Reviews

The movie "Meet Monica Velour" has a great sense of quirk and just the right amount creepiness to make the characters interesting and "real." The problem ends up being it is all real boring.

The premise drew me in, but the picture did not end up being entertaining as art. I thought the lead actor held great presence as a weird looking, nerdy dude and I think he would be well placed in a better movie. The talent is there. Kim Catttrall does a fine job with the material as well.

Good things aside, however, the movie turns into conversation after conversation of just blah, blah, blah. Young guy and older lady and she rambles on about "life this and that" without anything really interesting covered of emotional connection truly made. It becomes a repetitive and predictable bore that meanders around to a boring more or less uneventful ending. It is a coming of age lacking the right punch of drama, not capitalizing on the talents and the quirk, and going for a sappy postcard of an ending that felt tacked on and not forgivable as a conclusion.

Kudos to the actors and to the creator of the premise in terms of a coming of age story. The movie was just boring is all I'm saying, ants in my pants waiting for it to get over.

The first time I saw "Very Bad Things" was the year that it was released on home video. I rented the VHS at my local gas station and teenage mind was expecting the best from the dark worst of it. Billed as a dark comedy, I did not find it funny. I found it boring. However, many, many, many (more than a decade) years later I have revisited "Very Bad Things," to see if the teen critic missed anything.

Verdict: still a very bad movie.

The dialog is annoying along with the acting. The problem seems to be funny is replaced by loudness and yelling a lot. Everyone is constantly yelling their lines at each other. It is hard to sit through. I am a huge fan of dark comedies, bad comedies, morbid/ bloody humor, and just laughing in general. However, "Very Bad Things" is just bad without being the enjoyable kind of bad to me.

The premise is fun. The movie should have been fun. It's like being in a room of drunk people who are having a good time and laughing at everything, only you're sober and all of their actions are actually annoying and they are just all jerks.

The premise is not really capitalized on in a logical way. I'd watch a remake that fills in the holes. I mean, really, the entire movie hinges on a single incident that in reality never would have played out the way it did. Yes, truth is often stranger than fiction, but this movie did not let me just relax and buy into the logic. Actually, I think stupid people in reality would make the stupid choices some of the characters made, even though it was ridiculously unnecessary, however, the movie did not sell me on it and was just a groaner. Hey morons, just clean up the room and get your stories straight.

"Mulberry Street" is perhaps the only movie I have enjoyed in the "8 Films To Die For" Series. Maybe this sounds like it is winning admiration by default, but no: really, it is entertaining.

Think zombie movie only with rat people instead of zombies. Do I really need to say more? The picture is a little too fuzzy dark, but it does not kill the tension, though I would not say it adds to it. I appreciated the movie for being more of a "throw people into a crazy scenario" type of event as opposed to a trying to explain everything that is going on concept. This makes the characters more interesting than the plot, which is exactly what is needed in a horror movie that is not trying to turn the basics of the genre trappings on end. Casting leans more towards adults in a fight for their lives than the general teens in peril route and this was refreshing as well. The acting overall is good stuff with no one trying to out do themselves or the others, one nice melded together group. The musical score was pretty cool too.

The special FX get better as the movie goes along and I was very impressed with the scope of what they were able to pull off. I really got the sense that Manhattan was being overrun by killer rat creature people things.

"Mulberry Street" is a bloody street worth visiting. I thought it was an entertaining romp, even though the ending was lacking the final punch I was hoping for. Perhaps I would not "die for" this movie, but I would check out a sequel, or be more open to giving other movies in this series of releases a chance if they employed the same filmmakers.

"Smokin' Aces" has intense action scenes, but then the formula seems to try and counter them with long-winded explanatory dialog sequences. Overall, the movie gets a jumbled feel to it, but I enjoyed the ride! Director Joe Carnahan weaves a rich atmosphere into his movies, or at least someone he works with does as this movie was right on par with the vibe I got watching "Narc." Atmosphere/ mood/ tone is a very important magic X quality to movies that can even make movies that aren't so great very watch-able. "Smokin' Aces" gets that effect, but the bam pow action and dark comedy would have been enough to sustain it anyway.

