REVIEW: The English Teacher

8/10 - The scarlet organza has more oomph than the voile.

Having expectations is a powerful thing. You can expect greatness and force that perspective, or find grave disappointment. The opposite is also true, people tend to remember the films that should have been atrocious and surprised them as better than what they really are.

Having not watched a trailer or heard a synopsis, I only knew of The English Teacher from another bloggers year-end countdown list, and the poster with Julianne Moore.

If you want to establish some expectations, here's a summary. The English Teacher is about a woman's simple life becoming enraptured in the production of a former students big-city play.

Having had no expectations about this movie, I can honestly say it was a beautiful and charming. It will likely end up on the boring side of the scale for most, but there was nothing disappoint about this for me.

Character is the element most neglected in Rom-Coms. (See Admission with Tina Fey and Paul Rudd for an example of character that relies entirely on the actors charm and camera charisma.) In this case, Julianne Moore is a treasure. She brings out subtle elements Linda Sinclair that make her beyond interesting. There is usually nothing more boring than a movie introduction that attempts to show how normal and boring their lead is. In this case, its fascinating. She is every well intentioned English Teacher I've ever had, with her dowdy glasses and matching cardigan set. And yet, very quickly she surprises me. God do I love it when a character surprises me. I love it when characters keep secrets and get passionate, and loose control. That's why this is a good movie. She's a great character.

It's also well directed, and funny and endearing, and has a great supporting cast. Nathan Lane is a dream, and is impeccable, as always. My personal favorite is the tag team Principle/Vice-Principle duo of Jessica Hecht and Norbert Leo Butz. Bringing in theater actors to portray ignorant adults with no theatrical affiliation putting on an original production is brilliant.

I rarely find the need to comment on outstanding direction, but this has some great shots and moves the film along during the first half with snappy dialogue. These are techniques I would normally attribute to a seasoned director, but this is Craig Zisk's first feature film he has directed.

If you have an appreciation for subtly and great characters, then I wholeheartedly recommend this movie. In fact, I will likely place it on my best of 2013 list, like the blog I first saw it on. It's surprisingly funny and smart. If you thought, for example, Pacific Rim was great, then maybe skip this one.

"When I was divorced the soul patch just fell right into place"

IMDb - The English Teacher (5.7)

Wikipedia - The English Teacher

Rotten Tomatoes - The English Teacher (42%)
Amazon.ca - The English Teacher

QUICKIE MOVIE REVIEWS

The Bling Ring:

(2013, Sophia Coppola)

Pure magic. There are moments that dragged, but most of them are subjective stylistic choices. Overall I thought there were some brilliant performances, and Coppola married the content with the film style stunningly. What amazes me is how absurd the scenario is but most of the truly outrageous behavior is pulled straight from reality. I've watched this half a dozen times since I picked it up. Great attention to detail, simple scenarios and dialogue that end up being powerful. Watch watch watch. A year end favorite for sure. 9/10

Oblivion:

(2013, Joseph Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek, Michael Arndt)
I'm somewhat torn, like I have been on several action blockbusters lately. It was a great adventure with fun visuals and a good balance of action. As with the directors other big hit, Tron legacy, I'm happy to take a unique universe and give the audience lots of time to absorb it and enjoy the detail put in. I liked spending time in the creepy sky house. I liked the strange cult-like behavior they promoted. The creepy reappearance of the same drone. 

But this wasn't that great of a movie. It's stole some plot points from Moon. It has atrocious dialogue, hidden by the fact that Morgan Freeman can literally say anything and make it sound like a revelation. It also kind of avoided action sequences. Which isn't the point at all. I think Tom Cruise was a bad casting choice. He isn't an every-man. If someone else played this guy, then I'd believe their avoidance of fighting and basic instinct he has for a simple life. When there is a crazy helicopter chase scene I'm like "It's cool, I saw Top Gun. No problem." It also needed to lose about 20-30 minutes in editing. Good to see, but don't expect anything revolutionary. 7/10

Jobs:
(2013, Matt Whiteley)
I thought this was the Aaron Sorkin one. I didn't really realize there were two Steve Jobs movies being made. This one sucked. Good luck Aaron.

Ok Ill hand them a few compliments. Ashton Kutcher and Josh Gad were great. I genuinely think they did a great job with the material they were handed. My biggest problem with Jobs is that it's only purpose is to glorify the creation of Apple computers. Regardless of inspiration, I think a movie should stand firmly on it's own two legs. There's no substantial story or conflict, no relatable characters. There are some huge missing puzzle pieces that make me furious.

