500 Days of Summer. You should know up front, this is not a negative review.

The Romantic Comedy. What fresh perspective can be placed upon this tired genre. What can I possibly say that brings new life to a cinematic movement that is as stale as the writing in most of the films themselves. How can a cinephile such as myself defend a trope of movies (all released this year) who's titles include: The Proposal, The Ugly Truth, New in Town, He's Just not That into You, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, and Confessions of a Shopaholic? Fortunately for me there are Rom-Coms being made like, first time director, Marc Webb's 500 Days of Summer that transcends the stereotypes and provide their own perspectives on love and dating in the 00's.

The Podcast. A wonderful invention. Audio/video recordings, generally brief, that anyone can record and place online for the world to consume. It's like talk radio chopped into tiny pieces then injected with steroids. Unfortunately the podcast movement hasn't really taken off like the juggernaut it appeared it was going to be. There are however a number of successes. I am a subscriber to several. My most beloved is Filmspotting. A weekly film review podcast of a Chicago Public Radio show. Its hosts are Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson. The Filmspotting format is to review 1-2 movies currently in theaters. There is then a contest called Massacre Theater in which the hosts recite lines from films and listeners email in to win a DVD. Then there is a recap of what DVD's came out that week, then a quick announcement of monetary contributors to the show. At this point they usually review a film that is part of a marathon they are having that listeners are encouraged to follow. Marathon topics have included the works of classic directors, silent movies, foreign films, etc. Then the show is closed out with a weekly Top 5. The Top 5 generally ties in with a topic that has been discussed on the show.

Top 5 lists. Filmspotting has them, so did High Fidelity. Another great romantic comedy, and a major influence on 500 Days of Summer. Generally I agree with the Filmspotting guys takes on movies, even when they don't agree with each other. That is to say that I know what they are saying, but sometimes they can be completely wrong. Sadly, that is the case with their review of this great film. 500 Days is a story about a boy that meets girl of his dreams. There is only one problem, she doesn't believe in love and doesn't want to be any one's "girlfriend". They do spark a relationship, but after some time she ends it. He becomes depressed. But wait! They have a chance meeting on a train. Right as he was starting to get over her and now it looks like there might be the possibility they can make it work. That is before she shatters his life in a twist that I didn't see coming at all. He is reduced to ashes. Scratch that. He is reduced to ashes, then the ashes are soaked in urine. He is reduced to a gray gelatinous urine soaked blob. But as things go he begins to pull himself out of yet another funk and maybe this time things might go his way.

I normally don't provide a synopsis of movies, but to explain the comments made on Filmspotting, I thought a basic understand of the plot would be helpful. Adam, sometimes referred to as "Art House Adam", his negative comments centered around the movie being cliche.

Overly cute in its self reflectivity....It's really everything and the kitchen sink. ~ Adam Kempenarr

Matty, or "Mainstream Matty Ballgame", complaints were about the film being unoriginal and having too many unnecessary moments.

Too much filler and fluff....This is Benson humor. ~ Matty Robinson

It should be said that both Adam and Matty thought the film was good, just not great. What I like about Filmspotting is that no matter weather they are providing positive or negative reviews, it is the thought and manner they put into their critiques that set them apart. They rarely come out and say a film is "good or not good". Generally they will provide explanations of what they thought did or didn't work and why. With 500 Days they go on to make brilliant insights like...

It all pays off in a scene later where you get some insight to the true nature of their relationship, and you realize the the entire relationship has been built on a charade of cinema... Tom has been projecting all his fantasizes from movies onto her. ~ Adam Kempenarr

This is a sharp observation and possibly the reason I was sucked into this movie like it was a jet engine. The first time I saw it I almost had a panic attack in the theater. The emotions that Tom, played pitch perfect by Joseph Gordon Levitt, were emitting were so familiar. I thought I had exhausted and repressed all of those memories from a very similar relationship with my own "manic-pixie-dream girl". I decided to wait a few weeks and see it again to make sure my opinion wasn't based on familiarity. I was rewarded upon a second viewing. I begin to see deeper into the film and realize the careful construction Marc Webb used in order to pull those emotions from his audience without manipulating them. Perhaps it is more honest to say that the entire relationship is a manipulation. One where the hints and clues of what to come are displayed right in front of the viewers face. Webb disperses this info like a romantic-comedy version of The Usual Suspects.

