#43-Breaking Upwards (2009)

Breaking Upwards

Breaking Upwards, now my favorite film of the Mumblecore movement is also one of the most true to the definition. The film, about the hardships of relationships on twentysomethings these days, takes a really tired and cliched plot and makes rather interesting, and what makes it so, is knowing that what actually goes on did really happen. The story is taken from a true experience between stars Daryl Wein and Zoe Lister-Jones, about their breakup, and what they tried to do to come back together.

The story happened between star, co-writer, director, co-producer and editor Daryl Wein, and star, co-writer, co-producer Zoe Jones who found their relationship in a bit of a slump. To try and jump start things again they decide to take "off days" where they only see each other four days a week, and are not allowed to speak to or see each other the other three. They then change the rules to allow the relationship to be open on off-days, and often encourage each other to ask out other people. An interesting idea, but as you watch the the film you realize that it does have some pretty obvious negatives, but some really great positives.

Firstly, because it is based on a true story, and has the actors playing themselves, this all feels like it could really happen in your town, with people you know. There are great little touches and things that add to the authenticity, such as whenever they meet when biking they 'helmet bump' which you see in the trailer. When they first decide to have an open relationship Daryl asks: 'what should I change my facebook status too?' And its all things that really do happen, such as an early scene where they are both eating breakfast together, but are texting different people at the same time. It is an incredibly, and almost painfully, honest look at the way modern society has effected realationships, both for better and worse.

Both Daryl and Zoe give incredibly strong performances (granted as themselves) and because they really did have a realtionship, there is some incredible chemistry there. The film is boasted by some impressive minor characters played by the great Andrea Martin, Julie White, and Olivia Thrilby. Some of the lines that come out during Zoe and Daryl's fights are really kind of heartbreaking because they say things that make sense. Things that people do often feel in realtionships, and things that we face everyday.

The films only problem comes toward the end, when the climax happens. It walks a very fine line between being really, really honestly sad, and just cliched and theatrical. But I think the way its played out leans it toward the former, and allows what happens to make sense, even though the story may have been embellished a little for the screen. Shot on digital video, the most popular format for independent cinema, it looks really good with all its imperfections. For films like this and other independent cinema, I really dig the shakey, handheld, unpolished filming style, it gives everything that happens a sense that its grounded in reality, and that based on these characters actions the plot unfolds, instead of having the plot forced on the characters. Another great aspect is the soundtrack composed by Kyle Forester. Its got hipster tunes that are just hipster enough that feel cool listening to them, but not so much that you feel you're being ironic. I know it sounds weird but its very true, the film has a great soundtrack, with all the songs having been written by Zoe as production went along.

I may be impartial to this film because it depicts the era of realtionships that I grew up, and am still growing up in. I never got a chance to experience things that happen in the great romances of the 30's. That way of life is just foreign to me, and I don't understand how it worked without being able to IM people or send them texts all the time, and I think that breaking upwards makes a good point, that our connections to people have been lessened because of all these diffrerent forms of media we are allowed to communicate to them through 24/7. Making real-life interaction seem less imporant than it was back then, and really is still today

If you can't tell by now, I just loved this film to death. Its honest, and thats the best thing about it. While cinema is mostly escapism sometimes it is just good to see the truth on screen and realize that other people do go through the same thing you do, and people that are in movies. Great writing, excellent direction, solid performances, and a great score make this something that really is to be experienced. It's not easy to find on DVD or in theatres, but it is avalible to watch on Netflix's instant service, and if you subscribe to Netflix this is definatly one to check watch, and if you don't I highly, highly, recommend that you seek this out.

I Give Breaking Upwards A:
5/5

#42-Machete (2010) (Quicky Review)

Machete

Machete is a film that runs into problems quick and often. It's main problem comes from the fact that it is indeed an adapted screenplay, and the concept was originally designed to only run about two and a half minutes, and as two and a half minutes, even maybe at a half hour long, Machete would have been genius. It would have been one of my favorites. But at an hour and forty-five, it just runs to long.

The plot is tired and boring and brought nothing new to the table. But was it suppose to? It is one of those throw-back things that seem to be so hip these days. Danny Trejo's family was murdered, he's been trained by the C.I.A., F.B.I., D.E.A. and all the rest. So, revenge.

The film boasts an impressive cast from the B and A-List Teams. Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Robert De Niro, Steven Sagal, Cheech Marin, and others all make their way into Robert Rodriguez's interesting little grindhouse throwback, and you can tell that everyone involved just had a fun time making the picture. Its over-the-top, it's gratuitious, and (at times) its very fun. Just to sit back and watch it absorb in itself and weird universe that it makes. But the fun times are few a far between. Whereas I really enjoyed Death Proof, and Planet Terror, Machete just doesn't have the same flare to it.

It's pacing and direction feels very, very clunky. It seemed like a series of random events thrown together. Which it originally was, a trailer that wasn't intended to be a film. But once the idea of the film came together, it just seemed like more random events thrown together, to make the random events that took place in the trailer seem a little more plausible, and to actually happen onscreen. Not to mention the final battle that takes place between three different groups is just awful. Its not fun. Its not action-packed. Its exciting. It just felt very off.

Machete is a decent rental at best. The acting is fun, the story is stupid, and it has moments of real hilarity. But there are too few, and there certainly aren't enough for the movie to be an hour and forty minutes long. These grind-house throwback films can be good, they can be really good, but this isn't one of them. The cast had a good time, and its fun to see all these people together, and the few moments that work, really do work, but it's just a tiny idea, stretched far to thin.

I Give Machete A:
2/5

#36-Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

Where The Wild Things Are

It is truly saying something, when I believe that what is quite possible one of the most important films of 2009 is based on a children’s book that has merely ten sentences in it’s entire construct. Based on the 1963 book of the same name by Maurice Sendak, Where The Wild Things are is recreated for film by also famous novelist Dave Eggers, and acclaimed director Spike Jonze.

Jonze is most notable for directing the Charlie Kaufman films, Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, (which I really need to re-watch) both of which are excellent films. Here he takes a slightly different approach adapting a children’s novel rather than some very original adult material. However, simply because it is based on a book for kids does not make Where The Wild Things are any less dramatic, adult, or important than his previous works.

Where The Wild Things Are is about a young boy named Max who is the young child of a single Mom. Max faces some of the normal calamities that strike childhood in these times, such as the single parent, a new step-parent, an older sibling and simple loneliness. All these conflicting emotions come together one night, and after a fight with his Mother, Max finally does what most children only dream of and run away. He escapes onto a boat and sails across the ocean to an island full of ‘Wild Things’ where they make Max their king, and he begins his rule.


