IHAO on ... Boyhood

This is the second in my series of Best Picture nominee reviews for the 87th Academy Awards, the first being Birdman, or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.  A little backstory, since this movie actually has some: this movie took 12 years to film.  It actually films in semi-real time a story about a child, and his growing up.  Actors signed up and worked for 12 years in short stints, including our lead little kid actor.  It is a huge stunt, and something that absolutely needs to be watched.  So let's dig in.

*turns on the blu ray*

*turns off the blu ray ... almost three hours later*

Ugh.

Roll credits.

Boyhood.  A film that took 12 years to make.  12 years to write this script.  12 years to come up with a story that was worth watching.  Instead, we get a drama about all the moments that are just about people talking about the moments that were worth watching.  Why show a divorce when you can hear people talk about it after they are emotionally over it?  Why show a kid excited about a scholarship when you can just have him talk to a random NPC out-of-nowhere character we only see in this scene to talk about it?  Why show a kid having a hard time with classes and homework when you can just have random characters show up and telling him that he is doing bad at turning in his homework and such?  Why have plot when you can have conveniences and coincidences?  There are multiple scenes where characters talk about things that happened in this kid's life that WE DO NOT GET TO SEE!  WHY NOT?  WHY DO WE JUST GET LIP SERVICE INSTEAD OF REAL FILMMAKING AND STORYTELLING?!

I do not want to disregard the gamble and the work put into this film.  Filming for 12 years, making decisions on the fly, having to cast your actors at a young age and hope they continue to do well all throughout.  And I won't even say that the gambles didn't pay off, with Ethan Hawke getting his big resurgence recently.  But I cannot say this is a good movie.  It isn't a bad movie, or even an average movie.  But it is not a good movie.  It fails to be about anything that mattes.  It is like watching a fake documentary about uninteresting people.  It is just people talking about things that happened between cuts in the lives of these fake people.  There is only one sequence that kind of has anything actually happening, and that is the end of the "first act" if I can even call it that.  What a novel approach to filmmaking, film a bunch of idiots doing nothing, talking about nothing ... well, not talking, more like mumbling.

I cannot understand how a film that's only achievement is that it took a super-long time to make, had no final script, and barely does anything beyond just being a movie.  It doesn't strive to do anything but an exercise in filmmaking.  It doesn't succeed at anything it tries to do, it merely accomplishes them.  It isn't hard to be perfectly in "period" when it was shot in order over 12 years.  It isn't hard to show a child grow up when he literally does that and you don't have to work for it or do any filmmaking, clever writing, or make up.  This movie just wastes time, showing its theoretical exercise as some huge technical achievement, and people act like it is.

I am mad that so many people are talking about how amazing this film is, when it isn't!  It is nothing.  It is the lack of art.  It is an exercise.  Even I was bamboozled by it in this very review!  I was all "this movie isn't mediocre, it is good, it really is!" and then I list all the terrible problems.  All the details that prove that statement.  This film will be remember as an exercise, and completely forgotten outside of that.  I do not, cannot, and will not recommend this middle of the road, boring, LONG AS HELL, talk-fest that does nothing of value.

Grade: C-

IHAO on ... Foxcatcher

Foxcatcher is not a Best Picture nominee, but it is a best actor, best supporting actor, and a best director nominee, so I figured I should give it a watch.  Plus, I was intrigued.  The real life story is super interesting, I love wrestling as you folks reading may well know, but I also loved amateur wrestling.  I was in my high school wrestling team for ... a few months?  I only quit because the coach at the time told me I had to pick, wrestling, or all the other extracurriculars I was doing.  So I picked choir, theatre, academic bowl, and everything else.  Anyway, let's talk about the movie.

I don't think it's very good.  It is really slowly paced, the plot is kind of obtuse, and while all the acting and music and shots are good, some great in fact, the wrong stuff is being talked about.  Let's talk about the plot.  It is the story of the Schultz brothers and their dealings with John E. du Pont.  There is a lot of information in the real world about it, but this is a fictionalized, condensed version of the whole encounter.  I normally do not care for spoilers, but I can say that the movie deals with ... uh ... ok, so I can't say that.

That's one of the biggest problems with the movie.  I did not think it did a good job of actually telling the story.  We see some bits and pieces of things that happen, but none of what it means is conveyed in film.  I suppose the film is kind of about ownership and being a prisoner and maybe some homosexual stuff and a little bit of betrayal, but not really, and ... ugh.  The film has a good atmosphere that lasts way too long and ends up being a burden instead of a bonus.  The film is so thick and so long and so "audience, figure this out all on your own" that it just becomes this big goopy thick mess of ... nothing.  Oh, better metaphor, it is like oatmeal.  Really thick, pasty oatmeal like my wife likes to eat it.  There are bits of wonderful fruit in there, like the actors, or small scenes that are really emotional, but you have to eat heaping spoonfuls of grey, lifeless, flavorless gunk to get to those good tasting bits, which only make up probably a tenth of the film, if not less.

The Academy's reaction to stupid oatmeal movie.

Let's talk about the acting.  Steve Carrel does ... ok.  Mark Ruffalo does ... Ruffalo-y.  And Channing Tatum knocks the ball out of the park.  So of course, he is the only that isn't nominated, which is a huge disservice to him.  He has so many scenes he does so well in.  And the others ... they just don't.

This movie feels like it was a script written to be about DuPont.  Then the real Mark Schultz got involved, as a producer and as a consultant, so some extra focus got put on the Mark Schultz character Channing Tatum played.  Then they found they had a GREAT actor doing an INCREDIBLE job, so they edited more of him into the film.  And they were right, the Schultz stuff was the great stuff in the movie.  But the original script was about du Pont, so the film and the director forced it to stay on that path, even though that is a disservice to the fantastic acting of Channing Tatum.

Channing, if you for some reason are reading this, I think you were robbed.  You did awesome.  And you are becoming a favorite actor of mine.  Keep making movies, even crappy ones, and keep working as hard as you seem to be.  I'll keep buying tickets.

All of that said, this movie is still above average.  It has a bunch of great components, it just focuses on the wrong bits and is a terrible slog to get through.  It is on the low end of a B, but it is still a B.