Zooey Deschanel manages her finest performance to date. A sharply crafted anti-hero. A woman strong and vulnerable, sharp, witty, fiercely independent and tender. She was tasked with delivering the line "What I was never sure of with you". Her vocalizing this line pushed her just slightly ahead of the Wicked Witch of the West on my Top 5 All Time Villains List. But if her character, Summer, called tonight I would drop what I'm doing and run to her. Being a movie nerd I see the world at 24 frames per second. I quote movie lines all day long, most of my references come from films to the point that I drive most of my friends crazy. I am Tom.

500 Days of Summer is a nonlinear movie about the 500 days of a relationship. It is a movie about wanting something so bad that you try to make it into something it's not. It is a movie about how movies, music, and pop culture can skew our take reality. Am I miserable because I listen to Filmspotting, or do I listen to Filmspotting because I am miserable?

Inglourious Basterds - Incorrectly Spelled on Purpose This Time

This was the weekend I have been waiting for all summer. It's fair to say that this is the weekend that I have been waiting on for the past 10 years. After seeing Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and reading everything I could about this revolutionary director I found out that he was scribing a Dirty Dozen-esque WWII movie. I was intrigued to say the least. Then after seeing how he could warp the blaxploitation genre with Jackie Brown, combine the Kung Fu and Spaghetti Western films with Kill Bill and make an homage to B movie slasher films with Death Proof I was salivating at the thought of his take on the war film.

So right off the bat I had huge expectations for his newest film Inglourious Basterds (IB). If you followed my blog this weekend you might have seen that in order to "beat the crowd" I slept in the cab of my truck in the theaters parking lot. I wanted to be the first one in the theater, and I wanted to get "my seat" (I love to sit in the center of a theater using the X,Y,and Z axis). I know that inflated expectations are a dangerous thing for a critic. After the Coen Brothers released the best film of the 00's, No Country For Old Men, I held the bar sky high for their next film Burn After Reading. I got burnt on that one.

While I was camping in my truck I took some time to read the reviews of IB. The two I want to focus on are Michael Sragow's from the Baltimore Sun, and Richard Corliss's of Time Magazine. Sragow has the film as a 38 on Metacritic. Corliss is a 100.

This is usually the point in the review where I point out the consistencies of the different reviewers and make my snide comments with anything I disagree with. Problem is these 2 critics have virtually nothing to compare. Sragow despised IB and really didn't have much if any positive things to say.

The only hope for "Inglourious Basterds" is that audiences will embrace it the way the Broadway crowd did "Springtime for Hitler": because it's so bad they think it's good. ~ Michael Sragow

I really can't comment too much on Mr. Sragow's review. I disagree with almost everything he has to say about the film. He refers to the movie as being "soporific", "killingly repetitive", "hollow and protracted".

Corliss however was quite gushing with his comments.

Tarantino shows how to achieve drama through whispers and forced smiles...the pot simmers, then the lid blows off it's the artful mix of subtlety and surprise. ~ Michael Corliss

My problem with this review is that I absolutely loved the movie, but I agree with Sragow on SOME of his criticisms, and I disagree with Corliss on some of the elements he enjoyed.

Sragow points out the the weakest element of IB is The Basterds themselves. This is true. Brad Pitt just doesn't have the chops to pull of a Tarantino anti-hero. He never gets beyond a cartoon characterization of Aldo Raine. The biggesst distraction in the movie has to be Eli Roth as a baseball wielding Jewish solider called "The Bear Jew". Roth directed "Pride of the Nation" A Nazi propaganda film that plays within IB, but his acting skills are nonexistent.

Corliss makes it a point that Tarantino fans will be let down by the absence of his cinematic footwork. He then mentions a few cut away scenes like a couple seconds of a German officer and his interpreter having sex, The cut away to explain one of the Basterds back story, and shots where high ranking Nazi's have there name scribbled over their heads with arrows pointing to them. These were some of the most pointless and frustrating elements of the movie to me. They didn't add anything to the story nor did they ever tie into anything. This was movie making masturbation.

