I know that I haven’t exactly been that reliable in regards to posting on this site. But I got to this point a few weeks ago where I was in a trap. The longer I went without a post, the less timely an article would be. And I also felt that if I went this long without writing, that once I finally did, I needed to write something more epic than a single review. So each week became harder than the previous one to go through with a post.
However, recently I realized that over my dull summer I have been to the movies more often than I have in a single year throughout my entire life. Since the start of the summer movie season (which is considered the beginning of May) until this point, I have seen 17 movies in theaters. Considering that I have already written extensive articles for two of these films, I thought that I can write an article which would compile impressions from the 15 other ones. Why not? It’s a relatively round number.
The films will be listed in the chronological order of when they were released in theaters. I’ll try to keep each review relatively short. Which, I know that considering the lengths of the previous articles, isn’t really saying much.
One more thing. I know that my posts so far haven’t exactly lived up to the description left in my first article, where I said that this site would focus on more than movies. And I know that considering everything so far has basically been “just reviews”, that this website has not been living up to its namesake. This will change soon. I plan on posting reviews of games as well as personal impressions that I’ve gotten from things I’ve witnessed throughout the many forms of media soon enough.
Star Trek
This is most certainly the best traditional summer popcorn action blockbuster of the year. If I may be more specific than that, it is probably one of the best movies of the year period. As someone who has not followed the Star Trek canon, this film allowed me to break into the series without feeling lost. And while hardcore Star Trek nerds(one specific individual comes to my mind) may lament the loss of the philosophical debates that were present in the original series, even die-hard fans have to appreciate the many references this film made to the previous movies and shows. Outside of the Star Trek aspect, this is just a fun movie to watch on the big screen and featured some of the best visual effects I have ever seen.
Terminator Salvation
My familiarity with the Terminator series is fairly scattered. I grew up watching pieces of Judgment Day (although I can't recall seeing the movie start to finish), saw the original Terminator a few years ago, and never saw the apparently atrocious third film. So I figure that I fall within an unbiased line of being able to recognize references to the previous films, without being obsessed enough with the previous movies where my judgment will be slanted. That being said, the most memorable thing about this movie is the recording of Christian "You're a Nice Guy" Bale flipping out (NSFW) during its production.
Salvation is not an awful film. The action's pretty decent and there is a fair amount of variety of evil robots for the protagonists to shoot at. There's just barely anything substantial about the film. Towards the end of the movie, the puzzle pieces begin to fall into place in regards to the spot this movie holds in the overall plot of the franchise. But I just didn't care. See it if you want to see an action movie, but don't see it if you expect to see a Terminator film that in any way advances the storylines told in the previous three movies.
Up
The first half-hour of Up (including the always great short-film that precedes every Pixar film), was perhaps the best half-hour out of any movie I've seen so far this year. There is a montage showing how 78-year-old Carl became 78-year-old Carl. It is very powerful and I probably have never been so moved by an animated scene since I was a little kid. Pixar showed once again that they can present a single scene in a way which can be interpreted differently by parents than by their children.
Unfortunately, once the main story kicks in, Up resorts to typical animated film clichés. Although I appreciate that the filmmakers didn't feel it was necessary to have celebrity voices in order to sell Up, once the movie introduced the talking dog (the worst animated cliché of all), the story turned into a better-than-average animated adventure movie. Perhaps my standards are too high, but after the films they've produced this decade, I expect much-better-than-average storytelling from Pixar.
Drag Me to Hell
Visualize this scene: An employee is talking to a customer in a quiet bank when all of a sudden the employee begins to have a bloody nose. But this isn't it a typical bloody nose. It's a projectile and it keeps on squirting all over the customer, the floor, and anybody that crosses its path. It seems to go on and on, until the place is soaked.
Now, if you thought that previous visualization was disgusting, do not see Drag Me to Hell. However, if you thought that was freakin' hilarious in a cheesy, campy sort of way, do see Drag Me to Hell. Because that is exactly what happens in one scene, and if you have that sort of sense of humor (as I do), you will definitely enjoy this flick.