Jonze is one of the bright young talents in Hollywood. He has made great film after great film again and again, without hitting a wrong note thus far. Jason Reitman is a director of similar talent, along with Edgar Wright, and possibly Marc Webb, depending on what his next move is. Jonze’s talent is still on display here, with Wild Things having an exceptionally cool look and feel to it. The film moves a long at a decent pace, even if there are moments when it drags, and not much is going on. The hardships of being young are captured here perfectly, and you can still feel the sting of the one painful snowball that seemed to end every fight. The emotion is incredibly rich and flowing here, with each Wild Thing representing an emotion that Max would have experienced in the real world. It is a great way of communicating ideas and themes throughout the film, without beating the audience over the head with them.

"I'm an explorer mostly"

Max Records, the young boy who plays Max does an amazing job as the films leading man. He is the only real person on screen for ninety percent of the film and carries emotion very well. He is surrounded by imaginary creatures and manages to keep himself in the correct place mentally. His performance has few of the memorable scenes in which people scream and yell, but has a more subdued feeling about that makes it even more unbelievable. The voices of the Wild Things are cool as well, coming from some extraordinary talent, including the likes of: James Gandolfini, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Forest Whitaker, Catharine O’Hara, and Paul Dano. It also includes some small performances from Catharine Keener, as Max’s Mother, and Mark Ruffalo as her boyfriend.

The creatures look great. They are a combination of computer animation, puppetry and real life actors inside real suits. The three forms mesh together really well and create a really nice looking effect. The CGI gives them facially movement that allows them to express great emotion as each has their own personality, while the suits and puppetry make them look real, and give them a natural element.

Where The Wild Things are is simply astonishing. Jonze and Eggers manage to make their own creature from this classic story, while holding true to Sendak’s work. Jonze is a fantastic director, and knocks this one out of the park, and continues to play his career perfectly. The young boy Max Records is the most astonishing child actor I have ever seen in a film, and I think his performance deserves some recognition. He carries the entire movie on his back for over an hour and a half, and never once does his performance flinch. He is at times, angry, happy, sad, engaged, lonely and often all of them at the same time. The film captures the image of childhood in all of it’s inglorious beauty, and is often real to the point of heart break. The film is slow sometimes, but never is it boring. This is less of a children’s movie as it is a film for adults to remember what it’s like to be a child. Karen O creates some fun, if at times annoying hipster tunes that do fit the film, and the cinematography captures the wild rumpus that we have in all of us.

I Give Where The Wild Things Are A:

4.5/5

#35-Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Acclaimed writer/director Wes Anderson brings two new things to his resume with his heading of Fantastic Mr. Fox. The first being that this is his first animated feature, and the second, his first ever time adapting a work to the big screen. He is mostly successful in this new endeavor but it can also easily be said that Fantastic Mr. Fox is Anderson’s weakest career link.

The story of Fox plays out rather simply. Through a series of circumstances Fox decides to buy a new home for his wife and child under a large tree near three very large industrial plants. Fox reverts back to his old ways and decides to start stealing from the farms of the three large corporate heads. When they find out where the Fox lives, they attempt to kill him, but fail and instead decide to dig out the many animals that live there, keying the idea that they must come out for food and water eventually. Fox and the other animals devise a plan to survive, and continue surviving as they dig for their lives.

This was a very brave move on the part of Anderson. Someone who has never directed an animated feature, to simply jump headfirst into the project, which has a dedicated fan-base due to it being based on a famous children’s novel by Roald Dahl. And I was one that was rather skeptical about this idea, until I saw how fantastic the animation came out. This is some of the best stop-motion I’ve ever seen, with some cool little tricks and Anderson styling’s to keep the viewer
interested.

"Thats my thing, my catch-phrase"

The film has an incredible voice cast that includes the likes of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe, and Owen Wilson. While I do miss the times when trained voice-actors were hired for animated films, all of the cast does perform rather magnificently, and I was caught off guard by how much I didn’t recognize some of their voices.

 

With all this being said and done the plot for Fantastic Mr. Fox is incredibly weak. It is clever and fun while it lasts, but it simply cannot sustain the length of the film, which isn’t even an hour and a half. Anderson teamed up with frequent co-writing partner Noah Baumbach once again for this film, and whether it was the source material, or they were severely off their game, I will never know. There are some jokes in here that are used over and over again that get old very quickly. The plot is easily solved and has a decent amount of inconsistencies that sometimes make it hard to sit through. Why there is a manhole directly in the middle of a supermarket is beyond me. The family dynamic is repetitive and completely unoriginal which seems especially odd for Mr. Anderson who’s greatest films revolve around dysfunctional families. A saving grace does come in the form of a few decently clever lines of dialogue, but they certainly can’t completely save the screenplay that had already gone to hell in a neatly lined hand-basket.

The film has the great visual style of the any Wes Anderson flick, and he does greatly directing in a medium that was totally foreign to him. Voice acting is inconceivably unrecognizable from a stellar cast of great performers. The sets were designed incredibly well, with bright colors and interesting tricks that are sure to keep you interested but the films near lack of any emotional hold-up cannot stand near the likes of today’s animated giant Pixar, who continually puts out movies that tug on our heart-stings. The film is a fine rental for a quick watch, or if you have children, but for the most part it is unfortunately something to be skipped.

I Give Fantastic Mr. Fox A:
2.5/5

#33-Hedwig And The Angry Inch (2001)

Hedwig And The Angry Inch

Most of the films that are on my "Top Whatever" are films that I have seen years ago. This is not the case with Hedwig And The Angry Inch which I saw for the first time only about a month ago. It is based on an Off-Broadway musical written by and starring John Cameron Mitchell, who also writes, directs and stars here. The film is often compared to The Rocky Horror Picture Show for obvious reasons. A transexual main character, darkly humourous elements, and puck rock themes. It has even gotten to the point where midnight showings complete with shadow casts of the two films are shown back to back. I however, despite how much the midnight movie freak within me disagrees, can easily say that Hedwig And The Angry Inch far surpasses even the best elements of Rocky Horror.


