Where's My Popcorn?

OVERALL
The Rock does Disney. In his first movie being billed as "Dwayne Johnson", the hulking actor does a pretty good kid's movie, surrounded by a good supporting cast.

Going into the movie, I thought the kid, played by Madison Pettis, was going to be rather annoying. But she ended up being one of the highlights of the movie. Not there simply to sit, smile, bat her eyes and say something cute every once in awhile, she was actually a good actress. Which really made her character stand out.

Which really made the movie enjoyable. Well, as enjoyable as it could be.

I have to admit that I am a wrestling fan and knew Dwayne Johnson when he was The Rock (a.k.a "The People's Champion") in WWF/WWE, being the most charismatic man in wrestling. Ever. He would step into a ring and the fans would chant "ROCKY" for five minutes straight. All he would have to do is arch an eyebrow. That's it. Johnson was very charismatic in this movie, and proved he could act. Well, for a Disney movie.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: I have to say that I really enjoyed the relationship between the main character and his daughter's ballet teacher. It did not progress really quickly throughout the movie, and the relationship was where it probably should be by movie's end.

NO: I had no real problems with this movie, as it was exactly what I expected.

FIVE WORD FINISH
"Is Spike wearing a tutu?"

FINAL BELL
-- 3.5 out of 5 -- It's what you expect, and an enjoyable movie for kids.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Sure, why not? If you want a good kid's movie with some decent characters and a good storyline, then you should give this one a chance.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492956/

OVERALL
I walked into this movie with low expectations, and got exactly what I was looking for. A few twists here and there, but overall this movie really REALLY reminded me of George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead", which came out a few years earlier. Zombies - check. Highly protected vehicle - check. Characters you know are going to die - check.

Not looking to spoil anything, but amidst some very cool scenes the ending of this movie left me scratching my head, thinking what the heck they were going to do next... if anything. The set-up on top of set-up pointed to a great ending, but... go watch the movie and find out for yourself.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: Once again, Milla Jovovich was the highlight of the movie. If anything, watch this movie to see how the character progresses from the first two, movies I also recommend, but ONLY if you know what to expect -- zombie shoot-em-ups. Also, the scene with the crows was pretty damn cool.

NO: The movie seemed kind of short. I would have liked to learn more about certain characters before they died. Also, as cool as the ending was, it made you wonder how they can follow it up.

SIX WORD FINISH
"Good thing we like a challenge."

FINAL BELL
-- 3.5 out of 5, leaning towards 4 out of 5 -- A pretty cool movie that could have been just a bit better, with a head-scratching, but awesome, ending.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
A good stand-alone movie, but having watch the first two movies you get a bit more out of it. You don't have to be a fan of the video game in order to enjoy the movie. Go see it, and bring plenty of popcorn.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432021/

OVERALL

I saw this movie at a midnight showing, ready to laugh. I really enjoyed the first Rush Hour, and I even liked the second one. But wow. This movie was actually kind of sad to watch. Chris Tucker wasn't funny at all, and Jackie Chan actually looked... old. It's like director Brett Ratner was trying to make the first movie all over again, without realizing the jokes aren't as funny the second time around.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: I have to say, the cab driver who loved American things was a little funny. Just a little.

NO: Everything else. The jokes all fell flat, the action scenes didn't work, and the jokes about Chinese were just... not just racist, but kind of mean. Maybe it was just me. Oh, and the Mi and Yu jokes... wow... just horrible.

SEVEN WORD FINISH
"How do you say surrender in Chinese?"

FINAL BELL
-- 0.5 out of 5 -- Ugh.... UGH!

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Do not watch this movie. Ever. Go see Shanghai Knights instead. A much better film.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293564/

OVERALL
You get what you paid for. You want mother-effin' Samuel L. Jackson on a plane with a lot of mother-effin' snakes... you GET mother-effin' Samuel L. with a lot of m... you get my point.

If Jackson's roll was played by any other actor, this movie would be shown on the Sci-Fi channel, edited for TV with a lot of commercials. If it were actually released to theatres, or even straight to DVD... not too many people would be interested. Well... except for the title.

The main marketing focuses of this movie was THE LINE by Jackson, and the name of the movie itself. Snakes On A Plane. You know what you're going to get. But releasing this movie in all of it's R-rated greatness, you get people acting badly with a bad script.. .but Jackson MAKES this movie.

Overall, this is a pretty dismal movie when it comes to acting and dialogue. But directors David R. Ellis and Lex Halaby made this movie an experience. You don't go to enjoy the movie, but to enjoy the entire aspect of the movie.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: This movie may not be on the level as "Army Of Darkness", but it has just enough dark humour that it's worth it for a drinking game, or just to revel in the greatness that is Samuel L. Jackson.

