Hollywood....

Ok, so this isn't a movie review, but it's a rant against Hollywood in general, so that can go on here, right? Oh well. It's going on here anyways.

Hollywood has a lot of problems and as much as I like movies, some of them cannot just be ignored. And, I plan on listing out all of the inexcusable tics of Hollywood today. Gone are the days of Audrey Hepburn, Spencer Tracy and, yes, Jimmy Stewart. Those were actors that allowed their love of the craft to bleed through onto the screen and into their films. These days, the closest actors we have who display that kind of passion is Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp and they went and made The Tourist, so....there goes that theory. And that's Complaint One: A Lack of Passion. Where did the beauty of film-making go? It's lost in a swirling vortex of no creativity and a lust for money. Thankfully, there are gems like True Grit and Inception to keep my faith in the industry alive.

Complaint Number Two: Fast-talking (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Jesse Eisenberg.)

Listen to me and listen to me good, Hollywood. There is one man in the industry that can talk fast; ONE man. And that man is Vince Vaughn.

This...is that man.

Vince Vaughn is the one man who can pull off a fast-talking monologue without it becoming annoying or letting his words slide together. He has literally made it an art form and I respect it. However, The Dilemma dropped that respect a bit when he monologued almost literally every 5 minutes. Every other time though, it's an art.

But, lately, fast-talking seems to be the newest "trend" which totally kills the humor and appeal that Vince Vaughn gives it. Example? Jesse Eisenberg in the first five minutes of The Social Network. And pretty much every other time he talks. But, the opening scene of Social Network was painful. He spoke so quickly that it was barely possible to understand what he was saying. In five minutes, he has completely and totally obliterated the comedic genius of Vince Vaughn. And for that, he lost the respect given to him for being in Zombieland.

And he's attractive to boot!

Complaint Number Three: The Panel That Votes For Golden Globes

Ok, I've never seen/met any of these people, but I'm assuming they're all super old. And, as demonstrated by the winners this year, they kind of a mediocre taste in movies. First of all, how in the heck did Social Network beat out Inception for at least three Golden Globes?! I have personally seen both of these films and Inception is definitely the better film. It's a better plot, better acted and just generally amazing. Social Network is pretty boring and honestly, hard to watch. Inception was beautiful, reintroducing the generation to the passionate and amazing art form that is film-making. Social Network is a movie based on an exaggerated versions of the life of a nerd. Also, it's music is terrible (Inception's is like Mozart meets Beethoven). So, I think it's time to replace the panel of Golden Globe judges.

Complaint Number Four: Christopher Nolan's lack of an Oscar win

This is a major injustice for which I am deeply upset. Christopher Nolan is responsible for three of the GREATEST MOVIES of my lifetime: Inception. Batman Begins. The Dark Knight. And he has a THIRD Batman movie in the works, due to release next summer.

As someone who would love to write/direct movies, Christopher Nolan is my hero. And now, the Oscars have denied him his oh-so-deserved Best Director win. He isn't even in the running! You know who did win Best Director? I don't either. I don't think anyone does. You know why? Because he is probably a no-name loser who has directed some little "free-spirited" movie where all the characters die in the end. And he beat Christopher Nolan. It SICKENS me.

*EDITORS NOTE: I looked it up, and no, Christopher Nolan didn't win. No one has yet. But, you can check out all the nominee's here. That last paragraph was mainly to demonstrate my passion over this. I actually enjoyed the work of most of these nominees (that I saw, anyways)*

That's all I've got now. Thank you for letting me rant. I do so appreciate it.

The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet

"I don't want a gun that shoots farts!"

Directed by: Michel Gondry
Cast: Seth Rogen as Britt Reid/Green Hornet
Jay Chou as Kato
Cameron Diaz as Lenore
Rated PG-13

*The following may contain spoilers*
The Green Hornet is the latest in a series of remakes that crowd and mock the superhero genre. At first, I thought Green Hornet would be different; a pleasant surprise in Hollywood's mundane attempts to constantly make more money. I was wrong and I blame myself for overlooking Seth Rogen.