All of the acting is on point for the roles at hand. I think death and action are the lead characters though.

Extreme, fun, gory, and depressing? The third act of the movie dips away from the willy-nilly mayhem of the second and goes the serious route. If you were to say "Wow, that movie was a mess," I would not disagree with you on the grounds of construction. Act 1, 2, and 3 did not exactly feel like pieces of the same puzzle exactly. However, where most movies would fail at being disjointed "Smokin' Aces" is one I was able to forgive because it still entertained.

"Smokin' Aces" is worth a rental, it has moments of sheer "cool" of nothing else, even if you don't jive with the flaws I was able to forgive. I think many critics were too harsh on this one.

"Silent Night, Zombie Night" surprised my low expectations. It does tread in some of the "same ole" category with the basic zombie outbreak, but at its core is really a character study of a love triangle, with real adult feelings and all of that. It stands out from the crowd as far as Indie zombie movies go and could appeal to a broader audience than most.

On the acting front, Jack Forcinito as the tough as nails jerk of a hero runs this rodeo. He seems born for the role in a "give that man a B movie trophy!" sort of way. Middle aged ladies and perhaps younger ladies with daddy issues may throw their panties at the screen for the bad boy, man about business character Jack brings to life. Sizzle.

Andy Hopper is an actor I could see on a "Law & Order" type show and Nadine Stenovich as the leading lady brings a real beauty of a woman to the mix, which may not please the fake boobs in a bikini crowd.

Felissa Rose, Vernon Wells, and Lew Temple as known B movie names all come in with parts that are more than cameos. I would say extended cameos, but considering the amount of dialog and Lew Temple's going for the Oscar sob antics: they are real bona fide parts.

The low budget nature of the beast is going to have some FX groaned at (some are pulled off gory and great), but overall it does not feel like a case of someone trying to junk something out for nothing, but rather filmmakers really trying to make something good with very little.

Is the Christmas spirit there? Well, it was shot in Los Angeles and around Christmas time I am led to believe, so: no snow. Some may want more tinsel and miss the snow, but I guess I can't fault it for playing to reality. Maybe you're stuck in the snowed-up Midwest and want to spend Christmas in warm L.A.? Here you go, and with zombies!

"Silent Night, Zombie Night" is a step above many Indie low-to-no budget zombie movies and I think it earns a spot on a horror collector's shelf. Actually, I would recommend it to people who do not like zombie movies per-say, but dig adult relationship dramas. It is worth a rent at least and could be an odd date night movie.

"Surveillance" was directed by the daughter of David Lynch and the apple does not fall too far from the tree, though Jennifer Lynch might be more accessible than David as far as viewer comprehension of materials goes.

The story of "Surveillance" is not as straight forward as many a synopsis would have one believe, but that is because they are trying to refrain from giving away the "twist." The twist itself is a problem as well because it is as predictable as they come and thus the story falls off the plot hinges. The good thing though, is the movie is not relying on plot as a foundation.

Mood/atmosphere/tone, it is set in an intriguing, dark fashion and the actors bring excellence to the playground. I think French Stewart brought his A game and Bill Pullman crafted his character perfectly as well.

One may take issue with the characters though as the eye we have into this world of happenings seems jaded and insistent on bringing out the bad in everyone. All of the cops in the movie are fairly villainous and it is probably all supposed to meld as a dark comedy of some sort, but not really.

The quality of the movie overall is top-notch, it I worth a rental, tough a second viewing is probably not necessary. I did try to watch it a second time and found that the rich performances and dark quirk were not enough to maintain my interest.

Blood and Bone" is a story an ex-con, Bone, who leaves prison and enters the world of illegal street fighting.

If there is any doubt about Michael Jai White being a full-on action star, this seems to be a movie that should shuffle his resume to the top of the action pile. He was all buffed up and camera ready for this movie, and yet, Hollywood is not knocking on his door for the big blockbusters? Or perhaps it is Michael Jai White's own fault being choosy. Whatever the reason, he is an underused talent and makes for a good action movie protagonist.