The film is about a young boy named Hanzel (Ben Mayor-Goodwin) who is living in communist East Berlin right after the wall has gone up. Not going to school as a child, Hanzel has nothing to do but listen to American Forces Radio, where the great glam rockers of the eighties are constantly on display. David Bowie and Lou Reed being his all time favorites. By the time he has reached teenagehood, he cannot wait to get out of Berlin, and the opportunity presents itself in the form of Sgt. Luther Robinson (Maurice Dean Wint) whom falls in love with Hanzel, and Hanzel with him. The two plan to flee the country and escape then get married in America. This is impossible however because of complete cavity searches, so Hanzel's mother (Alberta Smith) gives her identity to Hanzel and gets him into a doctor to perform the operation. Unfourtanetly, the doctor cuts to short and leaves, now Hedwig (John Cameron Mitchell) with a "one inch mound of flesh". later in America, Sgt. Luther finds a new boy and leaves Hedwig on her own. To support herself she tries to become a glam rocker similair to her favorites in late 90's America, while falling in love with a strict Christain boy Tommy Speck (Michael Pitt).

Lets get this out of the way, the performance here by John Cameron Mitchell is simply fantastic. In this role he completely embodies the character of Hedwig so thouroughly it is uncanny. He was nominated for a Golden Globe for the performance and her surely deserves more recognition than that. He has a great voice that he uses to belt out some fun tunes, great comedic timing and inspiration, and a high bar of expansive dramatic set pieces that cannot be topped. His portrayal is fun, energetic and inventive, and even with wacky costumes and tons of make-up, he manages to bring out some truly deep emotion when the time is right.

The performances across the board are astonishing. Mitchell, Pitt, and Smith all perform admirably. One of Pitt's earliest performanes is a real treat to watch, since I've been enjoying his work ever since I discovered him in Funny Games. Another great, and key performance comes from Miriam Shor who plays the character of Yitzhak another character in drag, this time a woman as a man, and the back up singer in Hedwig's band, who play mostly in salad bars. There are very few other roles in the film, as the stage play was originally a one-man monolouge by whomever was playing Hedwig. The story was expanded here, and these characters being full fledge, and as such the main part of Hedwig is given the most screen time. So much screen time, there are only four supporting roles making five major roles total.

"The moutains streched up to the sky, sometimes higher"

The music in the film is awesome as well. The music was taken exactly from the play to the movie, and the songs written by Stephen Trask are infectious and addictive. They are less glam rock than say Bowie or Queen, but closer to the punk-rock hair bands of the same era. All of the band members have a great stage presence, as all the performances were done live. The songs make you want to get up and jump around, bang your head. In fact I bought the CD and have put some of the songs on my exercise playlist. When the songs are rockin', they rock, but like all great rock band's, Hedwig also has some medatative slow songs, that in all honestly make me feel connected to him. In the context of the story, and the character of Hedwig the final song: Midnight Radio is one of the greatest songs of all time, and is truly heartbreaking.

The story written my Mitchell is near percfection. It has characters we love, and side with, as well as root for and connect to. Hedwig is a truly inspirational creation and I hope there are people out there who look at this, and use it as inspiration to fufill their dreams. The screenplay is strong and unique, with flashbacks and story-tellings of an amazing ability. The direction by Mitchell proves he is more than just a pretty face for screen fame, but a great force to fight with in the directing world. In front of the camera, he is great, and behind the camera he is a genius. Mitchell might as well have redefined the medium with this film, and is someone that I am keeping a very close eye on.

The costumes and make-up are superb as well. Hedwig is a treansexual, and has to be created by make-up in that sense. But being a glam rocker he has all kinds of crazy make-up and costumes that make him a truly Bowie-an figure. Hedwig is to Hanzel, what Ziggy Stardust was to Bowie. Hedwig is sometimes a punk-rocker, a store clerk, a man, a woman, and even a bee-hive queen from '73 but what ultimatly comes out is his humanity.

Hedwig And The Angry Inch is one of the best, and one of my favorite films of all time. The inspirational story of being who you want to be, and dealing when you have to shows us that being human is not always a gift, but it is never a curse. During all of her turmoil and trouble she never gives up on her dream, and technically fufills it. One of the greatest creations in film history, potrayed by one of the best actors, and given the best platform by one of the best directors. Musically the film is a miracle, and the screenplay is phenomenal. A groundbreaking story that is humours as well as hurtful, giving us a true view of the world, whether we face the same challenges as Hedwig or not.

I Give Hedwig And The Angry Inch A:

5/5

#29-Dead Alive (1992)

Dead Alive

Before he went all crazy, making those silly Academy Award Winning Lord Of The Rings movies, Australian director Peter Jackson had a fairly nice career making crowd-pleasing horror film. His most famous of which are Bad Taste and Dead Alive. While these two films didn’t make much of a splash stateside during their theatrical release, they did soon become cult classics, and made a killing on DVD.

Dead Alive is known to most by a different title. One that is a little more catchy, being Braindead. It was put out under Braindead in most regions of the world, nearly all in fact except America where it was changed to Dead Alive, which makes it sound more cheesy than it should. Even though this movie has enough cheese to make Kraft jealous.

The plot that the film follows can be easily claimed by almost any zombie flick. On a trip to a remote jungle, a zoologist uncovers a strange breed of monkey, which at that point attacks both him and his crew. Somehow the monkey catches a ride on a boat and makes it way to land, where it is promptly caught and placed in a zoo. Enter a young man with an over protective Mom, a crush on the girl next door, a heart full of gold, and a body full of clumsy. Lionel decides to take his girlfriend on a date, and go to the zoo of course, but his always knifing mother is there to put a stop to things, and subsequently gets bitten by a Sumatran Rat-Monkey. She gets ill, passes on, and then comes back, only to bite and infect more people with this strange disease from a distant land.

"I've got some Cure-All in the Jeep."

Obviously, Dead Alive isn’t one of the most original films to grace the screen. In fact, its plot has been done several times, near to death, but it just keeps coming (he-he). The screenplay, weak as it may be, is always fun. Now fun doesn’t mean good. It’s full of inconsistencies, impossibilities, voice-overs, terrible dialogue, and to many deux ex machinia’s to count. Our hero begins as a bumbling idiot, and somehow becomes a leading class strong-man in the course of about three days. He also has the keen ability to get the girl, end his mom, and save the day. Like I said, fun doesn’t mean good. But in the life of a film critic, sometimes its nice to just sit back and watch some stupid without a care in the world.