Where Corliss got it right was in mentioning the female characters. Nobody writes better for women than Tarantino. The female leads were beautiful, cunning, and deadly. It is worth mentioning that this is a war movie without any battle scenes. There isn't a tank, bomber, or bunker to be seen. Mr Sragow believes this is because, in his opinion, Tarantino "couldn't stage a sweeping war scene". I believe it is because he is subverting the genre. He is using words as weapons. The tension in this movie doesn't come from the brutal acts being performed (don't worry,there are plenty of those to go around), it comes from the delicate delivery of lines sharper than any of the bastards scalping knives. The violence is mearly the payoff.

A few quick notes to finish out. 75% of this movie is n sub-titles, so if you are opposed to reading at the theater I might think twice before you buy your ticket. Also some other acting standouts beyond the female leads (Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger) are the Best Actor winner at Cannes, Christopher Waltz as "The Jew Hunter". My issue with him is that they tried to act some comedic elements to his persona that for me just fell flat. The male character that stood out the most for me was Dennis Menochet as a French dairy farmer that may be hiding Jew in his home. I hope he gets tons of work after his performance.

IB is far from over taking PF as my all-time favorite film, but it is a continuation in the career of America's bravest and boldest filmmaker working today. My only problem now is the IMDB doesn't have any new projects listed for Quentin Tarantino. Oh well, there is always another Coen Brother movie later this year. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Grindhouse was as awesome as I remembered it. The fake trailers provide the perfect pallet cleansing between features. What a weekend. I didn't get home until 6:00am this morning. I'm looking forward to a relaxing evening at home. Watching a Sam Fuller twofer on DVD!

T minus 2 hours till show time. I'm at a bar across the street from the theater enjoying the local hospitality.

Tonight I have made my way 2.5 hours east to catch a special midnight viewing of the original theatrical release of Grindhouse. I saw this movie 3 times on it's first release and can't wait to see it and all it's campy glory again.

I'm getting ready for my 3rd viewing. I thought I would mention the trailers that preview before the movie. Avatar: I hope it has a good story and it isn't just relying on CGI to get by. Halloween actually looks good. And Shutter Island looks fantastic!

I've just exited my 2rd viewing of IB. Having known the story I was able to focus more on the cinematography and camera work. Tarantino uses a camera the way a master seamstress uses a needle. It is a beautifully shot film.

Ok, I've managed to catch my breath. The second show is getting ready to start. A word of warning to those interested in seeing the film. There are more subtitles than English in the movie. So if you are opposed to reading while at the movies I suggest you pass on this. However you will miss out on the best picture of the year so far.

I just exited the first showing. I'm having trouble typing this. My hands won't stop shaking from rapture. I won't provide a full review until later. All I will say is that IB combines my 3 favorite things (in order) 1. Cinema 2. Fire 3. Beautiful Women.

15 minutes until the first showing. I am the only one in the theater. (I hate middle America). Speaking of hate, Michael Sragow of the Baltimore Sun has the only negitive review of IB on Metacritic. I just feel sorry for him.

That brings me up to the current time. An hour and a half before the first show. I am still the only car in the parking lot. I am listening to my Tarantino movie soundtrack playlist and reading each review of IB on Metacritic.

After an evening of sci-fi B movie fun I killed some time at a near by casino playing the penny slots. 3 hours and $5.75 later I returned to the theater and set up camp in my truck. I wanted to be the first in line in the morning.

It is easy to see why Plan 9 From Outer Space is considered the worst movie ever. But it is a campy riot when viewed along with it's fans. The theater was packed full of every type of geek, nerd, and social misfit you could imagine. Including myself, representing the film geeks.

Judging by the looks of my previous post the moblie bloging maybe harder than I thought. Sorry about the message being all broke up. Apparently I'm a little long winded. I will be updating today in several short bursts.

his blog before and after each showing. I will share my day and thoughts and opinions on the film.

First things first: I am currently in attendance fo

de my Friday and purchased tickets to all 4 showing on that day. I have traveled an hour south in order to view the film digitaly.

I will be updating t

orious Basterds. He has been retooling the script for over 10 years while his legions of fans wait patiently.

To celebrate this occasion I have set asi

the decade. In my eyes he hasn't made (directed)a clunker yet.