The Green Hornet was originally a radio show in the 30's that ran until the 50's. It was then adapted into a TV show in the 60's and even had a crossover with Adam West's Batman show. Now, here we are in 2011 and the Green Hornet is drug from the closet in an attempt to cash in on the superhero movie trend.

With Seth Rogen at the helm, the movie follows the life of Britt Reid, son of a billionaire media president. His life is full of women, partying and lots and lots of money, all trying to get the attention of his jerk-father. Then, his life is turned upside down when his father dies from an allergic reaction to a bee sting and Britt inherits the family business. Now, that right there sounds like a decent Seth Rogen comedy, right? Brainless, not a whole lot of plot and plenty of ways for him to be a dork. Well, this movie provides all of this, there's just a little bit more...."plot".

Life upended since his father's death, Britt confides in the one person who hated his father as much as he did: his father's mechanic, Kato. In a drunken fit of craziness, Kato and Britt decide to go and decapitate the late Mr. Reid's memorial statue. In the middle of their stunt, they spot two people getting mugged and decide to help. After Britt fumbles his way through and Kato unleashes some awesome ninja-ness, the two flee the scene pursued by cops who think their criminals. Multiple explosions follow.

After realizing how awesome they just were, Britt and Kato decide to be vigilante's, posing as bad-guys. Let the comedic mayhem begin!

My biggest problem with the Green Hornet is that it had a lot of potential. It's a pretty good plot for a superhero movie. The problem started when Seth Rogen was chosen to write the thing. Instead of being awesome, the whole thing became campy and stupid. For example, their bad guy was just a dude with a weird name who happened to be an idiot. Every line that came out of his mouth seemed be followed for a pause for laugh; it felt very intentionally funny, and that's not funny.

"My gun is double-barreled. It's funny, see?" No. No, it's not.

That really is my only problem with the whole thing. It was a pretty funny movie and had the classic, campy-superhero feel that I love. I just think that the whole thing could have been ten times better if the villain was serious, instead of trying to compete with the heroes comedy.

Nobody likes it when Mysterio cracks jokes with Spider-Man. It's just not done.

This just isn't done either...

Overall, Green Hornet wasn't bad. You just need to know what you're going into: a Seth Rogen superhero-comedy and you'll get corny jokes, general campiness, Cameron Diaz, insane kung-fu and a stupid villain. Spend wisely kids.

Personal Rating: 6 of 10
Plot: 4 of 10
Drugs/Alcohol: 3 of 10
Action/Explosions: 8 of 10

The Dilemma

Directed by: Ron Howard
Cast: Vince Vaughn as Ronny
Kevin James as Nick
Winona Ryder as Geneva
Jennifer Connelly as Beth
Channing Tatum as Zip
Queen Latifah as Susan Warner

Rated: PG-13

*The following may contain spoilers*
There are certain "Laws of Hollywood"; things that are widely excepted when going to the theaters. One of these "laws" used to be that when big names are associated with a movie, it's going to be good or, at the very least, entertaining. The Dilemma broke this law.

Dilemma tells the story of two best friends, Ronny and Nick (Vaughn and James) who seem to have it all. Nick is happily married to his college girlfriend, Geneva (Ryder) and Ronny is about to propose to his girlfriend, Beth (Connelly) and their personal business is about sign a long-term deal with Chrysler. Everything seems to be going great....

Then, as Ronny is planning his proposal to Beth in the botanical gardens, he spots Geneva kissing another man (Tatum). Appalled and shocked, Ronny must now decide the best way to break the bad news to his friend.

Because it's a movie, this decision will not be made easily and will only happen after poisonous plants, lies, confrontations and over the top smackdowns occur.

Dilemma is supposed to be a comedy about an awkward situation; at least, that's what the commercials say. The end result, however, was a lot more painful. The whole movie seemed like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be funny or serious, leaving an overall messy feel. Their also seemed to be a few plot points and scenes that really made no sense in relation to the rest of the film, suggesting that maybe a bit too much was left on the cutting room floor.