That being said, for what it is, Dead Alive is an excellent film. It obviously knows what it wants to do and does that perfectly. It has a certain vulnerability at its heart that entrances the audience into rooting for the characters, and hoping for the survival of their favorites. It may be one of the best zombie films made. It’s intentionally funny and self-referential, the humor doesn’t always hit, but when it does, it hits spot on. The film is also unrelentingly grueling, gory and violent. Peter Jackson knows how to direct violence, he puts things at the perfect angle, sets up just the right shot, gets the gore, and doesn’t let up. He isn’t afraid to cover the screen in gooey red, or green, or even white. (yes white, one of the more disgusting scenes in the film)

Not a whole lot else matters in a zombie film like this. The film sets it sites, and hits its mark. It knows what it does, does it perfectly and nothing else. You cannot hate a zombie movie for being a zombie movie, especially a good one. It is wholesome, mindless, brain-bashing, gut-munching, side-killing fun, that never lets up and never holds back. Peter Jackson can have his cake and eat it too, as he knows how to direct fun, entertaining horror films, and win some Academy Awards too.

I Give Dead Alive A:

3/5

#25-Everything is Illuminated (2005)

Everything Is Illuminated

If I came into Everything Is Illuminated with one pre-conception in my mind, it would have to be skepticism. First of all, in order to be skeptical of something, for me anyway, there has to be some sort of hype behind it. Everything Is Illuminated was a critically acclaimed, but lacked any box office power, and even though critics praised the film, it was recognized at any major award hearings. The film currently has an 8/10 on IMDB. So, one could should come into this film expecting the best.

However, it did have a few things working against it. Firstly the film is written and directed by Liev Schreiber, who is known mostly for his acting career, as he became popular in the late 90's and early 00's with his work in the Scream film trilogy, and as a villian in X-Men Origins. Now, when you hand directing credits to a man whose film credits include the above films, you have to wonder what you are getting into, especially with a drama based mostly around WWII. Secondly, the film stars Elijah Wood. And while a lot of people like him, I am simply not a fan of his acting work. Sure he is decent, but he has never really stood out to me in any major roles he has performed in.

The film follows teh story of Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood), a young Jewish man from America who sets out to find the woman who had saved his grandfather from the Holocaust. His guides are two Ukranian men, who are both slightly crazy. And elderly man, who may or may not be anti-semtic, his wannabe gangster Grandson, and a Boder Collie. The journey is to a town that his been wiped of the map called Trachimbrod, and what they find there, is utterly surprising.

Everything Is Illuminated is not a perfect film in any way, shape, or form. But it is better than I had expected going in. The film is slightly compassionate in its imperfections and I was greatly surprised by Schreiber's directorial skills. The film is based on a short-story of the same name, which I haven't read, and therefore cannot compare, I do however want to read it after seeing the film, which is definatly a postive.

"I am premium dancer"

Elijah Wood does better than expected in a rather tough role to play, being caught in a foreign land with many stranger people and things, and no one to really get along with. His performance is good, but not great, as I have come to expect from him. It may have been better had he not needed to compete with much more interesting supporting characters. Eugene Hutz gives an amazingly exaggerated performance as Alex, the younger of his two guides, who keeps things light, and humourus. another strong performance comes from Boris Leskin, who plays the grandfather, and who does a lot of the emotional heavy lifting towards the end of the film, instead of Elijah Wood, which was an interesting choice, but not one that worked well.

The music in the film was also very appreciated, with some fun songs by Russian punk band Leningrad, and some rousing scores from compser Paul Catelon. I must also praise the artist and mastery of the cinematography by Matthey Libatique, who keeps things very vivid in an otherwise slow and rather depressing film. When things need to be dark he also keeps the colors very light, even though in black and white. And only keeps the color red, which adds a very cool Schindlers List effect.

In no way is this film anywhere near the real of Schindlers List. Schreiber does a better job directing than expected, but it's easy to tell that he still could make it better with the films odd pace, a simple narrative that becomes rather confusing, and a very loose sense of direction. This is all fixed within the final few scenes of the film, but the rest is sometimes slow and hard to watch.

Everything is Illuminated is a decent WWII film, that rarely touches on WWII. For its unique choice and great techincal aspects, I applaud it. But all the emotion and comedy comes from supporting characters who have more of a role to play than our lead actor. Eljiah Wood is only semi-convincing as our main character, but is more deminished by an amazing performance from eugene Hutz. Schreiber isn't a bad director, in fact he is a very good one, especially for his first feature, but he can definatly improve, and I can't wait to see what he does next.

I Give Everything Is Illuminated A:

3.5/5

#21-Brazil (1985)

Brazil

To even begin with the film of Brazil, you need to know what happened behind the scenes. Much of which is still reported on as one of Hollywood's biggest calamities. The film was written and directed by former Monty Python animator Terry Gilliam. Gilliam's fantasy was bleak, dystopian, and very distant from what modern American's had recently seen in fantasy, with films like Alien. In Europe, Brazil had a running length of 142 minutes, where it was met with critical and commericial success. A major battle between the films creators, and the American distributor cut out major portions of the film, cutting it down significantly to 94 minutes. Gilliam feriously protested this, and without the consent of the studio showed the film to the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, where it won Best Picture, which then prompted the distributor to meet with Gilliam halfway, realesing a 131 minute version, which still performed poorly at the US box-office.

Much like the controversy behind the film, what happens in front of the camera is hard to follow, and understand. In a fictionalized version of Britain, Johnathan Pryce plays a man by the name of Sam Lowry, a low-ranking government official. Strangley enough, Sam constantly has fantasy daydreams of rescuing a damsal in distress. Sam is sent to to rectify a mistake, the governement accidently captured, and killed a man by the name of Harry Buttle, instead of suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle. When arriving at their home, Sam finds that a woman in the second floor, is an exact replica of the woman he has been dreaming about. Through a series of incidents, Sam meets up with both the mysterious woman, and the real Harry Tuttle, and soon becomes a wanted terrorist himself, and has to deal with this, his love life, and his plastic surgery addicted mother, all while trying to fix his air conditioning.

While it may sound like a comedy of errors, Brazil has got to be the best social, and political satire film, since Dr. Stranglove. Terry Gilliam has woven a very intense story here, and it certainly shows. While the film is largly a visual fantasy, and even some story elements are taken from classic fantasy story, the film is actually largly grounded in reality. Nothing seems to be going right for this character, even though he is just a low-ranking official. The film also delves into political satire, on both sides of the pond, with the film being based out of England, and largly poking fun at parliment. But also noting the failures of America's current political system. The film has a strangly modern feeling to it, even watching it now, with major sub-plots dealing with terrorist bombings, drug addiction, and plastic surgery.

"Here's your recepit for your husband, and my recepit for your recepit."