NO: This movie was not meant to be a good movie, but the directors tried. It was a little long at 104 minutes, and the supporting characters were just an afterthought.

SIX WORD FINISH
"F***ing snake! Get off my d***!"

FINAL BELL
-- 3 out of 5 -- Watch this movie with a group of people who are open minded, love bad horror movies, or just Samuel L. Jackson. You'll thank me.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Not by yourself. See this movie with many people.

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/

OVERALL

Show of hands. Who expected a movie called "Vulgar" to be about a clown who starts doing bachelor parties, ends up getting raped, becomes a hero, and then gets blackmailed, then looks for revenge? Not you, Silent Bob.

There are a few familiar faces in this movie if you've seen some Kevin Smith movies, as this film is written and directed by Brian Johnson, a familiar name to those who've seen Smith movies, and a long-time friend of Smith himself. Actor wise, this main antagonist in this movie is played by Brian O'Halloran, aka Dante from Clerks in a very un-Dante role. His best friend is played by Super Producer Scott Mosier, and the man who wants to make him a star is Silent Bob.

But this isn't a comedy. Not by a long-shot. If anything, you might see it as a dark comedy, but even then you'd have to be pretty sick yourself. This borders on drama/horror, especially if you don't like clowns. The title of the movie isn't the feeling about the movie itself, but the name of the main character/clown.

First and foremost, the production of this movie is pretty bad. It looks and acts just like an indy movie that would never get released in theatres. But the acting itself is top notch.

NOTE: Some people HATE the acting in this movie. I mean really, really, REALLY hate it. Just look at some of the reviews through Netflix. Yowza.

But I repeat, I thought the acting was great.

As I said before, this is a sad little movie about a children's clown who had something done to him that nobody would want to experience. And after what happened, his world is changed, along with the mood of the movie. Then comes the unexpected -- he saves a little girl and becomes a hero, which puts him on television... but of course his past comes back to haunt him.

I had no idea what this movie was about going into it. The description at Netflix didn't say much, and really wouldn't make anybody to go out of their way to see it. In fact, I can see only View Askew-niverse folks (Smith fans) watching this one.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A hidden gem of a movie. One that expresses a lot of feeling, whether it be rage or remorse.

NO: It's a indy-riffic looking movie with a slow beginning and a kinda-out-there ending. Although I liked the acting, it looks like I'm in the minority. Also, the mood in this movie is really, really dreary.

SIX WORD FINISH
"I must have the wrong place."

FINAL BELL
-- 4 out of 5 -- I'm glad I saw this movie. It's an interesting premise but a very dreary movie. Not too many happy moments because a sad one is right around the corner... and you're probably expecting it. I enjoyed the acting and the storyline, although one scene was really tough to watch.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
It's worth seeing. I don't see many people really looking to see this movie, but it's an experience nonetheless. I think I would have enjoyed seeing it on the big screen, and would recommend it... but only to a certain minority.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120467/

OVERALL

This was a film with a LOT of potential. Of course, with Scarlett Johansson playing the lead character, I was hopeful. But then the movie, directed by Burman and Pulcini -- those who brought us American Splendor -- failed to live up to expectations. It was a decent movie, but not one I would want to see again.

Taking a step back, the beginning of this movie was great. We had characters with no real names, and a tour of a freaky museum, and I really liked that. It was showing the story a bit differently than the conventional format.

Then the actual meat of the story begins, and it almost turns into the Lifetime Movie Of The Week. We have the protagonist who is almost literally forced into being a nanny for a young child, instead of following up her college degree. You've probably seen enough movies to understand what's going to happen next, and for the most part you can probably guess the rest of the movie.

The saving grace, other than Johannson and Alicia Keyes (who plays her best friend, and has a good role in the movie) are the meetings of the mothers who have nannies. The way the nannies are treated and talked about in the movie are a bit eye opening.

Some have compared this movie to The Devil Wears Prada, with a character getting in over her head, and they almost hit the nail. However, this would be Prada Lite. Prada 50% off, actually. Except this movie didn't have the protagonist getting early copies of the new Harry Potter book, which still bugs me about Prada... but I digress. Prada had a more central storyline that didn't hide anything, whereas Nanny Diaries seemed like a parody of somebody looking at Prada and trying to emulate it.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: It's a cute movie with a child that (somewhat) grows on you. Scarlett Johansson does a good job, as does Laura Linney playing the socialite mother. The love interest and romantic storyline was interesting, with likable characters.

