Review: ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ – It really is as bad as you’ve heard

I had no desire to see Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen. But my fiancee wanted to see it, so I knew I would eventually be dragged to the multiplex to waste my money and time on it. I didn’t really care for the first film–had it been an hour and a half of robots fighting, I would have been satiated. But no. They had to add characters and story (uninteresting ones, at that).

I usually don’t read reviews beforehand of movies I know I’m going to see (especially if I will review them), but because I didn’t think Transformers 2 would be worth writing about, I thumbed through some reviews to see how it fared. Here are a few quotes I found from some professional critics:

“This is so bad it’s immoral.”

“This celluloid abortion should be buried in a vault and shown to film students as an example of big Hollywood at its worst.”

“Not to damn it with faint praise, but ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ is a flaming pile of poo.”

Now, I’m not big fan of immorality, abortions or flaming poo, but my curiosity was piqued. How could a movie–one that will probably make $300 million before summer is through–cause such a vitriolic response? (When I told my fiancee of the bad reviews, she changed her mind. So now I’m the one to blame for going to see it.)

Sometimes I like a truly awful movie, like Catwoman, a film so bad you constantly say to yourself, “there is no way that this movie could get any worse,” and then it does. A truly awful movie is like watching a train wreck or one of those medical oddity shows on TLC: you’re fascinated even though you shouldn’t watch. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is much like Catwoman in that it is gloriously awful; a shining pillar of when movies are used for evil. However, unlike Catwoman, this movie. Never. Ends.

What’s it about? The Autobots (the good robots) now work with a secret military organization called NEST, which seeks out Decepticons (the bad robots) that have been in hiding because…I don’t remember. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBouf) is heading off to college out East but leaving his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox, a.k.a. the most robotic thing in this movie) back in California because…ah, who cares. All you need to know is that robots fight in between scenes of extremely tedious plotting.

What’s good about it? This movie does, in fact, have more robots fighting, which for someone like me who felt he was short-changed by the first film, is kind of a good thing. But the fight sequences are so CG-heavy and edited so rapidly, you’ll have a hard time fully seeing what’s going on.

Is the film an immoral flaming poo abortion? No. But it’s close.

What’s bad about it? Plenty. Everything you’ve already read or heard from your friends about the movie is true.

What I was most surprised by was the stale direction from Michael Bay. He’s made his career out of directing big, loud movies where things blow up (The Rock, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, the first Transformers–and the under-seen The Island, which I actually liked), but now his trademark style (slow motion explosions, swooping aerials, dizzying shots of people mostly talking, music video-worthy moments of people having special time) feels…old. And with a running time of 150 minutes, Bay really tests the audience’s interest level. Most well-known directors branch out and push themselves after a few films because they know they’ve either proven themselves creatively or box-office wise (Scorcese is the former, Bay is the latter, Spielberg is both). Bay seems bored with his own film this time around. I personally would love to see what he would do with a character-driven comedy-drama or a straight-up kid’s film. Even if they sucked I would have more respect for him simply for the fact he’s trying.

Perfect for: pubescent boys. Everyone else will regret their choice. If you want the most ideal way to watch this movie (even though you shouldn’t), wait for it on DVD. That way you can pause to see what’s actually going on in the fight scenes and you can fast forward the extremely boring everything else.

I’m so two-dimentional.

Since the new digital 3-D technology emerged a few years ago, I’ve seen the following films in 3-D: Monster House, Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, U23D, Coraline, Madea Goes to Jail (just kidding), and, most recently, Monsters vs. Aliens.  I think it’s fair to say that I’ve become somewhat familiar with this new way to see movies.  And now I’ve made up my mind: I don’t really like it.

Granted, the technology is better than the old school 3-D technology (2003’s Spy Kids 3-D gave me a migrane).  If you haven’t been to a digital 3-D movie yet, you’ll notice the glasses are different.  Gone are the red and blue lenses.  Other glasses–like the ones used in some IMAX theaters, require you to look directly at the screen without tilting your head.  If you move your noggin ever so slightly, the image goes all skiwampis and gives you a headache.  The glasses used for digital 3-D films allow you to lean, tilt and jostle your head to your heart’s content.