Grade: B

IHAO on ... a bunch of movies!! - 26 Reviews

Hello everyone! 

Time is an enemy to everyone who is trying to do anything important.  Or at least time-sensitive.   I love being able to write reviews for everyone about everything, current, old, wrestling, television, just on everything, as well as writing all the sillier or more intricate reviews, like the Arbitrary Numbers and the Fantasy Bookings.  But that leaves very little time for me to be able to actually cover everything.  I can’t put out two reviews a day, because that is too much to ask you folks to read.  And I only put out 5 a week, but every week there is probably on average one new film or wrestling event to writing about, and that takes a slot.  Then there are weeks with many films, like I’ve had recently and will be moving into with Oscar season continuing.

So I came up with an idea.  I asked my facebook to give me a list of movies that they did not think I had seen.  I absorb entertainment and media like a sponge, and have watched a LOT of movies.  This way I can give shorter reviews on a bunch of things people might not think I’ve seen, as well as have a fun bank of things to come back to when I need inspiration.  In the nice long list of films, I probably saw a fifth of them, which is a great number.  So I’m going to review all 26 of the movies that were suggested that I have seen.  This will be a rapid fire barrage of reviews.  Let’s get going!

 Dinosaurs! – Nicole Clockel
An edu-tainment Claymation-y fun short about dinosaur life.  I remember specifically sitting with my best friend at the time, Karl, when we were 7 or 8 at his house, and between playing TMNT SNES games or with figures or running around outside, we watched this little video.  I’ve seen it since then as well, but it is a silly thing to talk about.  It is purposefully silly, and all kinds of weird, but really enjoyable.  It is on youtube, and I’ll linky it here.  I definitely think it is worth your time, because of nostalgia for some of you and just for fun in general.  It isn’t great by any means, but it is fun.
Grade: C+



Rat Race – Lenton Lees 
The semi-rebooting, more “another version” of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Rat Race features an incredible cast, and is a big ole chase/race comedy.  It is hilarious, has some heart, and some awesome music.  It is probably one of the best comedies to introduce people to a bunch of great comedians all at once, including Mr. Bean, Seth Green, Whoopi Goldberg, John Cleese, Breckin Mayer, Amy Smart, and Jon Lovitz.  Really enjoyable, though it doesn’t quite shoot that extra mile.  It sits in a nice comfortable zone that most good comedies do, where it is real good, but the actual film never tries to be any greater than that.  Highly recommend.
Grade: B++

The Longest Yard – Lenton Lees
Wrestlers!  Sandler the last time he was funny!  Except there’s sequences of it totally not being funny, too, because Sandler has to always ALWAYS write his characters as having enormous penises or getting the hottest women in the world.  But that’s fine, because that has very little actual impact on the movie.  This is probably one of my favorite sports films I’ve seen.  It actually goes that extra mile in film quality and technique, as well as just having incredible actors in Burt Reynolds, William Fichtner, Terry Crews, and a slew of awesome wrestler … not “cameos” as everyone’s screentime and character weight is larger than that.  It is an incredibly fun sports movie with a moving story, it is really funny, and even though it blatantly steals an entire scene from the British remake of the Longest Yard, Mean Machine, it is still a really fun movie that is also really good.  Probably my favorite Sandler film, and easily the one I think that is his best film.
Grade: A++

Ernest Saves Christmas – Lenton Lees
Here’s the thing about Ernest: you either love Jim Varney’s shenanigans, or you just don’t get it or see a point.  I personally find Ernest endearing.  In fact, this is the first Ernest film I saw, which is good, because it is also easily his highest budgeted, best looking, best acted, best directed, BEST Ernest film.  It tells a great story, has fun comedy, and is a Christmas classic in the Jessel household.  On top of that, I do believe it has my absolute favorite Santa Claus in film, played by the same dude who is the Sultan and Jasmine’s father in Aladdin!  He is perfect as Santa, and adds some amazing gravitas to what could have just been a frivolous and silly kids movie.  It isn’t one of the best movies ever made, and the effects are absolutely dated, but it is a wonderful movie.
Grade: B++

South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut – Lenton Lees
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have made all of two things I like: South Park and Book of Mormon.  I do not like BASEketball, I don’t like Cannibal: the Musical, I don’t like Orgazmo.  But this movie is excellent.  It is an amazingly well made musical parody of just about every single style of musical, from Les Mis to Disney to Sound of Music.  The story itself has a purpose to exist as a film because it is about censorship, parental choices, and really nice satire of the “crusade” against cursing.  I really think this movie does everything right.  And its unique animation style makes it in a sense timeless, which is great!  Great movie.
Grade: A+

Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon version) – Lenton Lees
Not every movie that is a good movie I like.  Wes Anderson movies prove that.  As does this one.  One of the best things about Shakespeare is that every adaptation is 100% the director’s intention.  And some of Joss’ choices are awesome.  And some are not.  I think Whedon was able to really elevate the parts of Claudio and Don Pedro fantastically, making both parts have a lot more weight and interest than most versions of the show.  He also made some very good comedic choices early in the film.  But very quickly, the comedy of this comedy goes away.  And that’s … just … wrong.  Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy, pure and simple.  And Whedon treated it as a drama.  And that is a disservice to a lot of the characters, a lot of the language, and a lot of other choices.  Dogberry wasn’t particularly funny, even though he’s written to be.  Don Jon isn’t very menacing because everything is treated so seriously so he isn’t a foil.  Benedict and Beatrice don’t have a banter-filled romance because the banter is more catty and snide than humorous and joyful.  There are some bits I really enjoyed, generally whenever he had the actors get more physical, because otherwise they just pontificate into the wind at each other.  In the end, Whedon focused on the “Much Ado” while forgetting the point that it is all about “Nothing.”
Grade: B-

Oversexed Rugsuckers From Mars! – Jason Abraham
I’ve been saving this one for a Nanarsday review, but I’m MORE than happy to talk about this HORRIBLE MOVIE now!  It is a gloriously terrible movie about a man who has sex with an alien vacuum cleaner, and it becomes a rapist and rapes a woman, who gives birth to a human-vacuum hybrid baby.  It is gross, and hilarious, and terrible.  One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen and I LOVE IT!  I found it randomly years ago, and it is a pride of my collection of films because of its ridiculous-ness.  Really, if anyone ever wanted to watch it, FIND ME and we’ll watch it that second.
Grade: F+