NO: The beginning of the movie was great. After 15 minutes in we didn't really see much of anything that reminded me how the movie started. It had a LOT of potential to be something different, but it chose not to.

QUOTE
"There's a common belief among anthropologists that you must immerse yourself in an unfamiliar world in order to truly understand your own."

FINAL BELL
-- 2.5 out of 5 -- A movie that I would not normally had seen if not for a friend. I didn't feel like it was a waste of time, but it was a waste of a good beginning.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
If you're expecting a movie called "The Nanny Diaries" you'll enjoy this one. If you have expectations due to the beginning of the movie, you probably won't.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489237/

OVERALL
This is one of those movies that suffer from inexplicable marketing. Directed by Barry Levinson, the same man who brought us "Wag the Dog", the release company Universal depended on Robin Williams' comic background to bring people in.

So "Man of the Year" was marketed as a comedy. We've got Robin Williams being funny in the trailers, and we got a poster with him dressed in a funny wig. But in the movie his character, a "fake news" anchorman a la Jon Stewart, is playing a character who's funny. So he's a character who's playing a character.

But it wasn't exactly that character who decided to run for President of the United States. It was Williams' character Tom Dobbs who decided to run. And did anybody really think he even had a chance?

"Be funnier," they kept telling him as he campaigned. Don't be the straight man. People enjoy your character more, and that character is more likely to win some votes.

He wins... but did he really? The second part of the movie is a thriller with parts that would surprise you. I found certain things to be implausible, but they cover their tracks well. The big question I had was -- could this really happen? Not the way Dobbs wins the election, which (scary enough) could happen with current technology, but with the way he ACTS as president.

You'd think there would be better handlers out there who would want him to uphold the throne of the United States a bit better. More than once I thought about John Goodman's "King Ralph" and the way his character had to fight to act the way he wanted.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A much better drama than it was a comedy, although the finale on a certain late night television show was great. Plus Lewis Black was great.

NO: They were looking for an intense thriller by the end, but it didn't hook me.

SIX WORD FINISH

"Politicians are a lot like diapers."

FINAL BELL
-- 3.5 out of 5 -- A move that tried and almost got away with it. I think if the studio had played more on the fact this was the same director who did "Wag the Dog", they might have sold a few more tickets.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
If anything, this was a rental. As I said, it was a pretty good movie, but not a great one.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/

OVERALL

Holy cow. I believe I may have seen one of the fakest-looking movies of all time. I didn't get a chance to see "300" in theatres, but all of my friends were saying "Dude, this is one of the greatest movies of all time! You NEED to see this!" So I Netflix'd the movie, totally looking forward to seeing it, and then my wife and I watched it.

Halfway through my wife said "Gee, I wonder if he's going to do another speech?" And boom, right on cue, we got another Braveheart-esque speech by our ab-friendly good guy.

This movie was made almost completely with CGI, and you can tell. Just from the sky. That's what made the movie seem so fake. The slow-down-speed-up scenes during fights were tacky. Some parts of the story, including the Oracle, were completely unnecessary and seemingly tacked on. It looked to be made just for guys, so let's throw in another naked chick!

So yeah, I really didn't like this movie. I saw it already when it was called Braveheart, and that movie was much better. Of course Braveheart also had homophobic scenes (funny enough, the coolest looking character with the best voice was portrayed as a flaming "family" member... if you know what I mean).

You know what's going to happen in this movie, but I found myself just not caring. I didn't really like the main character, King Leonidas, but the actor who portrayed him Gerard Butler had great delivery. Sure he yelled a lot but he yelled with a lot of PASSION. I do hope this gets him some more roles.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A lot of no-name actors portraying characters who stood out. If you forgot the storyline of the movie, you won't forget the imagery of how the characters looked.

NO: Just take a look at the overview. This was a story that's been done many times before (few vs. many), and it's been done better.

SIX WORD FINISH
"We're in for one wild night."

FINAL BELL
-- 2 out of 5 -- I love macho movies. And this one was dripping with machismo... so why did it not resonate well with me? How could I not love this movie? Was it TOO macho even for me? Or did it dip into the fantasy land of self mockery? There was a strong woman character, the King's wife, and you find out the narrator plays a good part in the story. Would I have liked it more if I hadn't seen Braveheart? Maybe. What if I play the role of a good reviewer and not account Braveheart? Then what? Maybe the movie would get a 3 out of 5, but for the main reasons in which I DON'T mention Braveheart.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
For me, no. For some people, including those guys looking for a movie that will make them feel better as a man, yes.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/

OVERALL

First and foremost I LOVED this movie. But I have particular tastes. With "tastes" being the particular word in question. If you love food... good food... you'll probably like this movie. Not saying that YOU will love it, but you will definitely appreciate it.