But if you ask me, that’s the only plus about these new 3-D movies.  Here are my beefs with them:

1) They cost more to see. If you have a hard time coping with the ever-increasing cost of seeing a movie in a first-run theater, you’ll have a full-blown conniption when you find out you’ll have to pay an extra two to three dollars for seeing a 3-D feature.  Outside the auditorium you’ll see bins with signs on them politely asking you to recycle your 3-D glasses when the show is over.  You know what I say to that?  HELL NO!  If I’m going to pay extra money to see a 3-D feature, you can bet your sweet bippie that I’m keeping the specs.  (I use them as props when I perform improv comedy.)

2) Your eyes adjust after five minutes.  After the initial ooh-ahh-ing of seeing images in 3-D, your eyes get used to the images.  So basically you pay more money to forget you’re seeing a movie in 3-D.

3) Everybody’s doing it.  Jim Cameron, director of Titanic, is working away on his new film, Avatar, which apparently will be meant to be seen in 3-D.  Steven Spielberg is shooting Tintin using the technology.  And Disney recently announced that Toy Story 1 and 2 will be re-released as a double feature this fall in–you guessed it–3-D.  Also expect Beauty and the Beast to return to theaters in 3-D as well.  Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of DreamWorks Animation, even said (and I quote): “Someday, people will buy their own movie glasses, which they’ll take to the movies–like people have their own tennis rackets.” (You can read about Cameron, Spielberg and Katzenberg’s enthusiasm for 3-D right here.)

Whaaaat?  Is he serious?  Do you really want to see Julia Robert’s latest romantic comedy or a low-budget indie in 3-D?  I most certainly don’t.

I feel about this 3-D renaissance the way I do about Disney’s attitude towards traditional hand-drawn animation in the early 2000’s.  They felt that computer animation was the wave of the future, and abandoned any plans for good ol’ fashioned, this-is-what-we’ve-done-for-generations animated features.  But they completely missed the point.  Good storytelling and character development should be every filmmaker’s goal, not technology that lets you do good stuff.  While all of Pixar’s films are computer animated, they would all be just as good if they were hand-drawn.  (Thank goodness that John Lasseter–Pixar’s head honcho who now oversees all of Disney’s animation–has enough sense to bring back the medium, with The Princess and the Frog.)

I feel the same way about the new 3-D movies.  Filmmakers are getting caught up in the technology that they are forgetting to make a good movie (cough–Monsters vs. Aliens–cough).  Let’s hope that Avatar and Tintin are good movies in their own right, instead of gimmicky spectacles without much substance.

So to all the upcoming 3-D movies like Ice Age 3, A Christmas Carol, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, and every subsequent Pixar and DreamWorks Animation feature: simply be a good movie.  I’ll see you first in a regular, 2-D presentation, and then if I like you so much that I want to experience you in 3-D, I’ll gladly fork over the extra money and add another pair of glasses to my growing collection.

Playing catch up. Again. I make no apologies.

CORALINE

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Coraline“, posted with vodpod

This Tim Burton-esque animated fantasy is visually stunning and effectively creepy.  Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is a precocious tween who’s largely ignored by her workaholic parents (who, ironically, both work from home).  The family has just moved into a new apartment converted from a large old house.  In her attempts to fight boredom, Coraline befriends her quirky neighbors and discovers a portal to another dimension.  At night she visits the other world, which appears to be a perfect version of the world she inhabits during the day…except for everyone has buttons for eyes.  And things become increasingly disturbing.

I’ve seen a lot of weird movies, but this is one is way up there on the bizarre-o-meter.  It’s dark, twisted and downright morbid.  Definitely not suitable for young kids.  But the visuals are amazing.

Perfect for: Tim Burton, animation or fantasy fans.