Vince Vaughn seems to be known for his ability to monologue and in every movie, he has at least one long-winded, fast-talking rant about something. Normally, I'm a fan and find it funny to hear him freaking out about it. However, it got really old in The Dilemma. It felt like at least once a scene, he started talking really fast and for a long time about something. Then, Kevin James started doing it. He didn't do it as well, but he did it. The problem with a lot of monologues is that it breaks up the rhythm of the scene. It turns a conversation into a run-on sentence and gets very tedious.

Along those same lines, James and Vaughn's relationship in the movie was both tedious and unbelievable. These two "best friends" spent the majority of their interactions with each other yelling and arguing. Not only did it make their friendship unbelievable but it made the whole thing hard to watch.

Also, Kevin James played his character as being angry and unhappy all the time, even before he finds out about his wife. As a result, you don't totally sympathize with him when he finds it all out. It also clashes with Vaughn trying to be the funny-man; it feels like James is playing the serious side and Vaughn is the humorous, once again seeming like the movie can't make up it's mind about which it wants to be.

Overall, I was disappointed in the movie. I had seen trailers and actually laughed out loud, so I was expecting even more from the full-length film. Instead, it was confusing, hard-to-watch and the only funny parts were those from the commercials. I don't know where Ron Howard's head was at, but it certainly wasn't fully into this movie.

Personal Rating: 3 of 10
Plot: 2
Sexuality/Sensuality: 3
Spiritual Aspects: 1
Drugs/Alcohol: .5

True Grit

True Grit

Directed by: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges as Rueben "Rooster" Cogburn
Matt Damon as LaBoeuf
Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney
Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross

Rated PG-13
*The following may contain spoilers*

“You must pay for everything in this world; nothing is free, except the grace of God. Justice comes, one way or another.”

It’s been a long time since movie theaters played a good western (and no, Back to the Future: Part 3 doesn’t count). Then, last December, Hollywood released True Grit, another remake of another classic. The original True Grit which starred John Wayne and Glen Campbell, was released in 1969. Now, 41 years later, we’ve received a remake, this time with Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon in the lead roles. So how do the two compare? Has Hollywood finally made a remake actually worth watching?

True Grit was originally a novel written by Charles Portis. The story follows a young girl named Mattie Ross as she tries to avenge her father’s death at the hands of a past associate named Tom Chaney (played by Jeff Corey in the original and Josh Brolin in the remake). Being as young as she is, Mattie cannot hunt down a killer on her own and decides to hire the toughest U.S. Marshall she can find; a mean old drunk by the name of Rueben “Rooster” Cogburn (John Wayne in the original and Jeff Bridges for my generation). Soon, the duo team up with a man named LaBoeuf, a Texas Ranger (not a baseball player) who has been hunting Tom Chaney for years. Together, the unlikely team sets out to find Tom Chaney and bring him to justice facing outlaws, bandits and snakes along the way.

The 2010 version of the movie stays pretty close to the plot of the original, even using some of the same dialogue, word-for-word. I haven’t read the book, but I would assume that most of the plot and dialogue are also originally drawn from the book. Despite the movies similarities in plot, the two are actually different in more ways than they are similar. And personally, I liked the 2010 version better so this might come out a little biased.

First of all, the cinematography in the 2010 version is much better. The camera angles work and cooperate to tell the story. Granted, the first was released in ’69, so we do have to take that into account.

Second, the newer version seemed to move at much quicker and more enjoyable pace. The first seemed to take way to long setting everything up; it felt like every character had a ten minute back story. In the remake, audiences are thrown right into the story and it remains pretty fast-paced for the next two hours.

Third, Jeff Bridges seemed to actually do something with his character. The new Rooster Cogburn really seems to be a cranky old drunk, whereas the original just felt like John Wayne being John Wayne With An Eye-Patch. Also, Matt Damon seems to be less of a creep than Glen Campbell and I found Hailee Steinfeld (2010’s Mattie Ross) to be much more enjoyable than Kim Darby’s portrayal in ’69; the original Mattie annoyed me to no end. Like I said, this might be a little biased.

