Anonymous asked: are you going to the beatles: the lost concert" movie when it comes out next month?

Negatory. I know it may be a shocker, but I really have no interest in the Beatles at all. The only movie I can think of that I’m looking forward to is Prometheus.

remember that time i saw a trailer for The Men Who Stare at Goats and thought to myself, “that looks ridiculous and i want it in my life”? well kids, i saw it…and it was plenty ridiculous. something that needed to be in my life though? not so much. “woah!” i bet you’re saying to yourself. “Alex never reveals his true feelings this early in the review.” i understand your confusion. just pop a squat (if you’re not already sitting (why wouldn’t you be? (who reads movie reviews on tumblr standing up? (and how many parentheses within parentheses are too much? (*this many*)))), take a breather, and i shall walk you through this since we haven’t reviewed in a while. don’t worry; i’ll be gentle. anywhoozle! back to the goats and the men who stare at them! this movie is a story about a mild mannered reporter, Bob Wilton (played by Ewan /McGregor) whose life gets turned upside down by a series of unfortunate events (shocker) and his attempts to earn back the life he once had by proving his thirst for life in the midst of the Iraq War. now, stop me if i’m overstepping it here, but thrusting yourself into the middle of Kuwait in order to demonstrate the size of your cajones is a pretty big leap. personally i would have gone on Fear Factor or done some local digging to find some juicy news to explore but hey, to each his own right? my problem with this is that it’s SUCH a drastic life choice that it threw me off the bandwagon way too early in the movie. admittedly, i got back on, but the motivation behind it was so odd (he never mentioned any interest in the war prior to his decision) that i found it hard to trust Bob as a character and feel 100% sympathetic to his plight post arriving in Kuwait. awkward start aside, the movie then takes a two fold approach to unfolding the story. One half of the narrative is focused on Bob’s attempts to redefine himself in Kuwait and the other is an unraveling of the bigger picture in which Bob finds himself. the title of the movie comes from the concept of “psychic warriors”-soldiers trained to battle others with their minds rather than guns (the goat staring comes in later, don’t worry). Bob hunts down the truth behind this mysterious band of soldiers with the help of one of their most prolific members: Lyn Cassady (George Clooney). at this point, all this might sound kind of heavy. a man battling with major upheavals in his life, uncovering major military secrets, and surviving time in war torn Kuwait? not exactly the lightest of fare. and that’s my biggest problem with this movie: despite injecting heaping doses of ridiculousness into these situations, the shadow of the shenanigans being presented was too much for me to ignore. no, none of the movie is that dramatic that i was offended that they should try to bring any light to the scenes or too intense that i couldn’t laugh at what was going on. i guess it’s just too off putting for me to find any solid footing for where i stood as a viewer and where the movie stood in terms of its intentions. there’s a very thin line between goofy anecdotes, like Bob’s wife leaving him for a co-worker with a metal arm, (which are very reminiscent of the quirky narratives found in Pushing Daisies and Glee) and somewhat action packed scenes showing Clooney and McGregor escaping gunfire and hostage situations. “but Alex! you’re obsessed with the Co Bros and they make light of serious situations all the time.” fair point, loyal reader, but they’ve got it down to a science. they frame it well and even though you know what you’re getting into, they still manage to surprise you with their story telling. this movie’s shenanigans felt almost forced with characters and scenes that were obviously going to be received as ridiculous. i did find myself laughing but most of the time it was because i couldn’t believe something had happened rather than it being inherently funny. i know i’ve been doing a lot of griping, but in the end, this really wasn’t a terrible movie. it’s well done and has great actors who know what they’re doing, but it just fell flat for me. maybe i just wasn’t in the right mindset when i watched it, maybe it’s because it was on the Encore Suspense movie channel and i was expecting something different, or maybe it was because i really can’t handle Ewan McGregor’s forced American accent anymore. i dunno. i ended the movie with a smile, so it can’t be all that bad. if you’re a die hard fan of any of the big names in this movie, this one might be a good choice for a slow night with friends. otherwise…i’d say cut your losses and watch Fargo instead. same blend of silliness and action, but exponentially higher quality. sorry boys. i know we’re in on the joke, but this is one party i’m willing to miss out on.