The other actors did well, except for Julian Sands. I was not a fan of his performance.

The fight sequences themselves are a mixed bag. Sometimes the camera work steals away from the cool factor by editing realism out to such a degree that would only fit in a comic book. There are some thrown punches that fall lame, but it gets a pass on these moments because it remained entertaining enough and the direct to video Indie nature of things generally means nothing is perfect. Actually, nothing is ever perfect on anything is it? The dialog is often times too straight forward and in one specific scene we get preached to about racism and that didn't feel like it belonged exactly. I guess what I am trying to say is: you're going to get what you expect out of "Blood and Bone" if you pick it up, considering you probably never heard of "Blood and Bone" until you crossed it's path. In most cases, you may get more than you expect. Fans of direct to video action movies are in for a better than average treat. Watch it for Michael Jai White being cool and a more than adequate fighting action fix.

"Morning Glory" was directed by Roger Michell and was written by "The Devil Wears Prada" and "27 Dresses" writer Aline Brosh McKenna. It stars Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Patrick Wilson, John Pankow, and Jeff Goldblum. It is the story of a young television producer given the job of saving a morning program with two news anchors who cannot stand each other. NONE of that sounds appealing to a Terminator Jenkins, but count me in as surprised.

Rachel McAdams is the star of the show and your liking or disliking of her is what it all rests on. I found her screen presence to be adorable and well worth watching, even if the character itself was slightly obnoxious. I think her performance rubbed off on all of the other actors because they rose to the occasion as support and I am not a huge fan of any of them. I especially tend to steer away from Diane Keaton movies, but here she was, and not too bad.

As a movie it is a great premise, but many great premises fail to make great movies. And just because something sounds like a great premise doesn't mean it appeals to me, and this one definitely did not. The pacing of the story was "snap, snap, snap" which helped keep me interested. I am not one who cares for A.D.D. filmmaking per-say, but in some cases it is the way to go. "Morning Glory" jumps from scene to scene with a lot of musical montages added in. Fans of shows like "Grey's Anatomy" should check it out, the whole musical montage formula is similar to a degree.

Ultimately, where "Morning Glory" succeed with this reviewer was it did not try to lean too heavy on worn romantic comedy concepts and instead just lightly sprinkled that into the hectic mix and the lead character was easy to identify with. You may or may not find that connect, but I still recommend checking the movie out if you have any desire to see Rachel McAdams taking a role and owning it. "Morning Glory" is a cute flick.

Here are the good and the bad things about the movie "All Good Things."

Good Thing: The actors came and did their thing adequately. Ryan Gosling is the stand out, like he is in most movies he partakes in. It's not that he's doing any grand emoting with the material, but he does go through the rigors of character transformation as the film progresses. Kristen Dunst does fine as well and Frank Langella, well, he is Frank Langella. Frank seems to be the same guy in most every movie he acts in. I'm not saying that as a bad thing though.

Bad Thing: The delivery of the plot is disjointed, all over the place. This is an Indie vibe movie, so no easy Hollywood A to B 1-2-3 structure. It felt like different movies in its separate acts at times. The main issue is probably the fact that it is based on a true story and there are so many stranger than fiction developments and points of interest that trying to capture real life can get messy when trying to also entertain.

Good Thing: I thought the movie was well shot, with a lot of night scenes, they handled the visuals in an interesting mood setting way. Many direct to video films with smaller budgets will have dark scenes be too dark, but "All Good Things" plays with the night artistically.

The End Of The Review Thing: this movie made me more interested in reading about the facts of the case and the people involved, but it did not draw me into the world created within the movie. It is worth a rent if you are a fan of the actors and can watch anything with them in it. I think Ryan Gosling has that old school movie star appeal.

I did not have high expectations for "Scream 4," but I went to see it at the theater on opening night. The movie did its job entertaining and I enjoyed the pieces of wit laced throughout that felt Kevin Williamsy.