It doesn't look like he is about to start judging by the trailers for his new film Ingl

ing this blog all weekend long so check back often.

l theatrical release of the Tarantino/Rodriguez double feature Grindhouse. Including fake trailers, fake comercials, and missing reels.

I plan on updat

to close out this cinematic orgy, 2.5 hours west of my home town a theater refered to as The Baxter is having a special midnight screening of the origina

r a special showing of Ed Woods cult classic Plan 9 From Outer Space. The movie is often times refered to as "the worst movie ever made". As part of th

in order to see this film. I'm not crazy about the idea of driving home at night only to return a few short hours later for Inglorious Bastards.

Then

e special event the team from TV's Mystery Science Theater 3000 will be presenting the film.

I again had to travel to the theater south of my home town

My Bastard of a weekend.

I am an unapologetic Tarantino fanatic. Pulp Fiction is my all time favorite film. The Kill Bill films are among my top 10 of

The Hurt Locker - AKA Where I spent most of High School Gym Class

Everyone take a deep breath. There are 2 new hosts of the ABC program At the Movies. The Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert show best known for the reviews being summed up with a simple "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down". Once Siskel passed away, Ebert shifted through a catalog of replacements. That was until Richard Roper signed on. They worked together until Ebert's long time battle with cancer caused him to loose the use of his voice. Roper continued on with again a series of replacements. Roper finially decided not to renew his contract and At the Movies was on its last leg. It was being hosted by Ben Lyons and Ben Maniewicz. Together they mustered all the personality and verb of a bowl of pudding.

Well I am proud to announce that ABC has found replacements for Ben and Ben. AO Scott from the New York Times and Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune. Both co-hosted At the movies during the intermittent periods. Both are two of my favorite critics. I am finally excited to get up early on a Sunday morning (early for me) and enjoy one of my childhoods greatest pleasures.

So I decided that in honor of these two great film critics, I would rip apart one of their reviews. I also decided to challenge myself by picking a movie that overall, the three of us agreed on. Catherine Bigelow's The Hurt Locker.

The Hurt Locker is a wonderful film brimming with a pitch perfect ensemble cast. Its "star" is Jeremy Renner. However to call him the star is really to overlook the supporting cast that basically shares almost every scene with him. This cast is made up of Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pierce, and in a great but condensed role Evangeline Lilly. The Hurt Locker is the story of the final 30 active days of a bomb squad unit in Iraq. Their Leader (Renner) is somewhat of a adrenaline junkie/renegade.

In Michael Phillips review of the film he spends a great deal of ink comparing this Bigelow film to one of her previous films, Point Break. There is a comparison to be made between the two thrill seaking leads, but the similarities end there. Point Break is great for its camp value and that is about it. The Hurt Locker works on almost every level.

An adrenaline junkie no less strung out than the "Point Break" thrill-seekers, James (Renner) is spectacularly skillful. ~ Michael Phillips

AO makes a much better comparison to Renner's character in my opinion.

Jeremy Renner recalls Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now. Both men have seen and survived so much that they project a dangerous aura of invincibility. ~ AO Scott

AO goes on to point out another breath of fresh air for war films. It's lack of structure. This is truly a slice-of-life picture. It just happens to be the life of some extraordinary people. From the very first frame until about 15 minutes you are dropped right in the middle of the desert. Then the final 15 minutes is a cota that not only works, but I can't think of a better way to end such a powerful picture.

The Hurt Locker is shot in a cinema verite, hand held style. But not the Colverfield/Blair Witch style. The camera actually works to make this a very personal film. Something a lot of DP's and directors attempt. Most with little success.

What neither critic spends a lot of time on is that The Hurt Locker is the least political war movie I have ever scene. It has no spin what so ever. You are never asked to judge the characters actions. It forces you to place yourself in their shoes. I love the portrayal of the natives in this film. They are not "evil terrorists", nor are they "bumbling comedic plot points" . They are people and the truth is you never know who is on your side or not, regardless of birth place.

The one thing you can count on is AO and Michael making At the Movies relevant again.