Stuff to Watch For:

• ugh. the title card for the movie is: “more of this is true than you would believe.” pretentious much? my inner scientist wanted to rage quit, but i powered through. technically, if i didn’t believe any of the movie, and 1% of the movie was entirely true, that’s more than what i would believe…making that title card is true. tricky bastards.
• there are some gross ass ‘staches in this movie. no, i’m not talking about asses with moustaches, silly goose. a lot of the back story takes place in the 70’s and the ‘chops and lip hair action is just plain rough.
• SPEAKING OF MOUSTACHES, Nick Offerman is in this movie (Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec) and he is lacking his glorious moustache. weirdest thing…ever.
• can we talk about how i still don’t understand why Kevin Spacey was in this movie?
• Jeff Bridges uncanny ability to forever and always play the Dude in every movie he’s ever in.
  

Cheesy RE4 reference aside, I need to get back into writing reviews with the precious weeks left in summer break. OBVIOUSLY my Bring It On review is still coming (the anticipation must be killing you) but I have a HUGE list of movies I’ve watched in the past months that I wouldn’t mind weighing in on. If you put your two cents in I’ll make sure to give you some love in the coming week. Any movie suggestions are always welcome too!

The Epic List:

• Stick It
• Repulsion
• The Crazies
• Old Boy
• Fronteir(s)
• Coraline
• Tron
• Insidious
• Antichrist
• The Hole
• Hunchback of Notre Dame
• American Psycho
• Bolt
• Pirates 4
• Green Lantern
• Harry Potter
• Transformers
• Goldmember
• Percy Jackson
• Jennifer’s Body
• The Box
• White Chicks

Which reviews are calling your name?

oh boy. where to begin? RocknRolla was interesting to say the least. first of all, i’d like to point out that yes, that is how you spell the title of the movie. i Wikipedia’d it, and if Wikipedia says, it is so. anyways. this slight confusion leads me to my main summary of Guy Ritchie’s crime “drama” (iMDb has it listed as a thriller…which is completely incorrect). have you ever felt like you’re not in on the joke? like you catch the nuances, and you know when you’re supposed to laugh…but it’s kind of an empty chuckle? that’s how i felt the entire time while watching this movie. also confused. very, very confused. don’t get me wrong! it’s a fun movie and i’d definitely give it another shot, but there are a lot of plates spinning in this one, so you can’t breeze through it. now’s usually the part where i segue from my intro to the plot of the movie, but i’m putting it off for as long as i can because the plot was my major sticking point with this movie. this isn’t my first time to the rodeo, so a slightly more complicated plot usually isn’t a problem for me, but Guy Ritchie really wants you to work your way to the end of the movie. there are people who are double crossing people who are double crossing people who are double crossing people. okay. i lied. that didn’t happen…OR DID IT? that’s my biggest issue. i would have to sit and draw a character map just to untangle the relations between all of the characters. and man are there a lot of them. i’m not talking an ensemble fit for LOTR, but i digress. back to the plot. One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba) try to buy a piece of land in London when their dealings unfortunately get them involved with Lenny Cole. Lenny is a “creative” business man to say the least, and manages to put a halt on their purchase and hikes the price up since it’s his property. from there, Gerard Butler and Idris Elba weave their way through London’s version of the gangster world to score the money they need and still come out on top. there’s SO much more that happens than this, but describing it will confuse you as much as it will give me a headache trying to remember it all. it’s definitely one of those stories where i had to keep reminding myself of everyone’s motives so i could figure out who was actually on top and who was just kidding themselves about that fact. Guy Ritchie’s ridiculous plot brings me to my true feelings of the movie. despite being utterly confused at multiple points in the movie…despite people having crazy names like One Two and Mumbles…and despite the fact that the entire movie pivots around two guys trying to buy some warehouse for who knows why…i still liked it…i think? I DON’T EVEN KNOW ANYMORE. to be honest, i think it’s a cultural thing. i know that sounds silly but i really do. look at the poster for this movie. super bad ass, right? well…there are definite scenes where Gerard Butler and Idris Elba make perfect sense as the leads cuz they pound some serious flunky ass, but on average, the movie earns a 6 on the opening-a-can-of-whoop-ass-scale. so much talkinggggggg. so much. and usually i LOVE dialogue! hello. biggest Quentin Tarantino fan ever right here. but the dialogue in this one just didn’t hit the right spot for me to forgive the lackluster action. i think the unfortunate combo of expectation a shoot-em-up action movie and getting a couple of bumbling anti-heroes was too much to stomach the first time through. plus, i’m fairly sure the American definition of a gangster movie is quite different than the British one. on top of that some things happen and i just found myself gawking at the screen wondering “why?” it was never a frustrated or upset question…i was just genuinely curious. there are some very interesting twists and turns in this one. here’s my suggestion to you. if you wanna see Reservoir Dogs served up British style, you should give this movie a shot. it’s funny when it wants to be (mostly unintentionally though), it doesn’t take itself too seriously, and Guy Ritchie’s ability to somehow craft unique personalities for every single character in the movie and work them to their max is quite impressive. for real. no one is in this movie for no reason. for as haphazard as it feels, it’s a brilliantly crafted movie and a heaping helping of British culture if you’re hankering for it. this movie isn’t for everyone, especially those of your friends who like to talk during movies, and if you can find one, a veteran to this experience will be most helpful in navigating the waters of RocknRolla. you’ll laugh, you won’t cry, and you’ll definitely scratch your head. i don’t know what else to say other than…cheers!