Now, the verison of the film that I saw, was the original 142 minute directors cut. Now, I am not saying that this film is just dark and bleak for fantasy, it truly is dark, and bleak, and even somewhat depressing by the end, especially what it has to say about the current human. Terry Gilliam is excellent at fantasy but what he does even better is reality. And that is where Brazil succeeds for the most part. This is one of the best films I have seen this year. The top three from my first twenty-one reviews definatly include Brazil. And while I did like it a lot, the film does come with a few minor problems, but first with the positives. Johnathan Pryce gives a stellar performance as Sam, and was very good at what the role was. A man, with too much to handle, and tons of stress, slowly unwraveling is a lot harder to do than most would think. Roberto De Niro does a great job in a realtivly small role, not really that small, but for a movie of this length. It is a bit of a switch from the regular De Niro, and a nice switch indeed. One of the best performances though comes from Kathrine Helmond, who plays Sam's insane mother, addicted to plastic surgery and fashion, she provides much of the humor of the film, and much of the satire, which goes hand-in-hand all to well.

One of my minor nit-picks with the film comes from its length, running two hours and twenty-four minutes long does seem to show at some points, and there are many times when I thought: 'oh, I guess that's the end', and it just kept on running. It never seemed to end (though it makes sense now why), but it was sometimes, hard to pay attention. This is not helped by the fact that the story is very, very thick, with lots of characters, and names, and times, and people, and things, and sub-plots all revolving around one person, making the whole thing seem very crowded, this is deeped, again with the Tuttle/Buttle mix-up, that the viewer constantly has to sort out mentally.

Amazingly though, Brazil is still an excellent film. Faults like those usually ruin a movie for me, but Brazil had a strange dreamlike effect on me, and was a thrill to watch. The film has meaning, and passion, and thought, and people we can relate to, all while surrouding itself in an incredible visual package that makes it a pleasure to sit through. Things like convuluted story, and running length seem like small complaints when you look at the picture as a whole. Terry Gilliam has created something special here, and I hope he comes back to dramas, and satires similair to this film. The cast, direction, and writing are all great. Topped off with excellent costumes, sets, cineamatography, lighting, and score. Brazil, is truly, a film to behold.

I Give Brazil A:

4.5/5

#16-Whip It (2009)

Whip It

Whip It. While the title may make it sound like a cheap porno, Whip It is actually a pretty decent film. To be honest, when I first saw the poster, I thought it was a movie about horse derbies. Just the way she is hunched over, and the helmet, and the title. But as I continued to grace this poster with my presence, I reached the bottom with the cast list, and caught the director, Drew Barrymore. Now, in the way of acting, Drew Barrymor is very hit and miss for me. I usually like her better in more mature, or supporting roles. She was perfect in Donnie Darko. But whenever it's her ditzy blond stick, I just can't stand it. Also to be noted, Drew has her own production company, Flower Films, which has been doing well lately, which is a positive sign towards her directing.

Also noticed in the poster, which I'm sure you've noticed too, this movie has Ellen Page. Yeah, Juno! It saddens me that Juno is what she is mostly known for. While I enjoyed her performance, and the film itself, I think that she has done many other things that are just as good if not better, which a lot of people don't even know about. The most popular of the independent movies she did at a young age was Hard Candy, which is my next review. But she has also done Smart People, The Tracey Fragments, and many others. I definatly think she is one of the best young actresses in Hollywood today, and can't wait to see what she does next.

The film was written by Shauna Cross, and is an adaptation of her novel Derby Girl. The film is about a small town girl from Texas, who on a whim, goes with a friend to Austin to see a rollerderby match. Through a series of events, this newly discovered sport becomes her passion, but her Mother would rather have her doing beauty pagents. The film flutters with other sub-plots, including Bliss having a fight with her best friend, and the unavoidable love intrest. This is where a lot of the films problems come from. The script is pretty weak, with the exception of a few scenes, and has some pretty annoying dialouge. I think this is what really brought it down for me, but certainly didn't wreck an otherwise great movie.

"Babe Ruthless!"

Whether it be a surprise to you or not, Drew Barrymore actually does a very nice job behind the camera with this film. It really rings of her, trying to tell a real story, of a strong young woman, but everything is very cute. Will I seek out her next movie just because she directed it? Maybe, it all depends on the film. This movie also has a very nice cast. And you can tell that they just had an excellent time making the movie, everyone feels very comfortable doing what they are doing, and interact very well with each other. The movie also has some very nice camerawork, following teams of girls round and round the track, and the action keeps the film movie at a very solid pace.

Like I mentioned above, the movie does have an impressive cast that does not end with Ellen Page. We get perfromances from Sarah Habel, Shannon Eagen, Kristen Wiig of SNL, Zoe Bell, Eve, Drew herself even shows up in a few scenes, as does Jimmy Falon. And it's not just the young hipster crowd that this film should appeal to. Infact one of the strongest performances comes from Marcia Gay Harden, who plays Bliss' Mother. There is a very well done scene, towards the middle of the film, with Bliss and her Mother sitting on the floor of the kitchen, having a very deep conversation. This scene was handled with particular skill both from the performers and Drew's, who keeps the scene very simple and clean. The rest of the cast also gives very solid shows, and it's nice to see Kristen Wiig getting some larger parts, as I feel she deserves them greatly.

Overall, I really enjoyed Whip It. It is definatly one of the best "chick flicks" to come out of Hollywood for a long time. Drew Barrymore proves to us that she can be trusted behind the camera, as well as in front of it, and she performs well, in both aspects. The rest of the cast does an excllent job too, and makes it very fun to watch them mingle. The films flaw comes from the script, which faulters just a little to much to go unnoticed. It doesn't completely ruin the experience, and you will definatly have a lot of fun watching Whip It.

I Give Whip It A:
3.5/5

#12-Adaptation (2002)

Adaptation

This shouldn't happen often, but it very well may, it seems, that I have reviewed two films, by the same film maker directly in a row. I got Charlie Kaufman fever, and I apologize. Charlie Kaufman, once again, the most original mind in Hollywood today, brings us his third motion picture to be reviewed on my site, that film being Adaptation. This film, is also very original, even though it is based on a novel, not really. The film is about Charlie Kaufman (no that's not a typo), who in reality was hired to write an adaptation for a book called The Orchid Theif, Kaufman was having trouble for the script, so instead wrote a fictionalized screenplay about him trying to write the screenplay. It was an interesting idea, and the studio liked, so though the film bares very little resemblence to the original, it still counted as an adapted screenplay.