In that first viewing of the movie the lack of real character development ala some people are merely caricatures, more like one note cartoon folk, did not detract from the experience. However, when this movie came out on Blu-ray I gave it another watch and: I was bored out of my mind. The second time through all of the flaws were too much to want to sit through and the charm it had on the first viewing was all used up.

This is a must see for Scream fans, as it brings back all of the beloved characters, and it is rental worthy for sure. However, it just does not hold up for repeated viewing in my opinion and truly the only ones that do for me are part 1 and 2. Would I go watch a Scream 5? Yes. Would I watch "Scream 4" again? No.

"You Don't Know Jack" sheds a lot of positive light on Dr. Death ala Jack Kevorkian and his infamous life involved with assisting people in suicide. I do not know how much of the light he deserved, but the movie makes him very interesting and out to be quite the humanitarian. A movie that makes you want to go learn! Al Pacino is deserving of every award they want to hand him for this one. His performance was fully engaging, he became a character aside from the character that Al Pacino himself seems to be.

As serious as the movie subject matter is: death along with the moral and legal trouble the good Dr. finds himself in, there is a lot of humor to be found, and it is in this that I felt the movie really portrayed what it is to be human and real.

My biggest gripe with the movie is that for the first some-odd minutes of the movie I did not know jack about what was going on. I don't know if the editor is to blame, or lack of footage, or what, but the movie was very disjointed before settling in. I am lucky I stuck it out because I really connected with "You Don't Know Jack."

I like Kevin James as an actor. This liking did not save "Zookeeper" for me at all.

So, the Zookeeper wants to man up and win the affections of an old flame and the talking animals of the zoo are helping him out because they don't want to lose him as their keeper ala he might go get a more impressive job as a means to woo the lady.

The animal voices are done by well known celebrities and are all annoying. All of them. The lines and "jokes" if you want to call them that are terrible. Adam Sandler has his humor all over this and he fails to make the monkey he voices funny. How do you mess up a monkey being funny? I am being harsh. This is a kids' movie! Or at least it should be. The plot does not seem like a kids' movie plot exactly. It's like a romantic comedy for adults done for kids and failing to actually cater to the adults enough. This movie is a stinker! Children 8 and under may want to try this movie out, though parents may not want them to, and really I don't blame them, give the kid a book instead. Kevin James earns the movie a two instead of a one for me, his presence was the only thing going for it.

I went into watching "Bad Teacher" thinking I would hate it. I did not hate it, so it gets a gold star thanks to my low expectations! Cameron Diaz is perfect for the role, she is a good comedic actress. The rest of the cast was adequate, some a little too slapstick at times.

A lot of what Cameron Diaz says in the movie is profane and should make a lot of people laugh. I personally laughed twice, the laugh ratio will be different person to person, for example: a person I watched it with was pushed to tears by the car wash scene. The laughs are there, whether or not they find you is up to your own sense of humor. You may want to dumb it down a bit.

As a movie though, it lacks a good story. It is a funny simple plot basis, funny concept, but the execution is wonky. I never felt like the character had any kind of arc, which would be fine, except she starts making decisions and the ending acts like she actually did have an arc. Everything that happens plot-wise is predictable, you're not going to really be thrown any surprises, but loosen up and just veg out and you might find the same two laughs that I did.

"Moneyball" got the paddles of life taken to it by the same screenwriter that worked the Facebook movie, and it shows in the quick quip dialog. This is a good thing and the movie is cute and entertaining a chuckle at a time. It does not really give the actors anything Oscar worthy to deal with though, so nothing bad to say about the acting, but no hip-hip-hooray either.

As a baseball fan I found some of the movie interesting, but overall I felt like the insider access was not as interesting as just watching MLBtv and long periods of time were passed over without me really getting invested into the drama of it all.

This is a good, entertaining movie, and worth a rent, but it's not a "time and time again" sort of flick to me and seems like a strong contender for A title at an amazing $5 price at a retail store less than a year after release to home video. I saw it at the movie theater and it wasn't really a sit and see it n the big screen type of flick.