Review: CARS 2

I seem to stand in the very low percentage of people who think that Cars is not Pixar's weakest film. People often cite that it's more of a Dreamworks film, and simply not Pixar quality. I've always given that review to Finding Nemo.

Cars had laughs and heart - I thoroughly enjoyed it. Cars 2 is an unnecessary sequel - but they got away with it. The golden rule for any sequel is that you must up the ante. Cars 2 delivers on this. We now move out of Radiator Springs and focus on a world of espionage and an expensive World Grand Prix.

Review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

I'm surprised Woody Allen doesn't slouch more. That head of his must weigh a ton, what with all the exhaustion and neuroses it's filled with. His newest braingasm Midnight In Paris should please everyone from the deepest Allen fans to newcomers of his style.

Woody Allen is one of my heroes for a specific reason; when he makes movies, he makes them for a reason. The reason he's made almost 50 movies is not because the studio asks him to pump them out like Stephen King novels. He makes his movies because he has vision about something. They range from wild fantasies to slapstick comedies, but they've always had the mark of a true vision. Allen is now 75, and Midnight In Paris is as true an Allen film as I've ever seen. As the phenomenal opening sequence came to a close, I realized he's still got it. He's still able to make movies people care about. Midnight In Paris is about a guy with a dream.

Review: HOW DO YOU KNOW

You know that little thingy in your brain that stops you from saying everything you are thinking about out loud? Well, not one character in this movie has that. This provides and interesting experiment in acting but unfortunately a terrible film comes along with it.

Review: LITTLE FOCKERS

There was no reason to ever make this movie. The studio could have made a funnier movie starting the same actors "by the people who brought you Meet the Fockers" and it would have been just as successful, if not more so because it would have been funnier. The funniest moments in this film occur within the first ten minutes as the film gives a quick recap on the quirkiness of each character and the relationships amongst them. It takes a dive to the pits of boredom from then on.

Marmaduke Trailer Surfaces

I almost want to see this just because of HOW BAD IT LOOKS.






I mean if anything it'll be funnier than the comic strip.... but that's really not saying much.

Review: NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN

I enjoyed Night at the Museum because of one reason: it was fun. It was simple, enjoyable, charming, and often times very funny. The only thing it had going against it was its predictability.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian has pretty much the same qualities going for it, except it might have been a bit less funny, and bit more predictable. *Sharp inward breath*

This movie has a comedy ensemble the likes of which I have not seen in a while; Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Eugene Levy, Hank Azaria, Christopher Guest, Alain Chabet, Ricky Gervais and Bill Hader. Not to mention some great cameos from Jonah Hill, Mindy Kaling, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson, and Thomas Lennon. Also, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but the Jonas Brothers even have a cameo, and it is nothing short of delightful.

Let's start. Ben Stiller is his lovable Ben Stiller self. He has the rare talent of being able to work well off of every other actor in the movie, especially Hill, Adams, Azaria, and Chabet. He has some really funny one-liners, and to be honest, the movie would be nothing without him. Great job to Ben Stiller.

Hank Azaria, as usual, is hilarious. He plays Kahmunrah, Abe Lincoln, and The Thinker (the sculpture). Azaria just might be the greatest character actor of all time. His accent is amazing, his wit as sharp as his spear. The movie might be worth seeing just for his conversation with everyone's favorite Sith.

I have to give honorable mention to Jonah Hill as well. It's silly, but one of the reasons I didn't love the movie as much as the last one is because he was only in one scene. In it, he and Stiller banter back and forth for about five minutes of absolute comic brilliance. I would have loved to have seen one more bit with him.

Now for Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. I am incredibly conflicted about my opinion of her character. For one, I want to say how ridiculous it is to have such a young, beautiful actress playing Amelia Earhart. I want to say that in school, I was told that Earhart was mean and grumpy all the time. However, Amy Adams plays her as smart, fun, and incredibly charming. She really is great. I want to say how ridiculous of an interpretation of her the movie had, but she was just too adorable for me to care.

