VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Source Code (2011)

4/5 stars, 8/10 from both of us.
Native rating: 3.7/5 stars (Netflix’s guess for us=4.4!), 7.5/10.

From the director of Moon (which is better than this film), this movie is basically a “poor man’s 12 Monkeys”.

It was interesting.  Not much happened, but interest was held.

It was a unique way of looking at time travel.

But I just can’t help but think of it as being derivative of 12 Monkeys, which pulled it off much better. I don’t mind derivative works, but this just wasn’t as brilliant as 12 Monkeys.
Still as good as any blockbuster movie, though.

A lot of people have problems with the ending scenes (after the kiss).
I don’t.
They are hard to understand, and I had to read about them on the forums to fully grasp it myself, but everything actually makes sense, and the critics of the final scenes are largely divided between those who get angry when they don’t understand something right away, and film snobs who hate happy endings and assume they are tacked on by film executives mucking with the plot.
Reading the complaints of those people is frustrating!

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0945513/

VIDEO: REVIEW: MOVIE: Micmacs (2009)

Clint: 3.8/5 stars (which is the exact Netflix average AND it’s recommendation for us), 7.4/10 (a high 7–IMDB gives this 7.2/10).

Carolyn: 4/5 stars, 8/10.

I like Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie), but I definitely prefered him more back when he is collaborating with Marc Caro, who made his movies dark fairy tales (City Of Lost Children) or black comedies (Delicatessan) instead of whimsical comedies (Amelie).

He’s too whimsical now.

Jeunet has amazing directorial skills, yet I am starting to get tired of his Rube-Goldberg devices that he seems to want to use in every movie.

That being said… By virtue of receiving 4 stars, this movie is about 50th percentile for us.

We really liked it, but I liked it slightly less than most movies I really like.

It certainly LOOKS better than most movies, and is way more interesting than most movies.

We also found some similarities between this, and the new comedy Wanderlust (2012)

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149361/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Spy Kids 1 (2001) – Machete’s first appearance

2.8/5 stars, 5.8/10 from both of us.
Native ratings: 3.4/5 (Netflix guess for us=3.2/5), 5.5/10 IMDB.

This could have been better, but some of it was waaaaayyyyy too convenient at times.

Still worth it to see the first film appearance of Machete, who was a character in the Spy Kids movie before he had his own movie.

Also cool to see Cheech Marin.

But yeah. Even with low expectations, this was a slight disappointment. It was still entertaining and enjoyable, just not very much.

I mean, it’s the same director as Sin City, Planet Terror, and The Faculty. Robert Rodriguez apparently has a decent range for directing different kinds of movies.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0227538/

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Goon (2011)

3/5 stars, 7/10 from both of us.

Native ratings: 3.7/5 (Netflix guess for us=3.6/5), 7.0/10.

So for once, we rated lower than average. Probably because we despise sports. Yet, this was a quite serviceable sports comedy, and I have no regrets watching it. We laughed. And apparently it’s a “true” story, albeit turned into a comedy. A bloody, bloody comedy.

However, the ONLY reason I convinced myself to watch this was that it was co-written by a  writer who worked on Pineapple Express, Superbad, Da Ali G Show, and The Green Hornet. And the other co-writer? Jay Barchel, the gangly kid from Undeclared, Knocked Up, Tropic Thunder, Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Fanboys, & The Rules Of Attraction.

Actores include Seann William Scott (Stifler from American Pie) — who seemed to be breaking his previous acting range, playing a soft-spoken, humble character, instead of a full-of-himself asshole. His acting was actually a treat. Also with Alison Pill (Kim Pine from Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World), Liev Schrieber (Sabretooth from the X-Men movies, Cotton Weary from Scream 1-3), and Eugene Levy.

Yea, this was an enjoyable sports comedy. And most people seemed to like it even more than we did.

“Two rules, man: 1) Stay away from my fuckin’ percocets; and 2) Do you have any fucking percocets, man?”

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456635/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: John Carter (2012)

Clint/Carolyn: 5/5 stars, 9/10. Clint is considering upgrading to 10/10.
Native ratings: 3.8/5 stars (Netflix’s better guess for us=4.3), 6.9/10.

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs books, this movie entered development in 1931, and was almost the first animated movie in America. But things got held up for (puts pinky to corner of mouth) ***79 YEARS***. It finally left development-hell in 2010, and they’re already working on a sequel.