Stuff to watch for:

• what a cast. usually i like to play “guess where you’ve seen this obscure actor before” but this time they were all fairly well known
• speaking of obscure actors, Thandie Newton probs isn’t as obscure in the UK as she is in the US, but she was in Norbit. HA. that’s all.
• jk. that’s not all. she was cast as the sexy, slick, temptress…and i still can’t figure out why. at one point she does the “drop a really intense line and then slink off screen” thing, but it just didn’t work. she’s a stick…and not that sexy. she’s pretty (kinda) but just no. i hate to be blunt but it was just awkward casting.
• why is Gerard Butler so randomly funny? he doesn’t seem like someone who should be funny, but he makes it work.
• watching Idris Elba really made me want to watch the Losers again. and so should you.

is there such a thing as too much hype? maybe, but that’s definitely not the case for Paranormal Activity 2. most movies fall victim to the hype that’s lifted them to the lofty heights that they anticipate. it’s a dangerous game, really. the bigger the expectations, the harder the let down, the uglier the backlash. Paranormal Activity 2 however had the cajones to face the beast head on and approached its distribution with the “Demand It” method (meaning it’ll be played in your area if enough people request it). this bold move could mean certain death for relatively obscure films, but with the popularity of the original film catapulting it to the forefront of everyone’s minds, Paranormal Activity 2 had nothing to worry about. it doesn’t exactly hurt that it’s a fucking good movie too. a prequel of sorts,  PA2 depicts the events prior to the first movie as well as what occurred after the first movie ended. in terms of plot, the second verse is the same as the first, but it’s Katie’s sister and family being haunted this time around. now that i think about it, there are quite a lot of similarities between the first and second movie: family getting haunted, cameras catching all the spooky action, the male of the home ignoring ever red flag ever, etc. while regifting a lot of the devices from the original seems like a cop out, PA2 manages to get away with it since it recycled all of the aspects of the first movie that worked so well and improved on them. the creators of these movies have an impressive handle on how to use barely any special effects to generate the same fear that big budget Hollywood blockbusters churn out. subtly and suspense is the name of the game in this franchise, and your imagination is used against you. with no score to hint at when the audience should anticipate a scary moment, it’s pure tension that drives the scarier scenes. things can almost feel as though they’re reached a complete stop as you’re itching for a scene to escalate or just move on since there are plenty of dead shots thrown in to lull you into a false sens of security. if you still haven’t seen Paranormal Activity 2 yet, you’re seriously missing out. i’d go as far as to say that i liked it more than the original. with a bare bones plot line, and simple, yet clean characters, the audience is left to focus only on what matters: shitting their pants. it builds on what the original set out to do, it’s scarier, and it answers more questions. not only that, but it lived up to the hype better than PA1. while i could do without the revival of the ghost hunting genre of tv that this franchise obviously played a part in rejuvenating, i have no bones about the movies themselves and can only hope Paranormal Activity 3 (if it happens) doesn’t close the series on a sour note.

Stuff to watch for:

• night vision scene. uggghhhhhhhh. definitely was hyperventiliating the whole time
• the demon is an equal opportunity offender. that’s all i’m going to say. you’ll see why this is so horrifying when you watch the movie
• the advent of people never wanting to use their pool cleaners ever again