Steve Jobs is set up as both a hero of his time, and the worst boss I've ever seen. From the get go, his only redeeming characteristic as a protagonist is his genius and vision for the company. Which is fine, I love a flawed character, but as someone in the movie said, he's an asshole. He's an asshole who does shitty things, then gets fired from his own company. Then he's let back in and he's... better? He planted some radishes and he's magically a better person? When you make a movie someone doesn't just magically go from neglecting their family to being father of the year. Aaron Sorkin, show these amateurs how it's done please. 4/10

The East

(2013, Zal Batmanglij, Brit Marling)
I liked it? I think?
It might be stockholm syndrome. Brit Marling is brilliant and makes great movies. I just don't know if I want to see this again. Cults are big this year, and I sort of feel like I joined one by watching this. It's great, but jarring and slightly disturbing in an unconventional way. It's flawed in execution but I'm giving this movie a lot of credit for being substantially different, with a strong sense of story and good characters. 6/10

The Croods 

(2013, Kirk DeMicco, Chris Sanders)
For a kids movie it's great, but I'm annoyed that its about men showing how they can save their women.

I thought Emma Stone was the lead, but I was mistaken. This movie is only tangentially about her. If you make a badass female character, can you at least make her badass? She doesn't need to be saved by a handsome prince. Have her save the prince.

I also don't like that many kids movies illustrate a kid branching out and finding themselves by deliberately disobeying their parents. Maybe not a good role to show? Anyways I think it's a much better movie than Wreck it Ralph (which isn't saying much.) It's like James Cameron's Avatar, for kids. Its worth seeing. 7/10

REVIEW: We're the Millers

3/10 - How come it's so hard to make Jason Sudeikis famous?

This movie sucks.

There is nothing about this that's funny, original, vaguely interesting or memorable. I'm having a hard time coming up with adequate words to explain how bad this is, and yet it has been a box office smash. I am deeply concerned for the state of comedy when regurgitated garbage is a runaway success.

Plot Summary: these four people are all shady, and of poor circumstances, and have to pretend to be upper middle class suburbanites, for pretty contrived reasons. Here's where this plot fails, it relies on the comedy being about exaggerated stereotypes (as seen in the one-word descriptors on the poster) and yet none of them come close to portraying that stereotype.

Jason Sudeikis plays the cleanest, most organized drug dealer you have ever seen. His character is deeply unbalanced, as he tries to maintain likability but also portray a scumbag. The "Jim from The Office" charm of looking into the camera to be cute doesn't work when his inconsistent role flutters between cool guy, asshole, and dad. I get that this role is meant to be a vehicle to launch Sudeikis, but his character seems to have facts instead of characteristics. There are things that we are told about his character, but that doesn't mean he has to continuously portray them as an actor. They are simply facts.

Equally as ambivalent is Jennifer Aniston, who plays a stripper. She never gets naked, just putting that out there. As a stripper, you would think that she too should be at a low point in her life, maybe she's also a drug addict, or can't feed her baby, I don't know you can choose your own stripper cliche. Fortunately she seems to act like stripping is in the same ballpark as being a secretary, or in sales at Best Buy. To be blunt, she's a prude even at her most sexually charged, and isn't that just a little pathetic?

As for the kids, one is a runaway or homeless or something unexplained, and the other is a kid living in the building who looks up to Sudeikis like a role model. Regardless of where they come from or what the situation is, these kids were essentially kidnapped and brought across an international boarder. Didn't that seem like a red flag to anyone?

My biggest criticism is that it's flat out lazy. This is a movie that wants to be raunchy and crazy, but comes across as being out of touch, and unoriginal. It's predictable in the worst kind of way, with every recycled trope of the genre being featured at some point. Since it's about drugs, they accidentally befriend a DEA agent. Since they drive an RV, it breaks down at some point. Cursing is often a punchline, and that's never enough to carry a film. Don't get me wrong, I like a raunchy comedy, but this is tame enough to bring my parents, and grandparents. It's dated material, and the jokes don't add any substance to the movie, they're just there to kill 90 minutes.

This is a superficial movie. It has a story that could have real potential, Breaking Bad has certainly shown audiences that drug culture doesn't have to remain a stereotype. Characters are so shallow that despite all of them coming from an impoverished situation, it's never once discussed. Worst of all, no one ever smokes the drugs. What a shame.

Don't waste your time on this unless you think a few dick jokes and a shot of some ballsack is worth your hard earned money.

IMDB - We're the Millers (7.2)
Wikipedia - We're the Millers
Rotten Tomatoes - We're the Millers (47%)
Amazon.ca - We're the Millers

REVIEW: The World's End

8/10 - Well it was a lot of fun, wasn't it?

Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg bring another fun adventure movie that's sort of, but not quite like, the other movies they've done. 

Just like the other movies in this alleged "trilogy" (a status I don't feel should automatically imply a level of quality) The World's End stars Shaun, I mean Gary, who is an every-man facing unconquerable alienation, this time with aliens. As in the previous two movies (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) where everyone else became a zombie, and everyone else became a murderer, in The World's End everyone else becomes some sort of robot alien thing. As with the other two movies, the social outcast Shaun/Nicholas/Gary/Simon must harness the power of friendship to fight against the literal social pressure and save the day. 