Funny People - Send in the Clowns

My intent on this blog is to review the critiques of some of Americas top film critics on the popular movies in theaters now. In doing so I hope to express my own thoughts and opinions on the films. This is an ambitious venture for me. I am not classically trained as a writer nor have I ever been to film school. I am home schooled so to speak. I figure if I am going to do this I should start at the top of the food chain for critics. EBERT! The Holy Grail of criticism. My respect for him and his dedication to cinema can not be expressed in words. At least I am not able to express it, I'm sure Ebert could pen my thoughts and feeling over breakfast. On the other end of the movie review spectrum is Lisa Schwarzbaum. It should be said that I do have respect for her work. I simply tend to disagree on her reads on films.

Imagine my surprise when in researching the reviews for Judd Apatow's new film Funny People that I was more on the Schwarzbaum side of the fence. Her beef with the film seems to be centered around 2 issues. First, the films takes its self too seriously. It is neither comedy nor tragedy but an unsuccessful mis-mash of both. Second, ugly characters make for ugly movies. There are not many warm fuzzy moments in Funny People. Most of the roles are apologetically jerks. It is hard to root for anyone in this film. The issue we agree on the most is the running time. She writes:

Judd Apatow's furiously anguished — and,
 at 145 unshaped minutes, quantifiable endless — tragi-comedy about a sad showbiz clown and his ilk.

This film needed an editor. It ran close to an hour over where it needed to. The third act drags it feet and like Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan at the home of Leslie Mann it over stays its welcome.

Ebert had a generally favorable review of the movie. He thought it was sensitive material that was handled with care and honesty. A trend that is quickly becoming an Apatow trademark. Ebert even went as far as to say that it had "Adam Sandlers best performance."
The thing about "Funny People" is that it's a real movie. That means carefully written dialogue and carefully placed supporting performances.

Where Ebert missed that mark is with his remark:

George Simmons (Adam Sandler) learns and changes during his ordeal, and we empathize.

The problem is Simmons never learns his lesson. He is a jerk at the beginning of the movie, he holds tight to his nasty disposition through out the film, and if it wasn't for a throw away moment in the final moments of the movie he is a prick to the end.

There were elements of both reviews that held true to my expectations. Ebert gave a lot of credit to the supporting cast. I thought that Seth Rogans buddies (Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill) and his love interest (Aubrey Plaza) were brilliant and the best parts of the film. Where Miss Schwarzbaum enjoyed the performances of Sandlers former lover (Leslie Mann) and her husband (Eric Bana). They completely took me out of any reality that the film had created. They were the worst element of the picture.

To wrap things up I found Funny People to be one of the funniest 90 minutes of film I have seen this year. Unfortunately there was still another 50 minutes to fill with a dull, uninspired, sit-comesque story line. Apatow has set the bar high for himself and is redefining the romantic comedy genre. My final comment is in regards to Sandlers doctor played by Torsten Voges. He is getting a lot of attention for his performance. I found it to be adequate, but it made me long for the comedic styling of Sydney Pollack. A man who could have taken this under written part and earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

3.5 / 5 Stars

First Blog

Welcome. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I thought I would start a blog to comment on movies and share my opinions. Then I did a little research and found that the internet is not in need of any more opinions. There are opinions galore out there. Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, IMDB, MetaCritic, Flixter, Facebook, and countless other blogs.

So I started thinking about how I could set myself apart from the masses. What fresh angle could I come up with. A clever name wasn't going to be enough. In depth, concise, educated reviews of films would still keep me in the herd.

I started reading movie reviews and critiques about the time the internet began going into peoples homes. I found a few critics who seemed to have similar sensibilities as mine. I also found a few that were my polar opposites. I enjoyed reading both. Trusting in those with my taste and getting a laugh out of those whom I disagreed.

THAT'S IT!!! I decided not to review the movies but instead review the reviews! Critique the critiques. I decided to share my thought and opinions with the masses about both the critics I generally agree with as well as those I don't.

First obstical I ran into; not everyone reviews the same movies every week. Then came the problem that I live in a smaller comunity. A lot of the lower budget/independent pictures don't come within a 2 hour drive of my home. Then there was the issue of seeing all the movies (my favorite part). But what is going to make this blog a pain in the arse is that I have to read 10 reviews for each film I critique, then write a brief snyopsis for each. Also I am a slow typer and even worse speller.

We will see how this goes. I may have to make some format changes in the future but for now, thank you for visiting and wish me luck. Also make sure you vote in the poll. I will be updating it weekly.

Walktheearth