Chasing Amy – Jason Abraham
I have a love/hate relationship with Kevin Smith.  I either love his films and buy into them completely, or hate them and find them worthless.  Chasing Amy falls in the worthless category.  The script is preachy, the situation is so narrow that no one can relate to it, making the characters unlikable and just complainers.  Smith doesn’t direct Affleck very well here, which is crazy considering how great Affleck is in other Smith films.  It just … I just hate this movie.  Give me Dogma, Mallrats, or Clerks II any day.
Grade: C--


Dawn of the Dead; Day of the Dead; Land of the Dead – Tony Daniel
I love this little bit.  I may have never seen Night of the Living Dead, but I have absolutely seen and own all of the Romero trilogy of Dead films.  Comes with being married to a zombie lover.  Let’s touch on all of these:

Dawn of the Dead – This film is perfect.  Acting, tension, shots, characters, story, everything.  This may just be my favorite zombie movie, period.  I was blown away because what I THOUGHT this movie was and what it actually is are two VERY different things.  The effects are real old and not very good looking, but I like to see them like a time capsule of effects, and completely buy into them.  I say it all the time, but dated-ness is not a real negative, and these may not be the best effects, but they are great effects for what they are.  I cannot recommend this film more highly.  Grade: A++

Day of the Dead – I thought this would be my favorite, and I do really like it.  It is much more of what I thought it would be.  And it easily has one of the best villains a zombie film has ever had in it.  It also explores the zombie mythos more, which is very cool, and Romero continues to push the envelope with his characters.  It has better effects and is really interesting … but just not as good as Dawn.  I don’t know if I can put my finger really on why, but I think it is something to do with our protagonist, who while being interesting just isn’t as good of an actress, and the pacing of the film itself is a little off, leading to some boring stretches.  But the effects, and the other characters, are all well worth price of admission here.  Grade: B+

Land of the Dead – So Dawn of the Dead got a remake, and Romero was all “I can make a ‘modern’ zombie film better than that.”  So he continued the story of his world of zombies.  And man, I love it.  It isn’t as good as the last few, but it has some GREAT characters, some awesome world building, and while the plot is less interesting, the overall effect leaves me very happy.  I love this movie, even if it began the decline in quality of Romero’s writing.  Grade: B++

The Man Who Knew Too Little – Beth Lyons
This comedy was actually suggested to me by Beth probably a year or so ago, so I bought it, and I watched it.  I wish I had been writing reviews then, because then I wouldn’t have to think about this movie again.  Oh, yeah, that should make it obvious, I don’t like the movie.  I don’t think it is bad, I just didn’t find most of its comedy very good.  The entire idea is fine, and some of the scenes are fine, but the whole product just leaves me cold, as our protagonist has to be continually stupider and stupider to allow the very thin premise of “believes all the spy stuff is fake, accidentally gets caught in real spy stuff” to continue.  The climax of the film is just long and tedious with the whole Russian dance sequence and the bomb and … ugh.  I just did not care for the film, and really do not think it is very good, and mostly forgettable.
Grade: C--

The Bank Job – Jason Schmidt
Good ole Jason Statham.  Action star, good actor, British.  Ok, so Bank Job isn’t a GREAT movie.  It’s a real good one, though.  Based on a real heist, with some good actors and some great camera work, the film works.  I’ve seen a lot less memorable Statham films, though this one only barely jumps above that pack.  It isn’t great, but it is fun.  And if you are a history person or a heist person, this one may do even more for you.  For me, it was just a good movie.
Grade: B

Jackie Brown – Jason Schmidt
Jackie Brown is a neat little movie.  That actually sounds more belittling than I mean it to.  It has a slow first act, but not a BAD first act, just a slow one, that builds really well to an amazingly well made finish.  Lots of great actors all throughout the film, including the wonderful Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson playing the character that we all actually attribute to him in the modern zeitgeist, and Robert De Niro who may have … 8 lines in the whole movie?  But it is still one of his best roles.  I really like this movie.  It isn’t the easiest sit because of that long first act that really needed an editor, and Robert Foster is good but doesn’t quite keep me as interested for those long sections as Tarantino has found Christoph Waltz can.  But it is still a very good, very ambitious movie.
Grade: B+

State and Main – Jason Schmidt
David Mamet is a playwright, director, and a screenwriter and director.  He is known for things like Glengarry Glen Ross and American Buffalo, but he’s done a lot of other stuff.  State and Main is one of those other stuffs.  It … isn’t particularly good.  There are bits and pieces I really like in there, but there is also some stunt casting that does nothing for me and some of the comedy beats come across VERY Mamet, in that every character rushes through their dialogue as fast as they can.  The actual movie is about the filming of a movie in a little town because they like a stained glass window, and all the turmoil it causes everyone.  I don’t really think it is worth a watch, but for some people, all that fast-talking is actually a turn-on.  If you are a Aaron Sorkin fan, this may just be up your alley.
Grade: C-

Devil’s Advocate – Jason Schmidt
I love talking about good Keanu Reeves films.  Mostly because I think he is an underrated actor.  As an actor myself, I can see the actual “craft” in what he is doing, and I get why for some he doesn’t come across like he acts.  He is very stoic faced a lot of the time, and his voice is generally calm no matter the emotion.  But what Keanu does really well is expression of emotion through his eyes and his body.  There are very few actors who can pull of supreme confidence just by standing there saying nothing like Keanu can.  And there are very few that can show the deterioration of a soul like Keanu can, that slow wearing down that was necessary for this film.  Devil’s Advocate is a GREAT movie.  It is a morality play in a time period when morality was pretty gauche to begin with.  Al Pacino is fantastic in the movie as well.  It is a great film.  One I used to own, and I need to buy again.  I recommend.
Grade: A+