The film follows a few main characters. Firstly, there is Charlie and Donald Kaufman, twin brothers both played by Nicolas Cage, Charlie is hired to write a script for a novel by Susan Orlean, played here by Meryl Streep. The Orchid Theif is about a nursery owner, who goes out and steals endagered species, and tries to cultivate them, or so he claims, this man is John Laroche, and is played by Chris Cooper, who won an Academy Award for his performance. The film flashes between three different time periods, of Laroche committing these acts, Orlean writing her novel and getting information, and Kaufman trying to write the screenplay. It was a very interesting way to go about things, and I enjoyed it greatly.

The film has a very large, and a very impressive cast. Nicolas Cage is always hit-or-miss for me. He definatly is a hit here. Though he looks little like real-life Kaufman, I can safely assume that he portrays him well, considering it is Kaufman writing himself. Whether or not the character is 100% true to form, I still thoroughly enjoyed his performance. Meryl Streep also gives a winning performance as Orlean, whose film version, is nothing like the real-life verison, real Susan Orlean made that very clear (you'll know why after the film). But I think that the real winner here was Chris Cooper. He got his first Academy Award nomination and win for this film, and he certainly deserves it. He is always convincing as the somewhat illiterate, yet startlingly insightful Laroche, who is an amazing character on his own.

"Damn, that's a voice-over again."

As much as a praise the film, that does not mean that it is without faults. The film is very quirky, and very funny, filled with in refrences for film-fans and movie-buffs, but unless you know the background knowledge for the film, you won't get all of the jokes, which are all very funny. Also, the film seemed very choppy at times, it's never really a fast-paced movie, but it is never really slow-paced either. I don't know if that is really a bad thing or not, but it was certainly noticed. This is also one of the most serious of Kaufman films, not serious as in dark and depressing (that would have to go to Synechdoche), but serious as in it is his least fantasitcal, especially if you don't know the background information.

The film is also very nice everywhere else. You've already heard my love of Kaufman from two other reviews, so I won't waste anymore space here. I feel that Spike Jonze really stepped up his game here from Being John Malkovich. While he was very good there as well, I felt that he was even better with Adaptation, getting to mess around with some cool lighting, and daydream techniques. From a technical standpoint the film is very nice too, with a good score, and some nice camera work and cinematography.

Overall, I felt that the film was very nice. It was fun, entertaining and original, of which are things film should be. Plus, we have the always clever writing and dialouge of Kaufman, some excellent direction by Spike Jonze, and great perfromances from the entire cast. However the film won't be for everyone, I can tell you that right now, with its quick ending, strange pace, and weird story, some people will definatly dislike the film. The cast did an excellent job, but so did the crew, with some great camera tricks, and some fun music.


I Give Adaptation A:

4/5

#11-Being John Malkovich (1999)

Being John Malkovich

Remember awhile back when I was reviewing the film Synechdoche, New York? I absouloutly loved that movie, and I gave most of the credit to writer/director Charlie Kaufman. Remember how I said that I hope to be reviewing more of his films as the time goes on? Well here is another! His first big picture was Being John Malkovich. It was originally quite a small film, with a very impressive cast, which includes: John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Cathrine Keener, and of course, John Malkovich. The film is very fun, very quick, and sure to make you question your own sanity. Unlike Synechdoche, this film is not also directed by Kaufman, this one is directed by Spike Jonze, who would go on to direct another Kaufman film, and Where The Wild Things Are.

What did I tell you? Charlie Kaufman is one of the most original minds in Hollywood today. Being John Malkovich is about a struggling puppeteer, who, in lack of a demand for pupetts, gets a job on the 7th and a half floor of a large office building. While here, he finds a small door in his office, which, once crawled through, leads you inside John Malkovich. Seeing in great detail what this could mean for him, and his stuggling family, him and a co-worker hatch an plan to sell trips into John Malkovich for $200 a pop.

First off, let me tell you that this film is led by an allstar cast. All of whom perform marvelously here. I am usually not a very big John Cusack fan, or haven't been lately, but he does excellenty here. He pulls off his role quite well, and even does an interesting job with some wacky hair, and outfits. Neither am I a fan of Cameron Diaz, (with some exceptions), but she does excellently here as well, as a pet obsessed young woman. Cathrine Keener was even nominated for an Oscar for her performance here, and it is certainly deserved. And then of course there is John Malkovich, who I always love, and her sure does an excellent job playing himself, granted a very fictionalized version, but himself nonetheless.

"What happens when a man goes into his own head?"

Though Spike Jonze also got nominated for an Academy Award for his directing on the film, I still feel that at this point, he hadn't fully developed his craft quite yet, which he is now, nearly flawless at. The film seemed very strange in length. I still cannot tell whether this film was too long, or too short, because it has very odd pacing. It just seemed to end rather ubruptly. Granted, I still think this is one of the few films that ends nearly perfectly, it just wraps up, too quickly, I suppose it is.

Charlie Kaufman is always excellent at what he does, as I have praised before. And this is no different. Though Being John Malkovich is not my favorite film he has done, it is still an amazing piece of cinema. While most of Kaufman's works are fantasy grounded in reality, this one seems mostly fantasy. Don't get me wrong the film is still deeply rooted in human nature and existence, but you won't realize that until after the fact. As Synechdoche, was one of his darker films, Malkovich, is one of his lighter.

As you can tell, I really like this movie, Being John Malkovich is a great whimsical adventure to be enjoyed by all who care to enjoy it. Watch it as a fantasy, watch it as a drama, however you watch it, just be sure to watch it. Let the message, the acting, the story, the lighting, the editing (which is excellent), the music, the direction, and all the other factors seep into you, so you can truly enjoy this amazing piece in movie history. It breaks the fourth wall, it acts as if there are multiple dimensions to a single one, it is just a lot of fun.


I Give Being John Malkovich A:
4/5

#9-World's Greatest Dad (2009)

World's Greatest Dad

Despite it's fun loving poster, the fact that it stars Robin Williams, and Daryl Sabara from Spy Kids, and has a family-friendly PG title, World's Greatest Dad is definatly not for kids, and whole-heartedly deserves it's R rating. Written and directed by raunchy stand-up comedian Bobcat Goldthwait, this film should get a nomination for Best Original Screenplay, it probably won't, and if it does, it won't win, but it should. Goldthwait and Williams are longtime friends, and even did stand-up together for a few years. After Goldthwait dropped out of that kind of comedy bussiness, he went into his own. Writing and directing adult comedies. Most of which are unheard of, his titles include: Shakes The Clown, Sleeping Dogs Lie, and this film. And after watching this, you'll really want to see his others.