I’m glad once the studios finally move (a literal lifetime later), that they are rushing to do as many of these as possible.

BECAUSE THIS WAS EXCELLENT!!!!!!

Would have been nice to see in 3-D, but completely unnecessary. It is a great story, and a long movie that properly fleshes out characters and plots. I’m not going to go into too much detail, but simply: Science fiction done right, with an epic story and an epic budget. I’m still trying to figure out if I should really be rating this movie 10/10, because there’s not really any flaw.

(BTW, You may recognize the main couple in this movie as Gambit and Silverfox from X-Men Origins.)

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Event 16 (2006)

New Zealand low-budget time travel movie not available on Netflix.

Got a 3.6/10 on IMDB, but Clint gave it 6/10 and Carolyn gave it 7/10.
We both rated it only 3 stars, but then later Clint changed it to 2.8/3 stars after seeing its rating in comparison to other 3/5 star movies and realizing this is a worse movie.

The effects were super-cheesy — like someone just did it all on their computer. And the story was confusing. David Lynch-level confusing by the end, with characters actually being other characters. And since  it wasn’t directed well enough, I didn’t even understand which characters were becoming which other characters. It was just hard to follow. And the New Zealand accents sounded really bad.

But the story was still kind of interesting, and we are such huge time travel fans that we sought out and found this movie despite its rarity and low rating.

It was still enjoyable.

Just not really GOOD.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831289/#comment

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Ginger Snaps 3 aka Ginger Snaps 0 aka Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.  (Again deferring to Carolyn’s rating.)
Carolyn: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.3/5 stars Netflix, 5.8/10 IMDB.

Not as good as the first one, but on par with the second one.  This was set in the 19th century.  The IMDB trivia says that the second and third movies were shot back-to-back.

Carolyn thinks she liked the third one ever so slightly better than the second one, though she rated both identically. I am unsure, myself.

This movie sacrifices the opportunity to continue moving the original story further forward, and that is a major points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 2.

But by making it a prequel about 2 girls who just so happen to be the EXACT SAME 2 girls (but in the 1800s), they created an opportunity for Ginger to return as a lead character. This brought back a lot of the chemistry and sisterly character interaction that Ginger Snaps 1 had, but that Ginger Snaps 2 lacked.  So that is major points for.

However, they aren’t in high school… Or even modern american culture as we know it. The unique aspects of the original characters don’t shine in the same light when held to a completely different time and culture, and that is points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 1.

In the end, it’s kind of a wash. This movie is good in ways Ginger Snaps 2 wasn’t, and Ginger Snaps 2 was bad in ways this movie wasn’t. They were filmed at the same time too, so there’s no discrepancy in production or acting. So it’s just another sequel that’s really a prequel.

While I would recommend that 100% of people who liked Ginger Snaps 1 *MUST* watch Ginger Snaps 2…….. This movie is not required viewing. However, it does feel more like Ginger Snaps 1 than Ginger Snaps 2 did, so you still might want to watch it if you were a fan.

Directed by Grant Harvey.

Written by Christina Ray & Stephen Massicotte.

The 2 main characters of course remain:

Emily Perkins (Juno, Insomnia, 35 eps of Da Vinci’s Inquest, 26 eps of Hiccups, 3 eps of Supernatural) as Brigitte.
Katharine Isabelle (Freddy Vs. Jason, 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days, Insomnia, Titanic, 1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of The L Word) as Ginger.

But also, from Ginger Snaps 2:

Brendan Fletcher (1 ep of Smallville) as Finn. He played Jeremy, the librarian in the second movie… Gracious of them to let him return.

The rest were new faces:

Nathaniel Arcand as The Hunter.
JR Bourne (1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of 24) as James, the douchebag.
Hugh Dillon (Trailer Park Boys: The Movie) as Reverend Gilbert.
Adrien Dorval (Twilight 2, Chronicles Of Riddick, 1 ep of The L Word) as Seamus.
Tom McCamus (Siblings, 2 eps of Friday The 13th: The Series, 1 ep of Puppets Who Kill) as Wallace Rowlands, the leader of the fort.
Matthew Walker (The Wicker Man, 1 ep of Smallville) as Doc Murphy, the doctor.
David MacInnis (1 ep of Smallville) as Cormac.

They sure seem to use a lot of Smallville people…

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365265/combined

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 905 other followers