Overall, both films are good in their own way. But, given the choice between the two, I’m going to have to say I much more enjoyed the newer one. Yes, it was a little bloody and gruesome, but what else do you want from a good Western? Jeff Bridges introduces a new kind of cowboy, and does it well, while Matt Damon is a brilliant little snob from Texas. To top it off, newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who began filming when she was 11 or 12, is an excellent addition, convincingly being both hard-headed and naïve.

In my opinion, if True Grit isn’t a classic by the time I’m 40, there’s something wrong with my generation. But, I guess we already knew that…

Personal Rating: 9 of 10
Alcohol Content: 4 of 10
Blood and Gore: 7 of 10

TRON: Legacy

TRON: Legacy

Directed by: Joeseph Kosinsky

Cast: Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn/C.L.U.

Garrett Hedlund as Sam Flynn

Olivia Wilde as Quorra

Bruce Boxleintner as Alan Bradley/TRON

Rated: PG

“Perfection can never be attained, especially when it is already in front of us.”

In 1982, the world was given TRON, a movie that brought the inner workings of a computer to life. It introduced "the Grid", a land inside of a computer where programs battle each other as their users control them from the outside. While the concept was good, the plot was a little spotty and the overall feel was rather lacking. Now, 28 years later, audiences are experiencing TRON the way it should be.

Beginning 7 years after the original, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is telling the story of "The Grid", the land from the original TRON film to his son Sam. After sending Sam to bed, Kevin heads out to work, promising to see Sam the next day. A promise that was never fulfilled; Kevin Flynn disappeared that night.

The film jumps to present day and we see an older Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) still dealing with abandonment issues. He lives alone with a dog and enjoys stealing and high speed motorcycle chases. His life of leisure is disrupted when Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), an old friend of his father's, tells Sam that he was paged by his fathers arcade the night before.

With the same curiosity that killed someone's cat, Sam flies over to his fathers arcade. After trekking through mountains of dust, Sam discovers a secret office hidden behind an old TRON video game (convenient). After messing around with an old computer that is still turned on after 20 some-odd years (while everything else in the arcade is turned off), Sam is digitized and sucked into "The Grid".

There, he is immediately thrown into the classic games of "the Grid", this time in stunning high-resolution and amazing visual effects. After winning at the disc game, a corrupted program of his father's named Clu challenges him to the famous light-cycle race.

Classic light-cycle = lame

Legacy light cycle = awesome

After losing his teammates and facing imminent doom at the hands of Clu, Sam is saved by a mysterious figure in an awesome dune-buggy. The figure reveals herself to be a woman named Quorra (Olivia Wilde) and takes Sam to his father. After a touching reunion, Kevin Flynn tells Sam that Clu brought him here to further his plan for world domination (typical). Now, it's up to Sam, Kevin and Quorra to save the grid....and the world.

This is Quorra. And the best part of the mushy reunion scene.

The original TRON movie was an awesome plot idea, but wasn't executed well in my opinion. Tron: Legacy was a brilliant way to reintroduce and revamp a classic movie. Most of the main plot points from the original were brought up again (light-cycles, disk-fighting, that transport thing on the light wire), as well as a bunch of new elements that helped to expand the universe. Besides a weird Jeff-Bridges-is-god element, I felt that it was a pretty well-executed movie.

Legacy was the first sequel this year to introduce the idea of using the original cast in a remake, an idea that caught on pretty fast (Ghostbusters 3, for example). Not a bad idea considering that Legacy was a pretty successful revamp. Yes, Sam sounded like he was over acting at times, the plot twists were pretty predictable and, according to my dad and brother (who haven't seen the original), it wasn't very enjoyable. It had it's hiccups, but what movie doesn't? It was definitely worth the money to see, if for nothing else than to see the Grid finally done right.

Spencer Stephens
www.spencermeetsworld.blogspot.com