The story, as mentioned above is very original. Robin Williams plays a school-teacher named Lance, who happens to be teaching a failing poetry class, which is soon to be canceled due to the schools lack of budget. Though he is a teacher, he really wants to be a writer, he has written five whole novels, none of which have been published. He also happens to have, quite possible, the worst son ever, Kyle. He is obnoxious, foul-mouthed, annoying, crude, and addicted to pornography. Lance is currently dating a much younger woman, who Kyle highly dissaproves of. But then, something happens, something I won't spoil here. But something that will change Lance's writing career forever.

I simply loved the writing here by Goldthwait. The film does go to low ground in it's terms of comedy, with puke, fart, and mastarbation jokes, but, somehow, they are all pulled off masterfully. And, after these crude moments pass, the film always rises above the standard comedy bar to bring you some truly great stuff. This is adult humor, both in the sense that children shouldn't see it, and in the sense, that children wouldn't get it. the film is however, very, very dark, and had me close to tears at some points. In fact, while it plays out like a comedy, it is, on it's true side, a very sad drama.

"Jose stop. You didn't write that. That's a Queen/Bowie song. Under Pressure."

Both Robin Williams and Daryl Sabara give amazing performances as Father and Son respectivly. Daryl Sabara strayed away from his Spy Kid roots with this film. His actions are almost as terrible as his mouth, but, as much as you hate him, you probably laugh with him the most. I love Robin Williams. Just as a rule, but I have been doubting his ability the last few years. He certainly has proved me wrong. Much like Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine, Will Ferrel in Stranger Than Fiction, and Adam Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love, Robin Williams is simply best when he is serious. His comedies are fun to watch, he is good at being, goofy, zany, and wacked out, but he is even better, playing a person.

Goldthwait directed and shot this film nearly pitch-perfect. Each scene goes exactly how it should, the characters interact realisticly and he has a very nice ear for music. In fact, the only flaw that I had with this film was the ending. For a movie that is all about lies, mess-ups, and dysfunction, it has a pretty easy-going closed book ending, the stops the film very ubruptly. As much as I hate to say it, this film would have gotten a five out of five had it not been for the ending.

Overall, World's Greatest Dad, is one of the greatest films of the year, that unfoutanetly no one has really heard of, except people, who want to hear about things like this. The acting, story direction, music, and everything else came together for a nice little package from a great new voice in the Hollywood writing industry. Both Robin Williams and Daryl Sabara break out of their shells, and perform excellently, and hopefully, find a new genre to continue work in. The film is dark, funny, sad, and you'll come out of it telling your friends "Robin Williams is naked, and that's not the weird part." Unfourtanetly for the film, the ending was too nice, and too complete, and did hinder the experinence, if only slightly.

I Give World's Greatest Dad A:
4.5/5

#8-Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Inglourious Basterds


The latest film from influential American writer-director Quentin Tarantino, comes with the very provocative title of Inglorius Basterds. Now the title alone leaves a lot of ground to cover, to live up to a title of that quality takes some skill, but my trust was in Tarantino from the beggining. Now, I am a fan of Tarantino's other works. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, the list can go on. The films are notable for the outstanding camera work, dialouge and acting that he makes sure to keep in for his fans, and fans of film in general. His movies usually tend to be omages to film genres that have come to pass, and are usually not expored by todays Hollywood controled cinema. Tarantino certainly has the writing chops for his films, they are all very unique, and stand out against so many films that are the same. While Tarantino used to be an independent film maker, the success of Kill Bill, and an already very heavy cult staus propelled him into new found stardome. Upon hearing about this film coming out, and being his first REAL film since Kill Bill, I was a little suspicious that he may have fallen into the trap of typical filmmaking. But boy, did he ever prove me wrong.




Inglourius Basterds was in the writing process nearly as long as Avatar. Tarantino had started the work before, and during the filming of Pulp Fiction, back in 1995. However, he was halted from the project, from having a little writers block, as well as him and Uma Thurman creating the character of The Bride while on set. So Tarantino pushed aside his WWII film in favor of Kill Bill. He was stopped once again during writing to work on his half of Grindhouse, Death Proof. And that is when Inglorious Basterds finally came to fruition. Nearly 14 years after the original idea.

The plot of this film is very fun. The plot follows the Basterds who are sent into Nazi occupied France as civilains. The find, kill, and scalp the Nazi's they find, and leave the bodies behind. While the film was advertised as only following the Basterds, we also have the plot of Shoshanna, whose theatre has been selected by the Nazi party to have the premiere of a film. And she, is Jewish. There is also another plot thread, that I wish to not spoil here.

"Sound good?"

As always, I really enjoyed Tarantino's writing. Not only his dialouge, but his writing in general. I actually heard the interesting idea yesterday, that Inglorious Basterds could easily be turned into a stage production, as many scenes are very lengthy and take place in single rooms. On the topic of lengthy scenes, this movie is two and a half hours long, which may turn some people off, but please, stick with it, this kind of film needs attention, as it is so great, yet very underused.

From a technical standpoint, the film is very nice as well. The pacing is even, the effects are nice, the costumes are very much from that era, and the sets are well constructed. I would also like to point out that this movie does feature a typical Tarantino soundtrack, that consists of Western tunes, and pop/punk ballads. I always love the music in his films, it gives the scenes a sense of, urgency, and his credits, which typically have nothing going on in the background, are always fun to watch for the music. Also worth note, this like many Tarantino films, a very violent, and very bloody.

The acting in this film is great by nearly everyone involved. Brad Pitt does an excellent job as Lt. Aldo Rain. I was a bit skeptical upon hearing about his casting, but was greatly surprised. Christoph Waltz, who plays the Jew Hunter, is the best villian since Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men, and the supporting cast does great as well. The only acting problem was in Eli Roth. I know he's friends with Quentin, and he's a great director, but he can't act.

Overall, as you can tell, I really enjoyed this movie. And, while it doesn't quite recive a 5/5 (which I save for my Best Picture, made me cry films) it certainly gets very close. The direction is great as always. It's fun to listen to the characters talk, the techincal lighting and pacing is nice, and both Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz should at least get Oscar nods for their preformances. I just loved this movie, and it is another to add to Tarantino's long line of success's.