The Hangover
There is no doubt that The Hangover is the surprise hit of the year. Starring only moderately recognizable actors, it has grossed over $273 million to become the fourth-highest grossing movie of the year. Not bad for an R-rated comedy. But is it really that good? In short, no.
In long, it is certainly better than the majority of the non-Apatow high grossing "party guy" comedies, such as Wedding Crashers, American Pie, and Old School. But I don't really know how much that's saying.
I certainly laughed a lot during The Hangover, especially at the beginning and end. But the middle act basically descended into the main characters getting beat up by everybody they run into. Funny for a while, but there is a point where you're just waiting for the movie to move along. That being said I was never a big fan of the "getting hit in the testicles" type humor, so I can see how this can become a classic amongst the frat kids.
Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen
This is the highest grossing movie of the year, and the 9th film of all time to make $400 million domestically, yet it is the worst movie I have seen this year. How is that possible? Are guys seeing it for Megan Fox and are girls seeing it for Shia LaBeouf?
I mean it's a PG-13 movie; I don't how much people expected to see. Are nerds the ones seeing it? Certainly they couldn't have liked Michael Bay's first effort.
I get it. It's robots fighting other robots. No one expects it to be Citizen Kane. If only it was a simple as that. For some reason, summer blockbusters are supposed to provide a plot now in addition to their mandatory quota of things blowing up. So now we're stuck with an awful story stretching for two and a half hours.
I actually saw this movie for free. What's your excuse? It wouldn't bother me so much that this movie made so much money, if it didn't mean that films like this prevent theaters from showing much better movies that make 3% of Transformers gross, such as The Hurt Locker. Things like this and the birther movement make me hate my country.
Public Enemies
Although the only other Michael Mann film that I have seen is Collateral, I have been told that he has a certain style to his gunfights. While I cannot compare this movie to his others, such as Heat, this filmmaking technique does seem to hold true for Public Enemies. Some of the shootouts and bank robbery scenes play out very well. Chicago in the 1920's seems like what Mann has been looking for, but I wonder if this is a fair biopic of Dillenger himself.
Of course, it wasn't designed to be. Well, not completely. When the film starts, notorious gangster John Dillenger has already done a significant amount of time in prison. The movie is clearly not designed to be a full biography. However, you would think that during the time period in which the film is taking place the audience would learn to identify with the main characters.
Public Enemies features Dillenger escaping, being on the run, committing a crime, and getting caught. I'm sure that this is exactly what Dillenger did in real life. But this rinse and repeat cycle that the film goes through prevents the audience from being critical or sympathetic of Dillenger. Most importantly, it stops us from caring about the character at all.
(500) Days of Summer
In a voice-over during the beginning of (500) Days of Summer, the protagonist (who's name is Tom) threatens the audience by saying that we shouldn't dare call this movie a love story. That's BS. Not matter how it ends up, a story that focuses on love is a love story. And the film has comedic elements in at as well. So please forgive me if I have the audacity to refer to this movie as a 
romantic comedy from this point forth.
I enjoyed (500) Days of Summer, but probably not for the same reason that many people love it and hate it. I didn't care about the indie soundtrack, or the laid-back attitude or fashion of Tom, Summer, or the other characters. I didn't like (500) Days of Summer because of it's trendiness. I liked it because it was a romantic comedy that didn't actually suck.
So many romantic comedies nowadays focus solely on the romance. I would have less of a problem with a lot of these chick flicks if people stopped telling me that there were jokes in them. Now, (500) Days doesn't focus on comedy as much as an Apatow love story, but I did chuckle a few times. And for a romantic comedy, that's saying a lot.
Funny People
Speaking of Apatow, Judd Apatow is not only the most prominent public figure to share my first name, but also probably the most important contributor to the funniest films of this past decade. It's hard to believe that considering the movies he's had his name attached to (Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Pineapple Express) that Funny People is only the third movie he's directed (after The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up).