MADEA GOES TO JAIL

more about “Madea Goes To Jail – Drive By from ba…“, posted with vodpod

In addition to watching Why Did I Get Married, I also watched The Family That Preys and Madea’s Family Reunion this month as part of festivities sponsored by the White People Who Like Tyler Perry Movies club.  (It was just me and my friend, who after watching two movies back to back, suffered from Tyler Perry fatigue  and dropped out.  No hard feelings.)  After watching Madea Goes to Jail, I think I might change the name of the club to White People Who Like Tyler Perry Movies In Moderation.

Tyler Perry’s comedies go from Deathly Serious to Hi-Larious Hijinx within moments of each other.  This time around, the Deathly Serious story revolves around Joshua (Derek Luke), an Atlanta assistant D.A. who stumbles upon (in court, no less) his old friend Candy (Keisha Knight-Pulliam), during her arraignment on prostitution charges.  Excusing himself from the case and handing it to his fellow assistant D.A., fiancee and villain of the movie, Linda (Ion Overman), Joshua spends most of the film trying to get help for Candy.

The Hi-Larious Hijinx part of the film comes from Madea (Tyler Perry), the sassy senior citizen with a violent temper, whose frequent run-ins with the law have forced her to go to anger management therapy sessions with Dr. Phil (yes, that Dr. Phil) that end up going nowhere.   When a snooty white lady takes Madea’s parking spot at K-Mart, Madea exacts revenge by destroying the lady’s car with a forklift.  And then–you guessed it–Madea goes to jail.

I simultaneously like and dislike the Madea movies, because the humor is so broad and obvious, and knowing it’s kinda’ stupid, still has the power to make me laugh.  I should know better.

The character of Madea reminds me of characters found on Saturday Night Live–the less you know, the funnier they are.  Unlike the other Madea films (Diary  of a Mad Black Woman and Madea’s Family Reunion), this one fleshes out Madea’s character (do we really need to know that in her younger years she was a stripper???) and in the process, some of the humor about the character is lost.

Perfect for: Fans of Ernest P. Warrel movies.

THIS IS MY LIFE

more about “VideoDetective.com – This Is My Life …“, posted with vodpod

You’ve Got Mail is, in my opinion, the greatest romantic comedy of all time.  It’s funny.  It’s clever.  It’s filled with great performances.  I figured that This is My Life would be an alright movie because a) it’s directed by Nora Ephron (she directed You’ve Got Mail and wrote When Harry Met Sally) and b) I like movies about showbiz.  I was wrong on both accounts.

Julie Kavner (unmistakable as the voice of Marge Simpson) stars Dottie, as a middle-aged single mom who gets her big break in stand-up comedy.  Gaby Hoffman (Field of Dreams) and a frumpy Samantha Mathis (Little Women) star as her daughters, Opal and Erica.  The film tries to tell the story from both Dottie and Erica’s points of view, but ends up focusing more on the latter.  The real story that needed to be told was from Dottie’s side, but things like stand-up routines and dealing with agents get glossed over whereas Erica’s first romance gets way too much screen time (including a sex scene that really pushes it for a PG-13).

The film is, on the whole, rather tepid and unforgettable.  If nothing else it shows how far Ephron has come as a director.

Perfect for: Hmmmm…..

DVD Review: ‘Why Did I Get Married?’

I am fascinated by Tyler Perry.  I’ve seen a few of his movies (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Madea’s Family Reunion, Meet the Browns), I’m still trying to decipher them.  I don’t find them to be very good–they tend to flip flop between wocka wocka funny and drama with a capital D–but I do find them strangely watchable.  And clearly, I am not the target demographic Perry has in mind (last time I checked I was not a middle-aged African American female), but  I keep watching them.  He’s pretty prolific, too:  not only do audiences show up for his films, he churns out about two a year.  That’s pretty impressive.

He’s made some films without his most popular character, Madea (which, for the uninformed, is Perry in drag), but until now I had not watched any of them.  So I rented Why Did I Get Married? to see how Perry fares when he plays a dude (sidenote: not only does he write and direct his films,  he always casts himself.  Could Perry be the black Woody Allen?), and to see what he has to say about the institution of marriage.  Not surprisingly, he endorses it, even though no marriage is perfect.