Man on the Moon – Jason Schmidt
The biopic on Andy Kaufman, made by dear friends of Andy Kaufman, paying homage to the man, played by the only person anyone that knew Kaufman thought could play him.  This is a great biopic.  It has great music.  It has great acting.  It has a compelling, albeit very movie-fied as admitted by the prologue of the film, story of the real life of this enigmatic actor.  I own the soundtrack.  I own the film.  I love both.  It is a shame that Jim Carrey did not get the Oscar for this performance, but of course he should have since 1999 was the year of terrible Oscar decisions and Shakespeare in Love sweeping through almost everything.  Man on the Moon was called by some the best picture of 1999, and others just didn’t get it.  Which is kind of perfect when it comes to talking about Andy Kaufman.  I highly recommend to anyone that loves comedy and the history of comedy.
Grade: A++

Mars Attacks! – Jason Schmidt
My dad took me to see this movie.  My mom didn’t like that he did.  It is a weird, silly, off-putting, crazy kind of film.  Definitely not for everyone.  It is absolutely unique, and everything I want from a Tim Burton film.  It also holds the honor of being the only live-action film based on a trading card series, which is a mindboggling piece of information by itself.  A tongue-in-cheek homage to 50s sci-fi horror films, and filled with just … craziness.  Man, I just … this is a weird movie kids.  Too weird to be good, too weird to be bad, it is its own brand of quality.
Grade: W (for weird … I actually give it a C)

The Departed – Jason Schmidt
Hey, wanna know a great movie?  The Departed.  Done.  Go watch a great movie.  What you need more?  How about its pedigree of actors and directors and cinematographers?  I’ll wait while you imdb it.  I know right?  How about the incredible filmmaking just in general?  Or the tight script?  Or the intriguing characters?  Or the amazing conceit?  Or the original that is ALSO good, but this remakes for western audiences in an old school mafia way that transcends the original?  This movie is great.  Period.  Watch it.
Grade: A+

Black Swan – Jason Schmidt
Darren Aronofsky is so so good.  And Black Swan is amazing.  Tense, thrilling, psychological, amazing acting from Natalie Portman (got an Oscar for it, well deserved), this movie is phenomenal.  The music is of course going to be great because it is Swan Lake.  But really, this movie is amazing.  It should have gotten at least a cinematography and a best director nod.  It got neither.  These kind of psychological thinky thrillers tend to not do well in the Oscars.  Aronofsky deserves awards.  And this film is one of his best, written as if tailored to his style specifically even though it wasn’t.  Watch this very very intense film some time.
Grade: A++

Waterworld – Jason Schmidt
Waterworld is one of the biggest financial flops in history.  Doesn’t make it a bad movie, though.  It makes it a great punchline, but as a fantasy movie, it is actually all kinds of AWESOME.  The setting is all practical and all amazing.  The acting is great from Dennis Hopper and even Kevin Costner.  The script is a great story filled with little nods and secrets to the what happened in the world.  The action is awesome.  I love the movie, and really don’t understand why others don’t.  Maybe because they only know the joke and never actually watched the thing.  Give it a chance.
Grade: A++

12 Monkeys – Jason Schmidt
Time travel movies are difficult, and sometimes their plots just don’t quite add up.  Other times they are too simple.  12 Monkeys is both.  Confusing and simple.  I don’t think it is a bad movie, it has some real interesting parts to it and some good acting.  But I ultimately found it boring.
Grade: B-

Four Rooms – Jason Schmidt
Four very different vignettes from four pretty different directors all based around rooms in a hotel.  Uh … I guess I’ll say this: Tim Roth is great.  Each individual sequence is so incredibly different I’ll just grade each one.
Part 1: D
Part 2: C-
Part 3: A+
Part 4: B+
So when I watch it, I just skip to the middle.  Yup.

Deathproof – Jason Schmidt
Man, I do not know how to talk about this one ... ok, lemme list the things that are good. The direction is fantastic. The movie looks and FEELS good, from a filmmaking and thematic standpoint. Kurt Russel is AMAZING as Stuntman Mike. The action and car sequences are really amazing and frenetic. A lot of the things that I love from Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are here and this is the prototype for him directing like that. This movie is a bridge from his old style (which I generally don't care for) and his new style. There is a lot to like. But this movie SERIOUSLY needed an editor. A stronger edit would have helped this movie incredibly. And another sequence of Stuntman Mike doing what he does would have been perfect. Trim down all the standard Tarantino talky talk that didn't really do very much and give us another Stuntman Mike sequence. Tarantino learned to trim himself for Basterds and Django, making much stronger, engaging films. And that's the problem, I suppose. I really wanted to be engaged the whole time, and was really only engaged when Kurt Russel was onscreen and for the basics of the chicks. The genre subversion at the end was interesting, but for me, abrupt, and right at the end, I actually found myself rooting for Stuntman Mike because I knew more about him and understood him better, and he had less dialog than the chicks that I was supposed to be rooting for. Showing, not telling, made him a stronger, more engaging character. And they just left Mary Elizabeth Winestead with the crazy redneck! What the heck!? This movie is hard to grade. I can see myself wanting to watch it again, and I LOVED everything with Kurt Russel, but I dunno if I wanna slog through the rest.Grade: B-

High Fidelity – Jason Schmidt
One of the first “serious” comedies I’ve ever seen, it made a huge impact on me.  I am a collector and sponge for media much like John Cusack is in the film, though my own life and his represented in the film has nothing in common, and I don’t actually relate to him, but that doesn’t actually matter.  He resonates.  And his relationship struggles opened my eyes.  The film is unique, which is a huge plus.  It is a really well written and well acted film, so that’s real cool.  Honestly, though, it just didn’t stick with me like I thought it would, and I don’t care to see it again.  I don’t hate it.  I just don’t like it.  I remember how good it was, but that’s the extent of it.
Grade: A

Harvey – Cindy Carrin
The only Jimmy Stewart film I’ve seen and loved.  It is a great play, a great old movie, and just awesome all around.  A classic.  You absolutely should watch it.  Everyone.  Do it.
Grade: A+






And there we have it!  A LOT of films reviewed in a handy dandy quick way with beautiful pictures that took me way too long to format.  Thanks everyone, and I am positive I will do an exercise like this again!  Until tomorrow, where we have some newer films, a Wes Anderson film, some wrestling, and probably other stuff!