The World's End was good. Comparatively it is much more matured then their previous efforts. I worried that this movie would become repetitive and boring when at the launch their goal is to visit twelve pubs, something that doesn't lead to fascinating new adventures. Most of the comedy felt fresh, and the action never became monotonous. It was exciting and engaging, with a unique story that still felt grounded in character. There were in-jokes to let the audience feel smart, and the pacing allowed a huge number of events to occur without the stretched out feeling that Hot Fuzz had. It was unpredictable, not random, and just a lot of fun.

I wish there had been more women in this movie. I don't know how else to say this when I repeat it at almost every movie review. I don't know why it's such a complicated task. Perhaps when you take a boy's club like Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost, they want to reflect what they know, and what they know is their own friendships. Almost every character was married, and had major relationships with women in their lives, yet there were no women with significant roles. None of them were full characters and only one appeared on screen. Honestly, why is this considered acceptable? 

I thought the ending was a bit off. It was fine, just clunky and obvious. I wanted the subtext to be sprinkled throughout, but there were large chunks of the movie where the character's growing stories were forgotten in lieu of action sequences, and in order to make up for that there were long explanatory passages that were being shared like it was an instruction manual. In fact, the movie opens and closes with an unmemorable history lesson. Granted, these are subjective kind of issues that took me out of the movie, but maybe wouldn't bother everyone. It just all feels jarring and abnormal for some, otherwise great, storytellers. The major problem that may have snowballed was the antagonist. They are passive and have no motivation. When you don't have a force that can outsmart or out fight the protagonist, these problems happen. 

Having said all that, The World's End really did meet my expectations. Maybe it didn't surpass them, but that's okay because it was still great. It's worth seeing several times, because without questions there are details that are meant to be picked up on during your second or third watch. It's fun and original, and will be a nice addition to the blu-ray collection. Give them your money, they need it for beer. 

IMDB - The World's End (7.7)

Wikipedia - The World's End

Rotten Tomatoes - The World's End (90%)
Amazon.ca - The World's End

Suggestions?

I haven't posted any new reviews in the last week, and I have none in the works. Basically I've run out of movies.

I'd love to hear some suggestions, new or old, because I'm always looking for new stuff to talk about.

HIT ME UP

REVIEW: Now You See Me

6/10 - Boom! KaBlam! Alakazam! I have made a cow appear! (And $12 is gone from your wallet)

I think the movie makers believe magic is real.

Really real. Not showmanship, like Harry Potter real.

This makes for a really bad movie when the premise is cops trying to debunk a magic trick, because some magicians robbed a bank. It was MAGIC.

Now You See Me goes for the smart, mysterious, caper feel of Ocean's Eleven. I think that's what audiences want too, they certainly showed up in theaters for it. Instead of following creating and executing the heist (like in Ocean's), the movie centers around and follows the guy chasing them. And that guy is boring.

I, too, falsely presumed that the four magicians would be the stars of this movie, something anyone who sees the poster or trailer would be inclined to think. Big name actors, who are clearly the smart ones, with a plan. I was wrong. The "Four Horsemen" are a red herring, acting as nothing but an intermediary. They are following orders to some McGuffin ending, which isn't even clear in the end. After the first 20 minutes, their role is marginalized and those four characters no longer make decisions. Meaning they are useless. I watched a whole movie about these useless people.

Now You See Me is actually about Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) running around trying to "solve their crimes" through no investigatory technique or intelligence. Seriously, this is the protagonist, the dumbest person in the movie. There's also Morgan Freeman, who can figure out magic tricks (thank god someone in this movie can) and Melanie Laurent who plays a lady following Mark Ruffalo around. She's a great actress and is one of the only characters in the movie with charisma.

The movie itself falls apart after the first act. From the trailer it's clear that four magicians rob a bank during their stage act. This is promptly investigated, and rather quickly, explained. The next two acts try to replicate this, but don't do a good job. Neither the "illusions" or the "explanations" have any impact. I really want more of what was promised at the beginning. The story of the Four Horsemen coming together, and planning this would be wildly entertaining. The sleek magic act was really enjoyable to watch. It's sad that the magic really ends when the movie begins. The story should be straightforward, but becomes muddled with unclear character motivations, and false suspicion.

I think the actual magic is probably the worst element, distracting from, and ruining the movie. The magic illusions don't even need to be explained, they just needs to be plausible. Isla Fisher's character is constantly doing CGI tricks, to my utter annoyance and frustration. There is a long, documented history of real magicians creating elaborate and inventive illusions. I have a hard time believing many of them used post-production computer generated effects.

Not to mention that becoming a magician makes you a superhero! The magicians in Now You See Me not only gain strength and agility, but Tony Stark like technology, and some sort of telekinesis. I'm not making this up, I guess the writers couldn't conceive of what magic a magician could pull on other magicians, so they just made impossible things happen.