What’s it about? Every year four married couples spend a week together in some exotic location to work on their marriage.  This year they’ve chosen a swank log cabin in Colorado (probably Aspen or Telluride, but the movie never says where exactly).  And, of course, each couple comes to the cabin with Issues:

- Power couple Gavin (Malik Yoba) and Patricia (Janet Jackson) have a Deep Dark Secret that threatens their seemingly perfect marriage.

- Pediatrician Terry (Perry) wonders why his workaholic lawyer Dianne (Sharol Leal) won’t have sex with him.  (She has a Deep Dark Secret that threatens their seemingly perfect marriage.)

- Loud-mouthed (and frequently drunk) Angela (Tasha Smith) can’t stop telling people how it is, especially her semi-spineless husband, Marcus (Michael Jai White), who has a Deep Dark (and Burning) Secret that threatens their extremely tumultuos marriage.

- Jerk of the year Mike (Richard T. Jones) makes his overweight wife Shelia (Jill Scott) drive by herself to the retreat when she’s deemed too fat to fit into one airplane seat.  He also invites Trina (Denise Boutte), his and Shelia’s friend, to the retreat, even though it’s couples only.  The “friendship” between Mike and Trina threatens his already-in-jeopardy marriage.

The first half of the film has  everybody cooped up in the cabin, breathing in the fresh mountain air, waiting to exhale.  When the requisite crap-hits-the-fan scene finally happens, everybody leaves, packing their dirty laundry.  The second half is the aftermath.  The long, tedioius, aftermath.

What’s good about it? Scott’s performance as Shelia, the heavy-set wife desperate to make her husband love her, is the real star of this show.  You believe every word Perry wrote for her, no matter how trite or schmaltzy.  Jackson is also pretty good.  I really think if she wanted to make a real comeback, she should switch to acting instead of relaunching herself every two years as a crazysexyhott singer.  Miss Jackson, you are over 40. It’s okay to be over 40!   Quit Mariah Carey-ing it up and get in some good acting roles.  You can do it.

I have a hard time coming down too hard on any film that ultimately is pro-marriage and pro-religion.  We could always use more of them.  I only wish they didn’t have to be so preachy.

What’s bad about it? Perry’s films tend to overstay their welcome, and Why Did I Get Married? is no exception.  Perry likes to linger on shots, none of which make you say, “now that’s a movie!”  The film feels like a filmed play, which is not surprising, because it’s based on the stageplay he wrote.

Perfect for: people who like their movies extra soapy, but hope that everything will come out in the wash.

Movie Review: ‘Taken’

more about “Hulu – Movie Trailers: Taken“, posted with vodpod

There are so many films I’ve been meaning to see.  Gran Torino.  Slumdog Millionaire.  Frost/Nixon (even though it’s directed by Ron Howard).  And yet, when I had some spare time last week, what do I end up seeing?  Taken.

Not that Taken is a terrible film.  It’s just that with so many Oscar-nominated films FINALLY playing in my neck of the woods, I felt a little disappointed in myself that I didn’t see what I really wanted to see.  (I did this once before a few years ago, when I was eager to see Clint Eastwood’s  Letters From Iwo Jima but instead–inexplicably–saw Pedro Almadovar’s melodrama Volver instead.)

Taken is the kind of action that has its heart in the right place but lacks any real dramatic weight, which for a film that deals with human trafficking is something it desperately needed.

20th Century Fox

What’s it about? Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a retired U.S. Secret Opps-type of guy who, after years of being absent on secret military missions, is doing his best to be a part of his teenage daughter Kim’s (Maggie Grace) life.  Unable to compete with his daughter’s mother (Famke Janssen) and stepfather (Xander Berkeley), Bryan reluctantly grants permission for Kim to go to Paris, France alone with only her cousin Amanda (Katie Cassidy).

While in Paris, Kim calls her father right when she witnesses Amanda being kidnapped.  (If you didn’t watch the trailer above, now’s the time to do it.)  Kim is taken too, and Bryan uses his Jack Bauer-like skills to bring his daughter home.