IHAO on ... Rosewater

Some real terrible stuff happens in the world.  Some really awful stuff happens in the world.  And some really bad stuff happens in the world.  Rosewater is the story of something bad that happened in the world, in a script adapted from a man's accounts of what happened, written by a man who feels responsible.  Jon Stewart, of Daily Show and Big Daddy fame, wrote and directed this film.  I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but from all accounts I've read, he is very passionate about this, and feels probably at least some to blame for the real world bad thing that happened.

The story is that of a real British-Irani journalist who, because of a joke correspondence he did with the Daily Show, got thrown in jail for treason and espionage for close to 120 days.  This is a real story, though dramatized.  Gael Garcia Bernal plays our lead, and he does a goodjob.  He is the best part of this movie.  He, and the little bits, little flashes of interesting things that Jon Stewart does in the director's chair.

That is ultimately the problems with the film, it only really excels in tiny flashes.  It is mostly a good film, with very few problems, though there are some like a little sound mixing problems and a few distracting visuals.  But it doesn't quite excel in anyway beyond those brief flashes.  It is a good film, I'll go so far as to say a pretty good one, but I found myself getting bored a little every now and again, and the film becomes a little repetitive throughout Act 2 and 3.  That was purposeful, but it was also ... amateurish.  There are better ways to show the isolation and desperation in the language of film: wider camera angles, smaller spaces, smarter editing so that the hallucinations actually feel like they are not there instead of just being there in certain shots.

Ultimately, as bad as this is, part of the point of the film and the real world circumstance is that worse stuff happens.  And while the film does a great job of letting us know stuff like this happens, it is also small potatoes compared to other things going on, and again, that is part of the film.  It makes the film feel small and not quite necessary because the stakes are just not that high.  Our protagonist is constantly told that he really isn't being tortured that badly, and we watch that be the case.  I'm not saying what he went through isn't bad.  The film just needed to make its stakes higher for us, the audience.  Which it couldn't, because its hands were tied by a new director and a story that is about how everything our lead went through isn't all that bad comparitively.

The movie is a good one.  And there is some symbolism used very early that is beautiful.  But Stewart is a new director who isn't quite ready for "greatness."  He is perfectly fine.  And the film is perfectly fine, and it strives for great.  Doesn't make it there, but it does a good job.

Grade: B

IHAO on ... Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Oscar season is upon us.  I've always liked Oscar season.  And every year I say that I'm going to watch all the nominees for Best Picture, and I never do.  I also see movies that to me absolutely deserve to get a lot of nominations, like Pain & Gain should have gotten for Walberg, Johnson, and Shalhoub, as well as for cinematography and editing.  But invariably, I am very wrong on those thoughts.  But this year, I have this site up and running in a good way, and I hope to actually see all the nominees for best picture this year.  And review them.  And I'm gonna start with Birdman!

Something like this.

This movie was really good.  It is a film about a lot of things, filmed in an incredible way, with really strong performances, some amazing effects mixed into all the really strong human drama, and an interesting bedrock premise to ground a much more difficult to put into words true premise.

The story of the film; We follow Michael Keaton's Riggan, a 90s superhero film actor whose career has tanked since then, and the play he adapted, directed, and stars in on Broadway through the five days leading to opening night.  Edward Norton plays a broadway actor who is amazing at his job, but terrible at just about everything else.  Naomi Watts is an actress working to finally make her dream of getting to broadway.  Emma Stone plays Riggan's daughter and personal assistant, and Zach Galifinakas plays Riggan's lawyer, manager, and best friend.  Oh, and Keaton also plays Birdman, a delusion that plagues Riggan with doubt, fear, and worry.

This movie is really good.  Like, super super good.  I very much hope we get a directing nod for Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu who did the almost impossible of filming the entire movie in the illusion of one-shot without a single edit or cut, so that we, the audience, are a ghost watching the entire film with an insider's perspective.  I very much hope Michael Keaton gets a best actor nod, and Edward Norton a supporting actor, because both of those guys just killed it, especially on scenes they had together.

And I very much think it is a Best Picture nod.  This movie is about acting, about the relationship of audience to actor to director to producer to critic.  About the entire behind the scenes process of a stage show.  About how celebrity and talent are different.  About how social media changes how the world is perceived.  About the influx of superhero films.  About whether or not acting in a big ole bird suit is award-worthy acting or not.  There is a scene where a critic relates superhero movies in acting skill basically to porn and cartoons, as things that have no merit in "real" acting.  I don't agree, but many people do.  And that is interesting.

The whole movie is interesting.  And the subtitle even more interesting.  The "unexpected virtue of ignorance" is a thought I know I've had before as an actor, as a wrestling fan, and so on.  The entire film builds up to explaining what that is, and it is beautiful.  The film is wonderful.  Really great.  I hope that anyone who has ever acted or worked on a show or a movie gives it a watch.  And I hope it does very well this year at the Oscars.

Grade: A++

IHAO on ... Stand Up Guys

Hey look, I finally got around to this one!  Sure took me long enough, especially considering that back when I decided to review it, it was the one I was most looking forward to!  So let's start up Netflix and get this puppy reviewed!

95 minutes later

Huh.

You know what's great about seeing Pacino and Walken playing best friends?  Everything.  You know what's great about seeing the guy from Short Circuit 2 be a director?  Everything.  You know what's great about Alan Arkin having a ... basically extended cameo for Act 2?  Everything.  You know what's great about this movie?  Just about everything.  Then why don't I love this movie?

There are some barriers that keep it from being amazing in my book.  But I'm a little nitpick-y and snobbish at times.  Comes with the territory of reviewing films for a "living."  And I can very much understand these things not mattering to most.  But first, let me continue to tell you the good stuff.

This film is about the last day in the life of Val, played by Al Pacino, as his only friend Doc, played by Christopher Walken, has to kill him by morning to erase a mob debt.  These guys are criminals, and friends.  Val was in the joint for 28 years, taking the rap for everyone, because "[he's] a stand-up guy."   So we watch the adventures of these old-timer crooks on Val's last day alive.  This includes a car chase, a semi- I Spit On Your Grave subplot, getting suits, breaking Arkin out of a nursing home, lots of hookers, and a little bit of violence.  But what it really involves is Val and Doc's friendship.

