utterly pointless murder near the end, that happens only due to a long sequence of the aforementioned stupidity. You can claim that it makes this movie gritty, or brutal. To me, it's just the director giving a big middle finger to the audience. 

Points Pondered

-Although this one takes it to an entirely different level, pretty much every Korean movie I've seen has totally incompetent cops. Is this just in film, or are they really that bad?

-There's absolutely nothing about the bad guy that convinces me he wouldn't get caught within an hour of his first crime.

-If my houseguest drew a creepy, four-walls-and-floor mural in two days, I might ask him to leave.

-This movie just proves that if you're sick, you shouldn't go to work. It's for your health, as well as the health of others. 

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: 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.

Point by Point: National Treasure: Book of Secrets 4/10

Basically the plot is the exact same as the first movie, only this time treasure hunter Nicolas Cage is searching for the lost city of gold, the location of which is hidden in the Presidential Book of Secrets. If you haven't seen the first one, think Da Vinci Code. If you've missed all 3, you are a lucky person indeed.

The Good: As with the first movie, the sole fun comes from the historically based treasure hunt. Sure, it's absolutely improbable and does a number on the facts, but it's a halfway entertaining idea. And Justin Bartha as Cage's cohort is again the only worthwhile character, adding some actual funny moments to an otherwise ponderous movie.

The Bad: Trying to follow the leaps of logic required to solve the "clues" given will just lead to headaches. And even if you leave your brain in the other room, the non-villian villain, the boring action and the worst performance by a multi-Oscar winning cast since Virtuosity means this is one to avoid.

The Ugly: Nic Cage's haircut. There is no reason he has to look so stupid.

Points Pondered

• If there really was a President's Book of Secrets, I'd run for the office on the platform of letting everyone know all the cool stuff about Area 51, the JFK assassination, etc. I would win in a landslide. And then I would mysteriously and tragically accidentally strangle myself while tying my shoe.


• It's hard to accuse an Oscar winner of slumming when he was once in Anaconda. Sorry Jon Voight. Oh, and your daughter is really hot.


• Ed Harris was an awesome not-quite-a-villain bad guy in The Rock. Here, he just sucks.

Haiku: Judge Dredd 4/10

Sly looking stoic
and yelling "I AM THE LAW!!!"
What, no Oscar nod?

Point by Point: Semi-Pro 4/10

Will Ferrell plays Jackie Moon, player/coach/owner of a bad pro basketball team. In order to get into the NBA, they must finish in the top 4, as well as bring average attendence up. Basically, it's Slap Shot for basketball.

The Good: It's watchable. There's the occasional funny bit. Woody Harrellson, basically playing a dramatic role in the middle of a Will Ferrell farce, does reasonably well given the circumstances.

The Bad: Two movies got smashed into one at the expense of both. It's a tame comedy that doesn't reach the over-the-top stupid-funny of Talledega Nights or Blades of Glory and a played-out sports drama with misfits being brought together by a veteran player to Overcome All Odds. Really, if it had just picked one and went for it, things would have been better.

The Ugly: How many times are we going to have to watch Will Ferrell play an out of shape athelete that occasionally strips? The joke is getting very, very stale.

Points Pondered

• The one standout in the film is the announcer that's not Will Arnett - the straight delivery is constantly hiliarous.


• There's was really no need for this movie to be rated R. Cut out some of the swearing and you'd have a just as funny PG-13. Or just throw in some naked people to make it worth it. NOT Will Ferrell.


• There are at least 5 scenes completely stealing from Slap Shot. It's basically shameless.


• Random funny people cameo and then proceed to not be funny. It's very strange.

Haiku: Lethal Weapon 4 5/10

Lame plot goes too far -
No way Jet Li is beaten
by two old-fart cops

Point-by-Point: Stay 4/10

Ryan Gosling plays a suicidal art student threatening to kill himself in 3 days and Ewan McGregor is his therapist. Things happen. Or do they??
 
The Good: I want to like this movie. It's ultra-stylish, has an amazing cast and tries hard to be hip. Sometimes it even succeeds.
The Bad: You will never understand what's going on. Even at the very end (you know, the point in the movie where loose ends meet?) the explanation we're handed for the goings-on just covers the utter basics of what we've just seen, completely destroying the "depth" and "intricacies" I thought the movie was trying to build.
The Ugly: The creeping sensation you get at about the hour mark that all of this "intriguing" bending of reality really has no point, and then being proven absolutely right.
 
Points Pondered

• Does the director ever bolt upright in bed, drenched in sweat, having come up with yet ANOTHER movie idea that would be a better use of Ewan McGregor, Naomi Watts, Ryan Gosling, Bob Hoskins, Janeane Garofolo and B.D. Wong?


• Transitioning from scene to scene through doorways is actually a fairly cool effect.


• I guess it could be said that this movie is trying to depict an experience, not a story, and therefore only has to make as much sense as the fractured mind behind it. If that's the case, why not just leave the audience out of it?

Point-by-Point: Revolver 4/10

Gambler Generic Jason Statham Character wins a lot of money from his arch-nemesis, Dorothy (Ray Liotta. Yes.). Upon doing so, bad things happen and Generic Statham is forced to put his life in the hands of two nobodies who seem to have the ability to see the future.

The Good: It's better than Swept Away. Statham does his shtick well, and Andre Benjamin (of Outkast fame) actually holds his own. Really, if you stopped paying attention to what people were saying or doing, you might mistake it for a worthwhile movie.
The Bad: I went in hoping for a crime thriller, and what I got instead was a series of improbable events masquerading as an "important" film.
The Ugly: Ray Liotta with George Hamilton skin. He tans. A lot. In not a lot of clothing.

Points Pondered

• Having a confusing plot does not equal art.


• Why do we suddenly cut to an anime version of what's happening?? WHY?!?


• If you have to show interviews with philosophers during your movie's credits in order to justify your story, you probably made a wrong turn somewhere.


• Remember when Guy Ritchie made cool movies like Snatch and Lock Stock? I miss that Guy Ritchie.

Point-by-Point: Evan Almighty 4/10

Evan Baxter turns into Noah (who isn't all that "almighty", but I guess they have to make the sequel connection SOMEWHERE) and must build an ark before Morgan Freeman floods the world, as Morgan Freeman is apt to do.

The Good: Um, animals are cool sometimes. And Morgan Freeman plays a kindly old black man well, even one that happens to be God.
The Bad: It's not funny. At all, really. Which is an impressive feat of writing, given that it stars Steve Carrell, who happens to be innately funny.
The Ugly: Did you know that animals poop? The writers do, and they think it's HILARIOUS.

Points Pondered
-This was written by Steve Oedekerk of Kung Pow: Enter the Fist fame. I thought that movie was awesome, and I STILL wasn't entertained by this.
-When you're relying on face-making, thumb-hammering and bad haircuts to make your movie funny, you're wandering dangerously close to Three Stooges territory.
-The fact that NO ONE believes that a flood is coming even when warned by someone whom pairs of animals are obviously flocking to / he has amazing control of AND magically has all the stuff to build an ark seems like a stretch. Sure, I'd probably be somewhat skeptical (although there'd be an awful lot of stuff to try and explain away), but there would probably be tons of end-of-days folk flocking to him.
-Wanda Sykes is useless. Something happens in the movie, cut to her saying something "urbanly." Genius!