With Ratatouille, director/writer Brad Bird redeemed himself for The Incredibles. Now, you may be thinking "What?! The Incredibles was a GREAT movie!", but I have to disagree. The Incredibles was a good movie that COULD have been great.

Mainly because I saw The Iron Giant, which was a GREAT movie. Ratatouille is almost indescribable regarding the many feelings it brings out from you. There are funny parts, serious parts, cartoonish parts, real-life parts, and mesmerizing parts.

You'd watch this movie and you would appreciate it. But would kids? Maybe not. It's got some cute animals, a scary villain, and likable characters. But it also has a lot of dialogue, and some adult situations/themes. Plus the relationship between the rat and the human isn't really BFF.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: A satisfying movie with a satisfying ending. Not saying if it's a happy or sad, but the build-up to the ending makes the entire movie worthwhile.

NO: There's a slow part in the middle of the movie that some kids may yawn through, myself included. It may or may not have been necessary, but it did help with character building.

SIX WORD FINISH
"...Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook."

FINAL BELL
-- 5 out of 5 -- Uh oh, two movies in a row with a 5 out of 5. I've seen some other movies recently, and some of them are definitely NOT 5 out of 5 material. Stay tuned. This is probably the finest Disney movie since The Lion King.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?:
Very much so. I'm looking forward to buying this movie when it comes out on DVD so I can introduce my daughter to it. As I said before -- if you love food, you'll love this movie.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/

OVERALL

Took them long enough! Maybe it took them a little too long.

If you're a fan of the Simpsons, you're probably not watching as much these days as you used to. Before, Sunday nights were like a church to us, especially at 8pm when the Simpsons came on. Then along came DVR, (aka Tivo) and we started missing the show every once in awhile, but catching up with them later on.

Then FOX started preempting the show for something else they thought would bring good ratings.

But then, something happened. The Simpsons started getting good again. Sorry, I mean BETTER. All of a sudden I'd watch a show, and find myself laughing the entire episode. Then I watch it again, and again.

Then we heard about the movie, and I had mixed feelings. What Simpsons would we get? Obviously they need to pull out all stops with lots of celebrity voices (they may not use their real names in the credits, but you'd know it was them) and a story that might unravel the Simpson's family world.

And the movie pulled it off. There was mix of new Simpsons and old Simpsons, mainly due to the plethora of writers from the early days. No Conan O'Brien, though, but screw him.

Onto the movie. Unlike last year's Family Guy movie (you know, the Stewie one) it was just three episodes back to back to back. With the Simpsons movie, it was a MOVIE. It was one long storyline that lasted about an hour and a half.

And starting with Itchy and Scratchy, and Homer in the theatre, it was like watching a Simpsons episode in your living room with over 100 of your closest friends. Everybody was laughing at all the funny parts, almost to the point of tears.

Sure there's a good storyline about Homer dooming the entire town of Springfield, the town running for their lives (including a great part about Homer giving everybody the bird), and then yadda yadda... I'm not going to give anything else away.

But this is currently the funniest movie I've seen this year. Funnier because I knew the characters and their foibles, and knew the small "in-jokes" for the fans who've been watching since the beginning.

PRO vs. NO

PRO: The movie centered around the family, but I believe every other character who was ever in the show made a cameo, whether it be spoken, screaming or not. The scene with a naked Bart skateboarding worked, although I was skeptical at first. And the best part of the movie was Julie Kavner, who out-acted any other cartoon character with one little video. Also, a certain song from the series ("Why do birds suddenly appear...?") makes a great return. And, as always, Albert Brooks (sorry, A. Brooks) was a great antagonist.

NO: Throughout the television series Mr. Burns was the evil guy. He had some great lines in the movie, but was not given a bigger role. That's about it.

SIX WORD FINISH
"Stand back! I've got a chainsaw!"
-- Homer, in one of the best lines of the movie.

FINAL BELL
-- 5 out of 5 -- First movie of "Where's My Popcorn?" to bat 1.000. This is one of the better movies of the year, and not just because I'm a Simpsons fan. Okay, maybe it is. But this movie was far better than I thought it was going to be, and wasn't just 55% new material. The one thing that could hurt this movie was the over saturation of the market. People will get tired of hearing about Simpsons, especially with their faces everywhere ("Get a mammogram, man!"). But the movie is worth it, even if you've never watched an episode. Although smaller characters have a few lines, the lines work and make sense... even if you've never heard of, or seen, the characters before.

WORTH THE PRICE OF ADMISSION?: Oh yeah.

IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462538/