What’s good about it? Taken sheds some light on a dirty international secret: human trafficking.  (The girls are abducted, drugged, then forced into prostitution.)  It’s a deplorable, disgusting trade, and you can’t help but root for Neeson as he kicks, stabs and shoots his way through low-life thugs, up to the highest bidders.

What’s bad about it? Don’t get me wrong–you want Neeson to get to his daughter.  But had director Pierre Morel made Kim less of a spoiled rich girl (her stepfather gives her a friggin’ HORSE for her birthday) and more of a girl who’s never had a lot of friends or opportunities, I would have rooted for Neeson even more.  (It also didn’t help that Maggie Grace, while 25 in real life, is playing a 17 year-old who acts like she’s 12.)

I’m okay with Neeson plowing through thugs and lowlifes, but –SPOILER ALERT– in one scene, she shoots an innocent person in the arm to get a complacent frenemy to do something for him.  Shooting an innocent person to get to the bad guys?  That crosses the line.  And from that point on, the movie lost me.

Perfect for: fans of Liam Neeson and/or the Transporter movies.

The holiday movie roundup, part 2…

So I never got around to finishing my reviews of all the stuff I saw at Christmas.  And seeing how it’s practically February, the Oscar nominations are already out, and I no longer care to write about these movies, here are my reviews in a nutshell:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Watchable, but grossly overrated.  No life-changing message, just Brad Pitt as a dude who ages backwards and doesn’t learn anything.  13 Oscar nominations?  Really?  I hate films that tell you it’s a good movie as opposed to being a good movie.

Doubt: Great acting, kinda’ dull everything else.  Meryl Streep is great as the nun hell-bent on exposing Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s priest as the pedophile she suspects he might be.  Amy Adams and Viola Davis give great supporting turns as a naive nun and the mother of a troubled student, respectively.  All four deserve their Oscar nominations.

Now, let’s move on.

The holiday movie roundup, part 1

This post is what happens when you see too many movies in a really short time span and are so busy with other things (including my new blog, City of Champion) that you just can’t give each film the review it deserves.

SEVEN POUNDS

The trailer for this film is very cryptic–it doesn’t really tell you what the movie is about.  Usually that’s a good thing, because most movies are ruined because the trailer tells too much.  But in this case, Seven Pounds is a confusing film–it’s 90% first act, zero second act and 10% third act.  It’s frustrating because the audience is in the dark about what is going on the entire length of the film, until the end when everything is revealed.  The story is rather simple, but the execution is muddled and not enjoyable to watch.  The entire film is a downer, even the ending (which is supposed to make you feel good).

What’s good about it? Rosario Dawson’s performance as an artist waiting for a heart transplant is effective.

What’s bad about it? If your idea of a good movie is watching Will Smith cry and writhe in anguish, hoo-boy, you’ve hit the jackpot.

Perfect for: fans of depressing movies.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL

Keanu Reeves stars as a dude who looks human but is clearly not.  Yeah, there’s a stretch.

This lame remake of the 1951 Sci-Fi classic (which I admittedly have not seen) has aliens landing in New York City (of course!), primed to destroy mankind in order to save the earth from pollution.  (The same kind of thing was done in last summer’s The Happening and it didn’t work so well there, either.)  Jennifer Connelly co-stars as a widowed scientist who helps Reeves escape from the evil military people who are trying their darndest to protect the country.

What’s good about it? It’s not boring.

What’s bad about it? The special effects are so-so.  Reeves is terrible (as usual), as is Jaden Smith (Will Smith’s son), who plays a bratty tween.  (Something tells me there’s not much acting in his performance.)

Perfect for: Keanu Reeves fans.

MARLEY & ME

Watching Marley & Me, I realized that there is an art to making a broad, crowd-pleasing film.  Director David Frankel (who directed 2006’s The Devil Wears Prada) has crafted a film that is nearly perfect in terms of pacing and accessibility.  Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston have genuine chemistry.  I’ve never said this before (and hopefully never again), but you’ll laugh, you’ll cry.

What’s good about it? See above paragraph.

What’s bad about it? If you hate crying in movies, stay away.