Needless to say, I had my hopes up for Funny People. However, before I saw it, reviews started coming in and they weren't that positive. But after seeing it I can safely say that, aside from maybe Bruno, Funny People is the funniest movie of the year. When you think about it, because it's a film about comedians, the plot in itself is the perfect set-up for all the punch lines. There's nobody comedians like to mock more than themselves, and it doesn't take a genius to notice a long history of self-loathing among those whose occupation is to make us feel better about ourselves.
Obviously, this comes out in Funny People. Adam Sandler's character is not only bitter, but he's an ass too. And it's something I didn't mind. However, despite the fact that Funny People does live up to its name, because of its nearly two and a half hour length, it hits the quota for one of the funniest movies of the year after the first hour. Unfortunately, the part where Funny People stops being morose is the part where I stopped laughing. Sandler's character tries to change himself and I didn't care. The public doesn't want to see comedians be happy. Humor comes from people trying to push tragedy away from their minds, not from changing or learning how to cope with it.
In a sense though, the biggest thing Apatow exposed about comedians in this movie may have been unintentional. The worst parts of this movie may have said the most about what it means to be a funny person. The flaw with Funny People is the flaw with the characters inside of them. Just like the characters can never be happy and funny, neither can the film.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
G.I. Joe would earn the distinction of being the worst movie I've seen this summer if it weren't for Transformers. This movie is saved from being worse than Tranformers by understanding that if you're going to make a dumb movie with a plot which only exists to provide excuses for explosions; it does not need to last for two and a half hours. It's still almost two hours long though.
(side rant)
Seriously, Hollywood. When did you guys get this idea that longer is better? Did Peter Jackson put you up to this? Whatever happened to the skill of editing? Whatever happened to the idea that what a story doesn't say is just as important as what it does say? Why do the Pirates of the Caribbean movies need to be nearly three hours long? It's freakin' Johnny Depp as a pirate fighting zombies. I can appreciate a dumb, silly movie; just don't think you can give it a legitimate story at the same time.
(end rant)
Anyway, as far as G.I. Joe is concerned, there is enjoyment to be had from watching it if you look at it as though it is a comedy as I did.
Ponyo
I was considering writing this grand, sweeping essay, describing how the story of the world being flooded is allegorical of the art style washing away the necessity for a coherent plot. But that's not necessary.
This is all you need to know: If you've never heard of Hayao Miyazaki, this is not the first film of his which you're going to want to see. If you haven't liked his previous work, you're not going to like Ponyo. And if you are a Miyazaki fan, you've already either seen Ponyo or plan on seeing it no matter what I say.
And that's all I have to say about that.
District 9
The trailers for District 9 did not indicate in any way that it would focus on one man (*minor spoiler*well after a certain point he isn't exactly just a man*end spoiler*). But why would it indicate that? You can barely tell anything about District 9 from the trailers. While I'm not a fan of trailers that spoil large chunks of the film (like Funny People) I'm getting kind of sick of this Cloverfield secretive marketing style. Same thing with these Alternate Reality Games. You're not building suspense. You're just pissing me off.
Well, anyway this man's name is something really long and South African, which I don't feel like writing down. Oh yea, the South Africa thing. This is a movie that is made by a South African, was filmed there and takes place there. If you know anything about South African history over the last 50 years, the references to apartheid are quite obvious. Maybe before talking about the film's trailers I should've mentioned the fact that this movie is about aliens living on Earth who barely have any rights.
Okay, so here's the deal. Aliens landed in Johannesburg decades ago and have been held in an area known as District 9 to keep them away from the humans. The man with the long South African name is put in charge of relocating them again. Something goes horribly wrong and he uncovers a grand conspiracy regarding what the government is doing to these aliens.
None of this is surprising, but the film never really explains that much. Is it trying to purposely be ambiguous or is there just too much possible back story for one film? Will they make a sequel? I hope not. While the action is very entertaining, involving tons of alien and human guts splattering, there's really not much to be said about the plot. The apartheid theme runs dry soon and I for one am sick of shaky-cam films.