To round it out (hopefully I can summarize this in a way that won't spoil anything) the ending sucks. The ending to a caper like this should be highly anticipated with clues and hints, but wasn't. It's simply a convenient way to wrap up the story, and I think it's lazy and makes this movie cheap. It looks down on the audience instead of engaging them. I feel like this is a prime example of endings gone wrong, but I'll save that essay for another day.

Poof! The cow I made appear, just disappeared. Are you disappointed? I was.

IMDB - Now You See Me (7.3)
Wikipedia - Now You See Me
Rotten Tomatoes - Now You See Me (49%)
Amazon.ca - Now You See Me

REVIEW: Iron Man 3

Confession time: I've spent more time and words on this review than many of my college essays. My first draft of this was over 5 pages long. That's insane for a mediocre movie.

5/10 - It's really not very good.

Iron Man 3 was fast paced and enjoyable. It was a lot of fun to watch, something Iron Man 2 was completely missing, and it was very Tony Stark focused. All great things.

This is the biggest mess of a screenplay I've ever seen in action. It starts stories and drops them completely. It forgets about it's own plot and characters. The sentiment is vague and shallow. It has a ton of 80's action movie cliches and expects them to go over super seriously. That's what I get for watching a movie that starts with not one, but two different flashbacks.

WARNING: This is going to be incredibly spoilerific. I will ruin this movie if you haven't seen it.

The moment I turned against Iron Man 3 was after the first major action sequence when his house gets destroyed. There were small problems before, but this was infuriating. Tony Stark's house blows up, and he is presumed dead by the newspapers. Great, except.... Why didn't any of his 'super friends' come to help him? Even if none of the Avengers knew about the attack and no one could stop it, wouldn't Captain America get sent out to help stop the terrorist who already murdered a fellow Avengers? They mention the events of The Avengers every 20 seconds, you would think it was for a tie-in. What about Rhodes, why wasn't he protecting Tony? Furthermore, why didn't he care that Tony was pronounced dead? Tony call him up after "dying" and Rhodes says "Hey buddy, what's new?" Are you kidding me? This is not reality. There are no consequences to actions, this is nonsense.

Pepper Pots also had no purpose or clear story. Which is a shame because it started with such promise. An early moment has the Iron Man suit, on its own, attack Pepper. That's a beautiful setup for Pepper to fear the Iron Man suit and have a touching climactic moment where the suit can't save Pepper, only Tony can. This is particularly poignant after the whole second movie had Tony fighting a guy who created dangerous Iron Man drones. That would be stunningly cohesive. Too bad they fuck it up. Immediately Pepper wears the suit herself to save Tony during the house attack. Now we have a suit that anyone can wear, or can act independently. There are no longer any consequences for Iron Man, he is not fallible he is a pawn. Iron Man and Tony are no longer the same, the myth is over.

I'll restrain myself from nit picking with every single flaw but I'll say this, the whole third act is a disastrous mess. The bad guys have no motive or purpose. Is "Tony didn't give me enough attention when I was a kid" supposed to be motivation? That doesn't explain the totally random actions of the baddies. They just show up and make stupid decisions over and over with no end game or purpose. Maya Hansen shows up to warn Tony, but she also is working for Killian, even though he tried to blow her up. Sounds like a solid business plan to me.

My favorite is when they tie up the president to kill him on television, in the War Machine suit. In a functional suit! They're hanging this guy with some basic rope and they didn't just give him a knife to cut himself down, they gave him a suit with weapons and fire, that can fly him to safety. We know it's functional because ultimately that's what saves him! Did no one use their brains on this movie? How does a $200 million dollar movie make such stupid mistakes.

I really resent the 80's cliches that lead up to the final battle. I don't think lines like "We gotta make a decision. We can either save the President or Pepper. We can't do both." should make it past the first draft of a script, ever. (Spoiler alert: he tries to do both, with a sufficient amount of time to do both. He also fails at both. The President gets captured and Pepper gets infected? injected? whatever. Tony sucks.) There is whole bit about an airplane getting ripped open, and the passengers go flying out! 'Ahh we are losing cabin pressure! Someone save us!' This is so absurd considering The Avengers had an action sequence with Iron Man and Captain America trying to repair the outside of their flying craft, and none of those people went flying out into the sky because there was an open door. Audiences are not this stupid, please stop treating them as so.

By the end of this movie, there is absolutely nothing left to care about. Pepper was a damsel in distress who needed saving, and wasn't saved by Tony. She turned into an x-men mutant and wore the suit to save herself. Then she said the suits should be destroyed. Rhodes took back the Iron Patriot/War Machine suit which Tony immediately set to self destruct? Or not? I have no idea, but an accidental murdering of Rhodes would really improve this movie. Can someone explain why he blew up the suits by the way? The time to fear the drones was early on, especially after the fallout from Hammer. I don't think Pepper using the drones to save Tony twice would make her then turn around and say to ditch them. If anything she would finally sympathize. Weren't they having some sort of "marital miscommunication" at the beginning of this movie, too? What happened to that? Oh nothing. What happened to Happy? Nothing. What happened to Rhodes? Nothing. What happens in this movie? Nothing. Tony Stark is a nobody who has no character growth, makes random choices, screws up a lot, and could have solved everything if he kept his mouth shut and stayed in his basement.