VALKYRIE

There was a lot of negative buzz surrounding Valkyrie (it originally was slated to come out this past summer, then it was pushed back to February 2009, the bumped up to Christmas 2008…oh, and it stars the poster boy for Hollywood eccentrics, Tom Cruise), but the good thing is that the movie itself is actually good.  Really good.

In this World War II-era thriller, Tom Cruise (in a winningly low-key performance) stars as Claus von Stauffenberg, a colonel in the German army who plots to kill Hitler and stage a military coup.  It’s a great edge-of-your-seat movie, expertly directed by Bryan Singer (who directed Superman Returns, X-Men and The Usual Suspects).

What’s good about it? SPOILER ALERT: The events of this true story take place in the summer of 1944, and Hitler didn’t die until 1945.  (It’s history, kids.  Look it up.)  But even with that knowledge, I could not stop asking, how does this end? A good indicator of a good film is when you know the ending and you still wonder what’s going to happen.

What’s bad about it? SPOILER ALERT: Hitler wins.

Perfect for: Anyone looking for a good thriller.  And anyone wondering if Tom Cruise is still worth seeing in a movie.

Review: ‘Australia’

Baz Luhrmann’s first film since 2001’s Moulin Rouge! has all the trappings of a sure-fire hit, with its attractive leads, money shots of rugged landscapes and immaculately designed sets and costumes.  But something in Australia is missing, but after sitting in the theater for nearly three hours, I don’t care what.

What’s it about? I’m not 100% sure, because for the first half of the movie I couldn’t understand what all these Aussies were saying.  (Like the superb Irish film Once, this one needs subtitles even though it’s in English.)  But this is what I gather: Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) is a rich British prude who comes to Faraway Downs, her husband’s money pit of of a ranch in the Australian Outback, to sell the property and bring her husband home.  Upon arrival she discovers her husband has been murdered, supposedly by an Aboriginal mystic named King George (David Gulpill).  It turns out that the ranch could actually turn a profit, should Sarah  be able to get her 1500 head of cattle to Darwin.

With the help of the rough and tumble Drover (Hugh Jackman, in full romance novel cover mode), Sarah and her hired help (including Nullah (Brandon Walters), the 10-year old half-white/half-aboriginal grandson of King George) drive the cattle across the unforgiving Outback.

Just when you think the movie’s over, however, there is an enitrely different story that drags on for the last hour: Japan bombs Darwin, and Sarah, Drover and Nullah are separated and–SPOILER ALERT–reunited in the end.

What’s good about it? Walters gives a fine performance, and there’s some beautiful cinematography.

What’s bad about it? Well, there’s not a lot that is bad per se (barring the fact that the movie is far too overlong), it’s just that there really isn’t anything great about it.  Australia reportedly cost $130 to make; when a movie costs that much, it should knock my socks off.  I am sad to report that my socks stayed on my feet the whole time.

The film feels like a glossed-up remake of 1985’s Out of Africa (one of my favorite films), but lacks any real dramatic weight.  Australia is cinematic cotton candy; Out of Africa is meat and potatoes.

Perfect for: Swoony Hugh Jackman fans.

Netflix this: ‘The Nativity Story’

I must confess: I planned on liking this movie before I even saw it.  As a Christian and as a movie addict, The Nativity Story seemed like the right amalgamation of spirituality and cinema.  I was in the mood to watch an uplifting film about the Christmas story, especially since I tried to watch the abismal Rankin-Bass special Nestor the Long-Eared Christmas Donkey the other day.  (Bastardizing Santa and Rudolph is one thing, but stay away fom the birth of Jesus.)

I shied away from The Nativity Story because when it was released theatrically in 2006 it got lousy reviews (Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer has it at 38%) and it only grossed about $44 million worldwide.  Quite a pitiful sum, when you consider that the target audience is all of Christendom (that’s a lot of people).  So I added it to my Netflix queue, wanting to get into the Christmas spirit in a medium that speaks to me.  (I’m not big on candy canes or tacky sweaters.)

It could be my innate bias towards such a film, but I found The Nativity Story to be a compelling and, yes, moving  portrayal of a story I’ve heard and read numerous times.  This is a film where you know what’s going to happen.  The key is to enjoy the journey of how they arrive at the final destination.