This one was written by Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon. Here's what I think: they should not be making PG movies. Balls of Fury is hilarious, because they don't have to censor themselves. Reno 911! is definitely not censored, and it's great. They need to stick to being filthy; it works much better.

As for Shawn Levy, he has yet to make a movie that really blows me away. He's clearly a very capable filmmaker, so why not try something that has more promise than films like The Pink Panther and Night at the Museum? I know he's got the talent. I'm excited for a project that has some depth to it.

So, Night at the Museum 2 gets a 3. It's not bad, it's just not good enough. Sequels should be better than the previous movie. No one wants to walk out of the theater thinking about their favorite parts of the first movie. And while it is very, very funny, its predictability brings it down. Not to mention the enormous buildup the movie has to an extremely disappointing finale.

Funny, but not the best.

Editorial: Wes Anderson

By Guest Blogger
Dustin Hamlin


From the moment I saw the trailer for The Life Aquatic, something hooked me. I couldn’t tell quite what it was, and I’m even having trouble defining it now, but there was some quality there that I had never seen in film making before. And that makes sense, because Wes Anderson is a director with such a completely unique vision.

The thing about his movies is that they can’t be cast easily into a genre. Sometimes they are though, and it pains me to read a review exclaiming Rushmore to be “One of the best comedy’s of the year!”. That totally misses the point. Yes Wes Anderson’s movies can be funny, but that doesn’t mean they should be slapped with the comedy stamp and shipped off to slave away making us excrete laughter. That’s like a guitar that can only play one note. Sure that note might ring beautifully, but it’s only going to stimulate on one redundant shallow level. When Wes Anderson makes a film, he strings it with the entire spectrum of human emotion. They slide from hilarious to heartbreaking, and don’t make a spectacle of it either. Other directors might nudge and prod for the desired emotions, performing the cinematic equivalent of holding up a queue card printed with the word “Cry”.

It never feels like that with Wes Anderson though, and that’s exactly why I love his films so much. He’s content to just let things happen, and allow the characters to be the emotional set pieces; not the sweeping violins, or the cloying close up of a tear rolling down a lost love’s cheek. There doesn’t need to be a startling conclusion, or an intense heart-pounding tearjerker of a third act. There doesn’t even need to be a traditional “wrap up”. Sometimes just a brief excerpt from life is good enough. Not all strings need to be tied, because then you know it’s artificial.

When the three sons from The Darjeeling Limited finally use their collective initiative to reconnect with their Mother, a mother who abandoned them multiple times, she just simply leaves again. The family wasn’t happily reunited after all their struggles, and the camera didn’t zoom out as laughter was heard from the happy bunch. And that’s okay. That’s what happened. There’s no pretending that these artificial conclusions take place in reality. When two lovers finally embrace each other’s feelings and share their passionate kiss, there’s no director to walk in and say cut. The credits don’t roll. Things keep moving, and people keep living.

Despite my annoyance with Wes Anderson’s movies being labeled as comedies though, I do find them hilarious. There’s some funny stuff in them, and I think the reason why his comedic style resonates so well with me is because of the same principles. There are no “Insert laughter here” moments. No jokes are set up or even delivered. Its just people being the people they are, and I love that. Wes Anderson fills his movies with so many eccentric arbitrary details; then compliments them all with a completely unique sense of cinematography. As Margot from The Royal Tenenbaums walks towards her brother in slow motion set to "These Days", the scene verges on profound with it’s simple sincerity. Done any more elaborately, and the beauty would’ve been crumpled.

So that’s a bit of why I love this man’s movies so much, and why he’s now my favorite director. It’s hard to articulate exactly why I feel such a connection to his work. I’ve just never before seen such a brilliant and cohesive mix of emotions. Wes Anderson is a storyteller who’s not afraid to deny the need for a tired worn out rubric. I doubt one’s ever even existed to him.

You can investigate Dustin Hamlin further at his YouTube Channel.