IMDb - Iron Man 3 (7.5)
Wikipedia - Iron Man 3
Rotten Tomatoes - Iron Man 3 (78%)
Amazon.ca - Iron Man 3

REVIEW: Contagion

8/10 - Gravy

Contagion is the story about a contagion that becomes contagious. I actually confused this with Quarantine before I saw the movie. How hilarious. Please don't watch Quarantine.

Really, it's a multi-linear story that uses several points of view to explore the devastation that happens globally during this event. The disease is the main character, no doubt.

I really like Steven Soderbergh and I never realized it until this year. It's a real genuine shame that he is retiring this year because the last batch of movies he has done have been really inspiring, bright, and intelligent. Many of Steve's movies have not been getting the hype they deserve and I think this is one of them.

It takes great skill and restraint to illustrate the widespread effects, with only those characters that appear on the poster. I was deeply invested in these people and had no idea it was happening. Contagion has a cold and calculated feel, from the calculated roll-out of the relief efforts. It's hyper realistic but heartfelt. There are no exaggerated wide camera shots of riots or violence for the sake of violence.

Certainly when there is a star studded cast, some actors don't shine like the others, but I didn't see that in this movie. It was an outstanding cast from clinical Kate Winslet who shines in quiet moments, to the complicated Jude Law who portrays a character you either hate or love. I think the only actor who I was unhappy with was surprisingly Matt Damon. I'm not sure he reached the emotional level to make me believe what was happening at the beginning of the movie. Granted, that's likely a writing or directional choice. I think Matty makes up for it with the rising panic, and he grounds the movie unlike any other character.

I'm not sure I have a whole lot else to say about Contagion. It was great, but maybe a little cold. I want more movies like this, with creative and unique stories. It's thoughtful, scary, fast paced and emotional. Everyone should see it.

IMDB - Contagion (6.7)
Wikipedia - Contagion
Rotten Tomatoes - Contagion (84%)
Amazon.ca - Contagion

REVIEW: RED 2

5/10 - Action movie, action movie, something something whatever.

Here's the thing. It's the same stuff we got in the original. That's what you want to get in a sequel, right? Because we wanted more. But that's why it's bad. Wait, that doesn't make sense. 

This is the cycle of sequels. We liked the first movie, want more, get more, are disappointed that it's just like the original. 

It was fine action movie. It was funny in the right moments, surprising and unique like the original. It had great pacing, moving the story along without delay. Its got great actors (from the original) who are smart and funny and unpredictable. It had absurd scenes of stuff blowing up. The crucial puzzle piece missing is that it's not surprising. Because we saw the original.

As far as sequels go, this movie nails it. If this was a stand alone it has a strong enough story to be relatively interesting. But it doesn't do anything to rise above the original. 

I think the biggest problem I have is with the story itself. Which I already said was good. It's still totally fine, just a pet peeve. Red 2 is a school lesson from the MacGuffin Institute where you learn how to make an arbitrary object so important that they need to save the world. Dear Action Movies: you don't always need to save the world. Every time, saving the world. Maybe think of something else? I'm a little sick of the bombs waiting to detonate. 

If there is going to be a Red 3, I want to see it get more personal. The world doesn't need to be ending. Maybe just the protagonist's world? I wish more sequels did that. 

I definitely would not recommend someone dropping $15 on a theater ticket to see Red 2. Wait until it's on Netflix, and if you liked Red, then maybe check out Red 2 some night. On a Wednesday when there's nothing else good on television. 

IMDB - Red 2 (7.1)

Wikipedia - Red 2

Rotten Tomatoes - Red 2 (41%)
Amazon.ca - Red 2

REVIEW: Drinking Buddies

6/10 - Everyone gets drunk. I bet you weren't expecting that. 

Previously I put this in my "Most Anticipated Movie Whatever" list meaning - I had high expectations.

I was wrong. It wasn't that great.

Ok, ok. There was some good direction, and some great actors, but at the end of the day it was boring!

I like a movie that focuses on the mundane, making natural dialogue a priority and telling more grounded stories of everyday people. From what I understand writer/director Joe Swanberg specializes in naturalistic improvisational style. I also have a huge appreciation for low-budget filmmaking. Drinking Buddies tries to pull on all those strings for me, but at the end of the day, it's a jump that doesn't quite stick the landing.