I Give Inglorious Basterds A:

4.5/5

#3-Paper Heart (2009)

Paper Heart

You remember Charlyne Yi, right? You actually probably don't know her by name, but you definatly know who she is. She was in the movie Knocked Up, playing Seth Rogen's super high friend who wanted to swap babies with Kathrine Hegiel. "Like, do you ever get mad at your baby because it stole your stomache, but its cool, because it's your baby, so you share." She was a total scene stealer and one of my favorite parts of that movie, well as it turns out, Miss Yi is known for more than just supporting roles in raunchy comedies. Her bill curently says: Stand-Up Comedian/Actress/Musician. That is quite the impressive title now isn't it. She has lots of friends in hollywood as well, with many of them actually showing up in this movie, but you'll have to see it to find out.


The idea behind Paper Heart is very cool. Charlyne Yi doesn't believe in love, she doesn't know what love is, and she for sure will never be in love. So, she decides to take a camera crew across the country and document what she and the film crew find about love. Now, they have actual interviews, and actual people telling what they do indeed think love is. This part of the movie is real, and is filmed documentary style, with Yi behind the camera asking the people questions. However the film becomes less of a documentary when Yi meets Michael Cera, as she is introduced to him through the director. Cera and Yi quickly find themselves falling for each other, and the camera crew decides that their relationship should be apart of the movie, and the two find it hard to fall in love with their life being under a microscope. This part of the movie was entirly scripted, and is intertwined with the documentary, with Yi, and Cera playing fictionalized versions of themselves, infact, everyone is this movie plays themselves except for the director, who is played by Jake Johnson.



The acting in the movie was very nice by all. That being said, it's good, but not convincing, as the actors often deliver cheesy one-liners, some of which hit, and others that end up on the floor. Plus, since we've all seen Michael Cera, we all know his form of acting. You know, the quiet, nervous teenager, whose only real goal at this point in his life is to get laid? Yeah, same basic message here. But who am I to complain when like his subtly acting and his great sense of timing. Yi did good as well, and she had the same, awkward teenagery thing that Michael Cera does.


Why the title Paper Heart? Because during the documentary scenes, when the couples explain some of their stories, there are interlude of paper puppert acting out the story as they are told. It looks a lot like claymation, and you can often see Charlyne behind the sets working the puppets, intentially of course. I liked the idea, and it was very cool, but it seemed to take a little bit out of the movie for some reason. I was good used here, but I don't think I'd be able to watch an entire movie like that.


I liked the whole idea of combining a documentary and a movie together, to have multiple stories going on, but all having the motive of finding out what its like to be in love. While the docummentary parts don't delve to deep, and you won't learn anything new that you haven't heard from a Disney movie, they are still fun to watch and see. Yi and Cera's portion of the movie seemed to work nicely too, but they don't give any insight on love either, as their romance is more like how to deal with your life while being a star. And while they seem to work together seperatly, these three parts (documentary, story, and paper) they don't meld entirly well together, and it makes the movie seem rough and choppy sometimes.


For the most part, I enjoyed Paper Heart. And this is coming from a man, who doesn't really like romantic comedies (with a few exceptions). It was interesting, unique, original, and not cliche. It had an interesting idea and story behind it, which was supported by some good acting. Unfourtanetly, the film is short, at only about 82 mins, and you don't learn much in the way of love. The many film types work on their own, but don't meld well enough for them to conjoin into an effect movie.


I Give Paper Heart A:
3/5

#1-Zombieland (2009)

Zombieland

It's been about two months now since Pantient Zero took a bite out of an infectious hamburger from his local gas-and-gulp. Symtoms include:
Swelling Of The Brain
Sweltering Fever
And an Undying Desire for Human Flesh.
Imagine Mad Cow, transformed to Mad Human, Transformed to Mad Zombie. Welcome to Zombieland.

Now lets be honest, anybody who walked into a movie called "Zombieland" hoping for a tour de force on modern culture, in a two-and-a-half-hour masterpiece driven by charater development, was probably an idiot. The plot is mostly as described above. We get one little sentence of narration descibing how the zombies came to be, and then we are thrown into a world of massacisstic cannibals hoping for their next fix. Other than that, our main plot follows four main characters. Columbus, Witchita, Tallahassee, and Little Rock, all named after their home towns. (Never use real names, it gets things too personal), and with Columbus' book of rules, they head off to make their way to Pacific Playland, hearing that is the only place left un-touched by zombies. But they are going to have to go through a hell've lot of them to make that far.

The acting in this movie is good. And yes, there are some moments that acutally require acting, and some touching, (if not sometimes depressing moments) of life at home before the apocalypse. Woody Harrelson does an amazing job, as he always seems to do. And that is really good for him, beause before Zombieland he hadn't had a box-office hit since the mid 90's. Speaking of box-office failure, this movie also stars Jesse Eisenberg, whose last big project was adventure land, which failed to make a connection, again good thing Zombieland came around to help this little Indie gem. Emma Stone is a relative new-comer to film, and does a decent job with a fairly large supporting role. Abigail Breslin appears to be taking a fouree into more adult films, which it really where she started. Little Miss Sunshine anyone? And yes, she is from Signs. All the acting here is well done and had some very good improv by some pretty much unknown comedians.

"It had to be a clown. No, no, you don't understand. It HAD to be a clown."

While it's name might seem daunting, this film is definatly a success at being a comedy. All the lines hit perfectly, there is some in-your-face moments, and other more subtle humor displayed here. But, do not fret horror fans, Zombieland features plentys of scary, and tension filled moments in between spouts of laughter. It didn't cut out on the violence either, its body count is high, and lots of blood fuel this movie with adrenilne. However, despite how many positives I have with the film, there are a few negatives.

The first opening sequences of this movie are hilarious. The first, maybe fifteen minutes are the absoloute best. If the entire movie was like the first minutes, it would be one of my favorites definatly. Though the film continues to be funny in its entirety, the rest of the movie is a little bit slower, and the humor is more evenly spaced, when originally it was just being thrown at you over and over. And me saying that it has slow moments isn't good, considering the movie isn't even an hour-and-a-half, that includes credits.

And lastly, also in the beggining, the film had a very cool, hip, kinda slow-mo-y visiual style that it had going on. I really enjoyed it, the music was perfectly tuned to each of the scenes, and the action was well oriented. But again, for some reason the action seems to get pushed to the wayside during the middle, and then the style and action comes back for the final act. I just thought that it was strange for it to come and go like that.

Well, Zombieland has officially become the highest grossing zombie movie of all time, beating out the Dawn Of The Dead remake, and it was the first zombie spoof to make a large profit in the U.S.. I have to say, it definatly deserves it, and the minor gripes that I had with it, are just that, minor. The acting was great, the humor was spot on, and when it was there, the action was fun. Overall Zombieland was a great experience.

I Give Zombieland A:
4/5