Inglorious Basterds
I don't care how much of a cliché it is for a twentysomething male suburbanite to say, but I love the movies of Quentin Tarantino. And not just the films he's directed. The movies he's written, his segment in Four Rooms and Sin City, and even his annoying acting. His style is so iconic, that it would be hard to prove that there has been a more important filmmaker over the last 20 years.
Sadly, my biggest problem with Inglorious Basterds is its Tarantino-isms. That's not to say that it's not one of the best films I've seen this year. But Inglorious Basterds is not a movie about eight hitman who sit around in a diner discussing tipping etiquette, nor is it about two hitman who discuss if foot fetishes are platonic. Inglorious Basterds is a WWII movie and in some parts even a Holocaust film.
There are some incredibly tense moments in this film. However, anytime Tarantino has something stylish (whether it's a weird font to introduce characters, Samuel L. Jackson voice overs, or a score that seems to come in at odd times), it just feels out of place. Some may argue that this film is just as tongue-in-cheek as his others. That especially considering the movie's climax, no sane person could take Inglorious Basterds seriously. But that just detracts from the powerful moments in the film, such as the scenes involving the excellent Christoph Waltz who plays "The Jew Hunter".
Also, Tarantino needs to learn to cut down on the length of some of his scenes. While the dialogue is excellent as always, there is at least an hour of this film which is composed of person A lying to person B, with person B knowing that person A is lying but letting it go on anyway.
Taking Woodstock
Taking Woodstock isn't about the music...man. It's a coming-of-age film, and even though many of the moments in the film are fairly corny, Ang Lee put together the feel(or at least what I imagine the feel was) fairly well. Demetri Martin does a great job in his first major role as the protagonist Elliot, a man in his 20's who can't seem to break free from his parent's home in upstate New York. 
There's no way Martin's performance will get any nominations, but his general timidness is something rarely seen among actors, let alone comedians.
Elliot is in charge of his town's Chamber of Commerce and helps bring the festival to Bethel, New York, which is nearly two hours away from the town of Woodstock. He never gets down to see the actual festival, but he does have some stereotypical moments seen in hippie films, such as an LCD trip which helps Elliot discover himself...yada, yada, yada.
Ok, this film does subscribe to many conventions. But I do believe it's done in a well way and is worth seeing as a small film against an epic backdrop. That being said, it is sort of ridiculous when movies are too referential to their time, or rather to how we would look at their time.
For example, there is a point in the film where Eugene Levy talks about how he saw someone pay $1 for a bottle of water. The concept of someone paying for water is laughable to him. Har, har. But the worst part is at the end of the festival when a major character tells Elliot about this big festival they're going to have in California starring The Rolling Stones. Filmmakers, please stop doing that. Does this generation constantly make references to how great it is to not be ruled by an army of giant robots? Wait...I didn't say anything.
Extract
The trailers for Extract clearly stretched that it was written and directed by the same person that brought us the cult classic Office Space. So even though the fairest thing would be to judge this film on its own merits, you can't blame me for doing what the marketing team wanted me to do. Jason Bateman, just like Ron Livingston before him, plays a man who hates his life at work and hates his life at home. However, as opposed to Livingston's character, Bateman's character doesn't really do anything about it on his own. He is, however, persuaded to do something under intoxication. This is thanks to his best friend/bartender/drug dealer, who is played by Ben Affleck.
Things go down and there were enough laughs to qualify this film as rental worthy. However, as I'm writing this review-despite it being the most recent film that I have seen in theaters-I cannot recall many events that happened in the movie or my major thoughts about it. Bateman's neighbor plays a character that is exactly the same as Lumbergh in Office Space, and Mila Kunis's character (while hot as always) does not really add anything to the plot nor is her character ever really explained.
Judge likes to tell ordinary stories. And many of them are successful. I think it depends on if that ordinary story describes your ordinary life. I have no idea how King of the Hill lasted 13 seasons, but maybe it's the most popular show amongst propane salesmen in Texas. And although for some reason I can relate to the white-collar life in Office Space, I couldn't do the same for the blue-collar Extract.