I got to know these characters, I became invested in their lives and wanted to know more. I thought it balked at the end and didn't get there for me. This wasn't unsatisfying, but just uninteresting. It develops beautifully but by the final act, it became a flat story. Maybe the stunted action was meant to be real, but there are ways to do that without making me want to fall asleep. For me it's an incomplete emotional story.

I think I need to dole out some compliments, so I will say that I think the acting was superb. I've always considered the sign of a good actor to be conveying a range of emotions without dialogue. Across the board, this is a talented group of people.

I also genuinely appreciate the journey that it tried to go on. Relationships are complicated, and exploring the evolving relationship of friends was very smart. This script taps into an experience that will relate to a lot of people. I think there are a lot of stories like this that haven't been told on screen.

Drinking Buddies is most memorable to me for having great potential. I don't see nearly enough drama's that are grounded, not high concept or melodramatic. I want more real humans in movies who say things like "I just got really nervous" or for the silence to say more than the people. I want stories about women, and stories about real life and not cliches. I want more movies like this. But better.

IMDB - Drinking Buddies (6.0)
Wikipedia - Drinking Buddies
Rotten Tomatoes - Drinking Buddies (69%)
Amazon.ca - Drinking Buddies

I am a negligent blogger

Much like your fictional father figure, after being there and supportive, I left one day to pick up a nicotine refill for my e-cigarette, and some chocolate milk, and was never seen or heard from again.

Actually, I went on vacation.

For some reason being away brought tremendous traffic to this site, so in order to maintain the great standards I've established I won't post anything ever again! Success awaits!

Just kidding. I have lots of movie reviews coming up.

Who saw a good movie recently? I haven't, so tell me about it.

QUICKIE MOVIE REVIEWS

I've watched a bunch of terrible movies lately, and a few good ones. Here is the rundown - including a 0/10 and a 10/10.

Red Dawn
(2012, Jeremy Passmore and Carl Ellsworth)

The whole premise is cool. I've never seen the original but from what I gathered about the remake- North Korea plans an elaborate invasion on US soil, sending troops to invade nationwide, and some regular-Joe suburban guys fight back. That's not even close to what this movie really is, so don't waste your money or time.

This was so one dimensional. It's really the least thought out film I've ever seen. I don't think it was ever written. It must have been created over a lunch break and they grabbed whatever actors were around. 2/10

Trance

(2013, Joe Ahearne and John Hodge)

Here's the thing. This would be a cool movie if it wasn't so over thought. It's the opposite of Red Dawn. Its so planned that it's hard to remain focused because of the anticipation of what will happen next. It was one of these point of view "what really happened" movies, but halfway in I was lost and didn't care. 

It all seemed very forced and overworked. I don't have any interest in revisiting the story or the characters. A well intentioned flop. I don't know what if anything could have saved this movie. 5/10

Indie Game: The Movie
(DOC. 2012, James Swirsky and Lisanne Pajot)

This is going to be an unpopular opinion. If you want to watch people talk about games, sure, watch it. But there was nothing mind blowing or revolutionary, or frankly interesting about this documentary.

It was a safe, boring bet. It's watchable but it's not memorable. I almost feel like there wasn't enough here to make a movie. 4/10




Safe Haven
(2013, Gage Lansky and Dana Stevens)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha....
hahahahahahahahahaha....
Don't watch this movie.
0/10

Save the Date
(2012, Jeffrey Brown, Egan Reich, Michael Mohan)

I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I enjoy all the actors and think they typically make good choices. This movie dragged its heals and became frustrating. I turned against the protagonist halfway through when motivations became muddled. I don't think they knew what the story they were trying to tell was. It was just a compilation of events that didn't really build to anything.

There were some great jokes and a lot of the drama felt genuine and close to home. Mark Webber did an outstanding job and is the only memorable character.

If I see one more slow zoom, I'm going to punch someone. It's like art school 101 for how to make things look important when they aren't. Slow zoom. 4/10



Queen of Versailles
(DOC. 2012, Lauren Greenfield)

This has quickly become one of my favorite documentaries of the year. It's a fascinating look at the life of one of the richest families in the United States. It's a surprising and engaging experience of what happens to them during the recession.

Don't mistake this for a TLC show on the big screen. It's a real American-Dream story. As old money as David Segal acts, he build his fortune piece by piece. Jackie is the arm candy beauty queen. She competed in pageants and models, but she also has a engineering degree and shops at Wal-Mart.  Everyone wants to watch these sky high people eat their humble pie, but it's not a movie that tears these people apart, it's quite compassionate. It's a thought provoking slice of reality and that's exactly what a documentary should be. 10/10

"Nothings really normal about this life. You know, getting everything... It's like you don't really have to worry about money, but at the same time, you do." (16 year old, Jonquil)

MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek Into Darkness

9/10 - Phenomenal sequel, worth the admission price.

In my continued series to review movies that are no longer relevant, I saw the new Star Trek Into Darkness in glorious 2D.