That's the thing this entire film pivots around.  It is the grease on the plot's wheel.  And this is the "flaw" of the movie ... these guys are just a little too tough.  A little too hardened.  So we just do not quite get into the emotions these guys are feeling.  Some of that is because I believe everyone involved thought they were making a quirkier comedy than they actually were.  Or perhaps they thought they were being more serious than they ended up being.  I'm not really sure.  But there is a barrier of emotion that keeps this movie from being GREAT.  I see their friendship, I see the subtle things, but the plot, the dialogue, the acting, none of those things really bring the audience in deep into the film's emotion, and that's unfortunate.

That said, it is a well shot, well acted, well written movie.  It does everything right.  Everything except for going above and beyond.  I think this film is easily worth watching, and the fact that not only it is on Netflix right now, but that blu-rays are 8 bucks are Wal-Mart means that a lot of you who really love the crime genre should absolutely watch this film.  But for me, I wanted this movie to give me something more than it was willing to give, and while I find it to be an excellent film, I just don't see myself caring.

Grade: A

IHAO on ... God Bless America

One of the most difficult things about watching as many movies as I do, especially now that I focus on bringing commentary and criticism to it, is that eventually, you find a movie that is pretty good, with some pretty interesting ideas, and it just ... already exists in a better form.  It brings nothing to the table above and beyond another film that touches on the same subjects but in a better way, with stronger script and stronger actors and a stronger director and just overall a better movie.  God Bless America is just ... not quite good enough.

Very few times can I point to two films and actually show the difference between objective ratings.  There is so much to love about film that many people cannot separate their love from what they are watching.  And that is a perfectly fine thing, mind you.  That is what makes film so great.  It touches us, sometimes privately and personally, just like all forms of art.  It speaks to the viewer, and even if a film just isn't as well made, that film can be "better."

Ugh, whomever it is that has the job of picking my gifs needs to be fired.

Now, I'm saying all this because this movie is just not as good as Super.  Both films are about rage and cleansing of our society by a man who wants to kill, and his young just-older-than-teenage girl that has a special relationship with him that is both semi-romantic and semi-familial.  The problem is, God Bless America focuses just on talk and character, and Super actually has things happen.  It has stakes, it has obstacles, and it really GREAT actors.  God Bless America has no stakes, no obstacles, and its actors just aren't up to snuff.

Those aren't the only issues.  It's lighting is odd, the music is filled with montages and very out of place choices.  The way the story unfolds is basically null of any consequences.  The big schtick is that everything goes wrong for our protagonist in his life, including finding out he has a brain tumor.  But OH NO WOWSERS the doctor totally messed it all up and gave him the wrong reading and the tumor isn't there!  Spoilers by the way, but this lazy plotting makes me so incredibly upset.  There just aren't any consequences to the actions these characters take, and ultimately it makes this whole film meaningless.

Ok, now that I've gotten all that out of my system ... this movie is pretty good.  Yeah, I know I just complained and fumed about how it wasn't.  But Tara Lynn Barr is a great little actress, even if the writing isn't all that great.  When the film is violent, it is really great; that said, it is very VERY sparse on the violence, which hurts the film.  And the film's emphasis on these characters relationships is a perfectly nice and enjoyable ride.  I am not against character-films that use their time to delve deep into characters as its form of growth and tension and conflict, despite what it might have sounded like above.  This all just ... I've seen it done better.

Oh, and the finale is bullcrap.  Just absolute and utter garbage.  A little more stupid trope-ic cliche, a whole bunch of preaching, and then the rug is just yanked out from underneath us as an audience.  Honestly, the finale makes me angry.  It took a film I wanted really hard to recommend to folks and just killed it for me.  I really just ... I'm almost speechless for how upsettingly bad it is.  It is shot crappily, has terrible music over it, is written just awfully and even worse, is convenient in every single way.  I hated every single ounce of Act 3 of this film.  I hated it.  I cannot recommend this film.  A better film exists.

Go watch Super.  That move is phenomenal, A+++.  This film just gets worse and worse until it ends in a sputtering garbled joke of what it could have been.  Ugh.

Grade: C--

IHAO on ... Best Man Down

I think this might be the most average movie I've ever seen.  It has all the tropes you can think of for an indy film that isn't trying to be an art film.  It has a bunch of actors playing themselves.  It has a bunch of quirky unnecessary dialogue and shots.  It has really irritating acoustic music.  It's themes are about death and everyone that isn't a protagonist is a jerkoff.  It is just the most regular movie I've ever had to watch.

Tyler Labine plays a drunk party loser jerk who is the best man at Justin Long and Jess Weixler's wedding.  They rushed into their relationship and wasted a whole bunch of money, which is compounded when, after making a huge fool of himself almost ruining the reception, Tyler Labine accidently kills himself in a drunken stupor.  So now his friends have to learn about why he was like that as they try to make arrangements back home for his funeral.  And you learn he was a really cool dude, playing the redneck drunk with a heart of gold as Tyler Labine almost always does.  Specifically he was helping emotionally this super smart quirky girl that was bullied in high school for being smart and pretty and funny, played by Addison Timlin.  Addison Timlin, whose quirky name in this film is Ramsey, is blackmailing a priest who is homosexual, also.  And just ... *sigh* that's like the first fifteen or twenty minutes.

The rest is all the same.

The moving isn't "boring" or anything.  It just isn't interesting.  The acting is fine.  The plot is fine.  The dialogue is fine.  This movie is fine.  Some people will probably love it.  It has a charm, and if you like quirky indy dramas, this one will do you pretty ok.  But for me, it is just ... the most average movie I can think of.  Right down the line.  *shrug*  I can't even bring myself to like or hate it.  It just is.

Grade: C

IHAO on ... World's Greatest Dad (Rest in Peace, Robin)

I don't think I can think of a film that has such great acting, great directing, inventive hyper-reality aspects, incredibly well-placed and chosen music (for the most part), and such a corny, super-tired, boring script.  And I hate to say that.  Because the emotional journey of the film, the hyper-realism that Bobcat Goldthwait creates is excellent.  He does an incredible job in this film, with its cynicism and pain.  But the script ...