What’s it about? Regardless of your faith or your devotion to it, there’s a pretty good chance you know the gist of the story.  Set in the year before Christ’s birth, Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes) is told in a vision that she’ll give birth to a child that will be the Messiah the prophets have proclaimed would redeem the people of Israel.  Pretty controversial, considering that her betrothed husband Joseph (Otto Isaac) is still her betrothed (read: they haven’t consummated the marriage).  Despite persecution and King Herrod’s (Ciaran Hinds) constant attempts to locate the prophecied Messiah.  Add some shepherds and the three wise men, and you’ve got yourself The Nativity Story.

What’s good about it? This is one of those films where you can tell that meticulous research was put into this film.  You get a sense of the everyday life of living in Nazareth.  You get a better understanding of the political climate.  You have a little more context for why people did what they did back then.  There’s attention to detail and there’s sense of scope from seeing a studio-funded production.  And at a hour and forty-one minutes, The Nativity Story doesn’t overstay its welcome.

And while there are a lot of dramatic holes to fill with a movie based on scripture, screenwriter Mike Rich does a good job of developing the relationship between Mary and Joseph.  If anything this movie is the story of how they fell in love.  It added a nice human touch to a story so immersed in the divine.

This is the type of film I want to watch every year and make it part of my family’s tradition.

What’s bad about it? I wanted to like this film, so I don’t have much to say here.

Perfect for: Anyone needing a detox from innocuous Christmas tv specials or made-for-tv movies.  Oh, and the 2 billion Christians on earth.

DVD Review: ‘Gremlins’ – Yes, I’m blogging about ‘Gremlins.’

I have a love-hate relationship with Gremlins.  It’s a stupid movie.  I know this.  Yet, for some reason I cannot help but enjoy watching this movie.  Perhaps my affinity for Gremlins stems from not being allowed to see it when it was released in theaters.  I was seven, and the commericals (and the above trailer) refrained from actually showing what the fiendish critters looked like, which meant I didn’t think it would be that scary.

My parents wouldn’t let me see it, although my uncle (who, being a mere eight years older than me, was more like an older brother than an uncle) told me all about the movie.  The closest I came to actually seeing it was owning a t-shirt with Gizmo on it.  So yeah, not that close.  I don’t remember when I did, in fact, watch Gremlins, but I remember I loved it.  (I was twelve when Gremlins 2 came out, and I saw it twice in the theater.  Jealous?)

I had been waiting for quite some time to buy Gremlins, but never felt right about paying actual money for it.  Then Target had it on sale for $4, and that’s very close to no money, so I bought it.  And I’m happy/sad to say, I’ve enjoyed watching it again.

What seven year-old WOULDN'T want to see this?

What’s it about? Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) is a putz-ish bank teller whose dad is a putz-ish inventor.  Dad goes on a business trip and brings home a critter called a Mogwai named Gizmo (voiced by Howie Mandel–yes, that Howie Mandel).  There are some rules to follow when keeping a Mogwai: 1) keep it out of bright light; 2) don’t get it wet; 3) don’t feed it after midnight.

Billy accidentally spills water on Gizmo, which causes the little critter to reproduce asexually.  So now Billy owns five Mogwai.  The putz.  Then he accidentally feeds all of them (except Gizmo)  after midnight, which causes them to turn into little monsters who wreak havoc on the entire town.  Smooth move, Peltzer!

What’s good about it? The scene where Billy’s mother (Frances Lee McCain) is home alone with the Gremlins is effectively scary.  And gory!  (This film, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, prompted the MPAA to introduce the PG-13 rating.)

The film walks the fine line between dopey comedy and tepid horror, but does so with such panache, you can’t help but accidentally watch the whole movie.  And the final showdown between Stripe, the head Gremlin, and Billy is enjoyable, if for no other reason than to see Stripe shoot Billy with a crossbow.

What’s bad about it? It’s silly and gross.  (This may also be a good thing.   But I’m not the boss of you, so make up your own mind.)

Perfect for: I have no idea.