First, I want to talk about how impressed I am that this is a sequel. When you take away all the history, and the expectations, this is just an action movie that was successful and spawned a sequel. For me, it's pretty impressive to make a watchable sequel in 2013. Because they are typically garbage (Transformers).

Into Darkness takes the typical movie magic formula and makes it work. The writers rip away everything important and do so in a way that doesn't seem unnecessary or fake. As many sequel writers have said, things have to get more personal the second time around, and they do a great job in this. I may have got a little teary eyed at one moment, but it's totally fine. It's just allergies. Don't look at me. 

It's definitely derivative, and the one thing I do notice over and over again with Damon Lindeloff is that he tends to reinterpret an idea that's just a little bit too familiar. Great story, great atmosphere, but if I took away that stuff the plot would be a story a modern trope. Good or bad, you decide. I still enjoyed the movie and was surprised by the end result.

I'm a little disappointed with how characters well established in the first movie are sort of shelved in the second. I was particularly bothered by two characters, Uhura being marginalized despite remaining a fierce female presence, and Chekov being sent to the boiler room for much of the film.

I am inclined to talk about the role of women particularly because of Dr. Marcus being a fluff piece. Movie goers have likely noticed the decline of gratuitous sexuality in regular films lately and this is probably why. The character of Dr. Marcus is fine but she feels a little one dimensional until she reveals her true plot-device purpose for being on board. Before her character is really tested, she decides to strip for Kirk. No

The Cast of Star Trek 2

one is really sure why. The ironic bit to this comes from the fact that this film is pretty well written, and the beats move so fast, which is why this scene is causing attention. When every scene is written with a purpose and payoff, and all of a sudden you ask the audience to stare at boobies because you like them? That's not going to sit well. This is why we need women in the movie industry who can get editing jobs with red pens and can say "nope, cut it." and make me happy.

I have no doubt that this role has transformed many peoples view of Benedict Cumberbatch aka Sherlock Holmes. He is now an action legend. I will fully admit that I wouldn't have thought he had it in him. He can obviously play brainy, but it takes something special to be a great evil genius. He truly lucked out with the writing because rarely are villains given enough to be terrifying. Not only is "John Harrison" mysterious, he clearly has an intention, and a viable plan. He really could out wit them all and that's invaluable. I think his character is what solely elevates Into Darkness into superb-sequel territory.

Overall, I dig Star Trek 2-ish. It's a great adventure series and it has a lot of great actors. It doles out memorable giggles and genuine emotion. It's probably one of the better movies I have seen this summer. If you want a real edge of your seat action movie, don't miss it.

IMDb - Star Trek Into Darkness (8.2)

Wikipedia - Star Trek Into Darkness

Rotten Tomatoes - Star Trek Into Darkness (87%)
Amazon.ca - Star Trek Into Darkness

My Dog Hoards Garbage

I have nothing to add. My dog is both cute and super weird.

The Internet is Conspiring Against Me

I don't have much to say except I wrote two blog posts last week, and had them as scheduled updates.

But they were eaten. By the internet. Gone forever.
You didn't miss much.


I ranted about how Pacific Rim didn't look like a good movie.

I also made a movie review for Red Dawn (which was abhorrently bad)

Since no one reads my blog, I'm just going to make a "quickie" movie review post about several movies I saw lately and I'll throw some mean stuff about Red Dawn in there to make up for it. I'm best when I'm angry, so it was an entertaining post, for sure.

No objections to skipping those posts? Great, see you next week.

Jimmy Eat World @ Ottawa Bluesfest, July 4th, 2013

Finally getting to see my all time favorite band was quite an experience.


As far as I can tell, here is their setlist.

• I Will Steal You Back (Damage - 2013)
• A Praise Chorus (Bleed American - 2001)
• My Best Theory (Invented - 2010)
• Appreciation (Damage - 2013)
• Your New Aesthetic (Clarity - 1999)
• Futures (Futures - 2004)
• Work (Futures - 2004)
• Damage (Damage - 2013)
• Let It Happen (Chase This Light - 2007)
• Pain (Futures - 2004)
• Chase This Light (Chase This Light - 2007)
• Lean (Damage - 2013)
• Sweetness (Bleed American - 2001)
• Bleed American (Bleed American - 2001)
• Lucky Denver Mint (Clarity - 1999)
• Big Casino (Chase This Light - 2007)
• The Middle (Bleed American - 2001)

Upcoming Summer Movies (Part 2- Extra Awesome Edition)

(Psst.. Part 1 is here!)