A failed writer and teacher at a prep school has a terrible son.  Just absolutely terrible.  He is the worst human being.  And his father, Robin Williams, doesn't know how to connect with his son, or even how to father him.  He has a secret relationship with another teacher, who is basically cheating on Williams with another more perfect English teacher.  Williams comes home from a date to find his son, dead by autoerotic asphyxiation accident.  Ashamed, Williams fakes his son's suicide, writing a suicide note for him.  And things snowballs out of his control as the suicide note becomes public and starts changing everyone around him as Williams continues lying and writing more for his son.

This plot is hackneyed.  There is no easier way to put it.  The "Liar Revealed" is one of the most basic conflicts and plots in film, and it is tired.  The thing that makes this film enjoyable beyond that is how Goldthwait treats the world of the film.  The school's team is the Pugs.  Everyone cartoonishly starts falling in love with Williams' writing, just fawning over it.  On a talk show, Williams is introduced with a graphic that says "Son Killed Himself."  There are long musical sequences, one very well done and very poignant, and the rest ... not.  Wait, I was saying good things.

Williams plays wonderfully.  This is his film.  And the emotions in this movie are perfect.  The comedy is ... not really worthwhile.  But the emotion and the acting is so great.  I wish this was a film I could recommend for anything beyond its acting ... but sometimes that is enough.  And ...

Grade: B+-

Robin Williams committed suicide three days ago.  It was inescapable.  And I argued with myself about if I should say anything.  I personally do not have a connection to Williams as a fan, not really.  I never found him particularly funny in his stand-up.  As a child I liked Genie ok, but carpet and Aladdin were my favorite characters.  Jumanji was fun, but I liked the world more than the characters, and I never really liked Hook.  As I grew older, I came to enjoy his more adult films, especially What Dreams May Come.  That is a beautiful and wonderful film.  But as I thought, I realized that I needed to say ... something.  My "job" as it were is to talk about films, television, wrestling, and other such things.  I just didn't know what.  And at that same time, I found this movie.  It was a perfect thing to talk about.  I didn't go easy on the movie, as you can see, but it allowed me to start thinking and sharing and writing.

Suicide is difficult.  Understatement, surely.  I've dealt with depression a lot, though I don't believe I ever did deal with suicidal thoughts.  It is foreign to me.  But I understand the pain it can create for those who survive it.  And my heart and prayers goes out to the Williams family.  I can say very clearly, Williams touched the hearts of millions.  While this film I found both good and frustrating, and I found Williams' career similarly, it isn't about that.  It is about the emotion we all have.  Emotion is pure.  Laughter and tears.  Anger and love.  Williams was at his best with emotion.  Its why his kids films always went just a little step more when he was the star.  They were always just a little more genuine with him in them.

I don't know.  I wish I had something more eloquent to say.  Sometimes the message may be flawed, it may not be as genuine and emotional as it could be from someone else.  But the emotion ... you know what, let me instead use Williams' words from this film:

"I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. 

The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone."

Mr. Williams, we will never be alone because you have touched our hearts.  And despite the pain, depression, or whatever may have been going through your life when you tragically felt alone ... you will never be alone within our memories.

Rest in Peace.  I hope to hear you laugh in heaven.

IHAO on ... 50/50

Boy howdy, do I find it funny how these Joseph Gordon Levitt films go with me.  He's clearly a competent actor, who does good work, but man of man do his films just never break that glass ceiling into be a great movie.  Ok, so let's dive into this film.

JGL works for NPR, and is working on a  SYMBOLISM OH MY GOD THIS IS SYMBOLISM DO YOU GET IT YET, IF NOT, IT IS OK BECAUSE THE WHOLE MOVIE WILL POUND IT INTO YOUR HEAD piece on a volcano that looks like it is dying but suddenly it springs back into life.  He has a terrible girlfriend, a great best friend, and gets cancer.  He goes to his therapist, who is terrible at her job and is also Anna Kendrick, and we watch him deal with cancer.  Kind of.  More we watch his personal relationships with his family, friends, girlfriends, and other folks as he goes through what is a very difficult thing.

First thing first, I do not have cancer.  I do not have a family member who has had cancer.  So there is an emotional value to this film that I cannot get onto without the film using art and film language to get me onboard.  If you find this movie touching and wonderful because of that emotional connect, that is awesome, and I think that was the film's goal.

With all that said, this movie could have been SOOO good.  It had all the parts.  From everything I had seen in trailers and stuff, I thought it was going to be about his relationship with Seth Rogan, which was the best part.  Look at the tag line in the poster up there.  "It takes a pair to beat the odds."  That implies that this is a film about the two of them and their relationship as JGL deals with his cancer.  Nope.  Rogan is nowhere near enough in the film to justify that tag line.  I wish he was.  Like I said, his relationship and demeanor with JGL were the best parts of the film.

And when he first met Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall at chemo, I loved seeing that relationship grow as well.  But all the stuff with his girlfriend and her cheating on him, and she isn't cheating on him because of the cancer, she's cheating on him because she's a [I do not curse on this blog ... she makes me want to curse] and has been since before he found out about the illness.  The family bits, while a little over the top because of the addition of a father with alzheimer's, were really great.  And there is a moment at the end, as JGL is in surgery that you first see Rogan waiting outside.  Then you cut to the parents waiting inside.  Then you cut to the surgery prep.  Then you cut back, and Rogan is sitting with JGL's parents, and his mother reaches out to hold Rogan's hand.  That is powerful.  That is friendship moving beyond to brotherly bonds of love and family.  That was a powerful spot in the film.  Immediately ruined by Anna Kendrick.

Don't give up now that I've said something you don't like about an actress you like, faithful readers!

My wife is a professional therapist.  That is what she does.  I like watching films with particular strong backgrounds of information I never would have had.  Such as, in college, my roommate for awhile, Jason, was super into guns and FPSs and knew all about them.  So watching a movie, they pull out any gun, and he could tell me about why that gun was significant for the character, or why it was out of place.  It was neat.  So of course, my wife does similarly with people in her profession.  And Anna Kendrick in this film should have been fired and burned her degrees.  She quite literally does everything wrong.  And it is all just to build up to a romantic relationship at the end.  It isn't Anna Kendrick's fault, really.  She acts perfectly fine.  Not great, not bad, just fine.  But the part written for her is abysmal and even worse, distracting.

Oh yeah, spoiler, he survives.  I normally really care about not spoiling movies, but this one was spoiled from the very beginning because of the way the film is made.  You know from the beginning he survived.  I sat here, with a full house of roommates, their girlfriends, and my wife, as we watched the final minutes, and I just openly asked for the movie to have some balls, and to not have him survive and date Anna Kendrick at the end.  But that is what happened.  And it is just a slap in the face of any kind of realism they were trying to sell with this thing.

The more I think about it, the less I like this movie.  Which is really frustrating, because I had such high hopes for it.  I spent my hard earned donations on it (thank you oh so kindly to the donator, of course, you made my month with your satanic donation number).  So yeah.  Not happy with this one.  But I can very much see how many others would be.  I just wonder if JGL will ever be able to break that glass ceiling and finally star in a really great film.  Time will tell.

Grade: B--

IHAO on ... Rocky Balboa

And with this, it ends.  The greatest stories that have cumulative parts ... well ... they don't tend to do well after the third one.  Basically any horror franchise proves that.  But the Rocky series has defied the odds.  But does this newest one, 16 years removed from what as a pretty good finale, does it hold up and do a good job as a new epilogue to a series that had told its final story an entire teenager ago?

Rocky Balboa is the perfect combination of heart-breaking and meandering, thrilling and lackluster, necessary and ... well, unnecessary.  Plot: Rocky owns a restaurant, Adrian's.  Paulie and he are the only family they got, because Rocky Jr. (Robert), played by that guy who wasn't quite good enough in Heroes, has his own big city life.  Adrian has died three years ago, and Rocky hasn't been able to move on.  In the boxing world, the current heavyweight champ, Mason Dixon, has not had any real threat or difficulty, and some believe that he just isn't that good because of that.  So his managers work to get him and Rocky into one last fight.

I'm going to go through my three little statements above to collect my thoughts here for this flick:

1) Heart-breaking and Meandering

The Rocky films, with Rocky IV as the big let down though it did touch on it, have always been about Rocky and Adrian's love story.  And taking that story, and removing Adrian from it, is perfect.  It brings forth so much emotion, and the film is so wonderfully crafted for that emotion, that I was crying in the first ten minutes.  It was easily some of the best most emotional work Stallone has done in these films.  And Burt Young, who I have not talked about much other than the fact that Paulie is a character you hate and you love him anyway because Rocky loves him, Burt Young just knocks it out of the park.  Not only that, but the emotion Rocky has dealing with his son, who feels stuck in Rocky's shadow, is also really well done.

All that said, the movie doesn't really focus on that stuff.  It is really about the Mason Dixon stuff, and Rocky meeting up with colorful new characters Marie - a small role from the first film, now grown up and a new semi-love interest - and her son Steps.  Steps is a bad actor, and really is just an odd addition to this script.  We spend so much time with him, he is even in Rocky's corner for the match, and we really know nothing about him.  I'm fine with Marie, though she ultimately doesn't matter because Rocky isn't ready for any kind of relationship, so nothing really happens there either.  The movie just plods along through these scenes that are ultimately pointless with these characters.

2) Thrilling and Lackluster

Seeing Stallone, who is just as old as Rocky, just as beat up as Rocky, going back through the training, seeing Burt Young, seeing poor black guy coach who after all six films I've never been able to catch his name, all showing their age but still working, it is all really cool and heartpounding and exciting.  The build up to the match, with the press conference and all of Mason's guys talking with him about Rocky.  The use of our current style media to create all the excitement with a "Deadliest Warriors" style "cartoon fight" as Paulie puts it of Rocky v. Mason ... all of that gets the blood boiling and ready!

No reason for this beyond saying "Warriors" earlier.  I should really review this one soon, too.

And then it just kind of fizzles.  Mason Dixon is ultimately completely uninteresting.  After such GREAT character opposing Rocky as Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Tommy Gunn, Mason Dixon is boring.  Even more boring than the cartoonish Russians.  He looks completely out of shape, isn't a very good actor, and his own story of Mason Dixon needing to prove that HE can go the distance just rings hollow.  This isn't a movie called Mason Dixon.  Also, the fight itself is just shot terribly.  I get what Stallone was going for.  Just like he used all the modern updates to build us up to the fight, he wanted to do a modern PPV take on the fight.  But it just didn't work.  There was no atmosphere, it all looked fake-real.  Michael Buffer and Mike Tyson, they just distract.  And again, having his son in his corner and Steps in his corner ... why?  They did nothing to merit that and were not given enough screentime to make it worthwhile, and were not good enough actors to make it worthwhile either.  The culmination of the fight, the actual end of the movie is ... it really could have been good, but it just is not done well.

3) Necessary and Unnecessary

Why was this film necessary?  Because the Rocky story will never die.  He is a character that we've watched throughout all the important points of his life.  And seeing a new point is great.  Coming back to the character is wonderful.  Rocky is a huge part of our culture, and coming back to him was a great idea.  Not only that, but being able to see the emotion behind Rocky and Paulie for Adrian in a way they could never express while she was alive ... that was amazing.

Why was this film unnecessary?  Because it doesn't matter.  The plot doesn't matter, the characters they added don't matter, the fight didn't matter, and beyond the really great emotional scenes, nothing else mattered.  We are told super early in the movie that Rocky is healthy to fight, even though he has had TWO films where his health was the major concern and reason why he shouldn't.  But hey, brain damage that they say in 1990 will never heal apparently will in 16 years.

This movie is just filled with ups and downs.  The ups are just really really great.  The downs, which are more frequent, are just blah.  Nothing is really BAD.  Nothing is terrible.  But the movie is basically a big ole resounding "meh" with a few really high spots.  If I could grade those high spots alone, if I could edit Rocky Balboa into just a short film about the emotions that Rocky and Paulie were going through, and a little bit of healing with talking to Marie, it would be great.  A+ material.  The Rocky films were never really about the boxing.  They were about the characters.  The boxing was just the backdrop for the drama.  Four of these films got that completely right.  Two failed, one hilariously, and one boringly.  But watch them yourselves!  You deserve it.

Grade: C

Rocky Movie Review Bank

Rocky

Rocky II

Rocky III

Rocky IV

Rocky V

Rocky Balboa