Kick Ass 2

Action, Screenplay by Jeff Wadlow
Release Date: August 16th, 2013



Yeaaaaaaahhhhh I can't wait for this movie. Insert your favorite cliche comment about sequels not living up to the original here. I don't care. This is going to be an awesome movie. Kick Ass might not have been recognized as an outstanding movie when it was released, but I think it stands up against some of the biggest budget movies launched in the last decade. It's the only superhero movie to ever capture a sense of  vulnerability and humble insecurity. It's a powerful franchise that pushes traditional concepts bringing shocking moments to a very jaded audience, while eliciting more sympathy than I have ever had for a "hero". Of course I am concerned they are going to screw things up. But even if they do, I'll get a new sexy soundtrack from it! (The original was great!)

The World's End

Genre? Awesome? Written by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg
Release Date: August 23rd, 2013 (NA)



I don't think there is much to say. These guys don't do sequels, they do new movies. This is the final chapter the Blood and Ice Cream (someone buys a cornetto at the time stamp of the release date?) series. The actors are highly talented, extremely funny and have never balked at the high expectations. This will be good, because Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright don't know how to do bad.

Drinking Buddies

Dranedy, Written by Joe Swanberg
Release Date: August 23rd, 2013



I am a sucker for Olivia Wilde, even when she's isn't great and every girl fell in love with Anna Kendrick in 2012 with Pitch Perfect. To put those two ladies in a love triangle with New Girl's Jake Johnson is genius. I am there. This looks like the perfect kind of romantic comedy, having a female POV but not being girlie and trite. I'm really excited to see where this goes, but I will be the first to acknowledge the major-flop potential. This could definitely drag on and be unsatisfying. But I don't think Jake would do that to me. If this doesn't drown, it could serve to be a great example for how to make a quality low budgie. I have faith that Joe Swanberg is experienced enough to make this great.

Don Jon

Comedy, Written by Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Release Date: September 27th, 2013



Everyone knows JGL for making amazing film choices, which is why there is such a high expectation for his foray into writing and directing. Thankfully this isn't a high concept thriller, or crime drama with a twist ending or something that could so easily go wrong. It's a comedy, but it's hard to create a comedy that feels fresh and edgy. I'm excited to see this in theaters, because I can't see it being anything less than stellar.


That's my list! No mention of Wolverine or Thor. If anyone has any suggestions, arguments or pictures of cats, please comment below!

Upcoming Summer Movies (Part 1)

The Way, Way Back

Comedy, Written by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash.
Release Date: July 5th, 2013.

I linked this on FaceBook because this is my dream cast. Steve Carell is a proven talent, but Allison Janney is one of my favorite humans, plus Toni Collette is immensely gifted. To say I'm looking forward to this is a gross understatement. You better not disappoint, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash!!! Who am I kidding. Those two are a delight. (I miss Ben and Kate)

RED 2

Action, Screenplay by Jon Hoeber, and Erich Hoeber.
Release Date: July 19th, 2013.



Ehh, this will probably be mediocre at best. But the original RED was an unexpected smash for me. I love a film that doesn't take itself super seriously (I'm looking at you, Die Hard series) and if I get to watch Helen Mirren kick ass again, I'll give this a shot.

The To Do List

Romantic Comedy, Written by Maggie Carey.
Release Date: July 26th, 2013



Everyone seems to love Aubrey Plaza lately, but I don't think I'm on that bandwagon. She is pretty funny and this movie has summer success formula written all over it. With some hysterical costars, and jokes that make me giggle in the trailer, I'm pretty excited to see how this shakes out.

Elysium

Action, Sci-Fi. Written by Neill Blomkamp
Release Date: August 9th, 2013



This is the guy who made everyone freak out with District 9. That being said, I am seriously pumped for Jodi Foster. She is a frosty bitch in this trailer. Matt Damon is ok, but he isn't winning me over like Jodi is with her bitch-face. I'm concerned about this getting the "over-hype" treatment and it being an ok film that gets praised to the high heavens. It makes me nervous when I can plot out three acts from the trailer. That being said, District 9, District 9, omg it's gonna be so good!

I'm going to post Part Two later this week. If there is anything I'm forgetting leave a comment and let me know!

Edit: Part2 is here!

REVIEW: Odd Thomas

4/10 – Hey Gang! Let’s all get in the Mystery Machine!

Dear lord I hope they change this poster

A great novel does not mean a great film. The thing that bugged me most about this movie is that it felt like I wasn't in on a big joke. There's clearly something captivating about the novel by Dean Koontz 'Odd Thomas' to warrant a film with a decent budget. I didn't get it. 

The current film summary claims that Odd is a short order cook with extraordinary power! He is a short order cook in one scene, so take the humble beginnings aspect with a grain of salt. Our "hero" also has a built in powers that are never explained, to prevent him from actually having to work hard at anything. He "senses" evil, sees what will happen in his dreams, and can "magnetically" find the bad guys. This kid is the worst detective ever.

The number of “writing rules” that are broken in Odd Thomas fundamentally bothers me. It’s lazy writing. Granted, it’s from a novel so I can’t blame the screenwriter, but maybe blame Koontz a little. It’s just one cliché after another in this universe. Good people are good. Bad people are bad.

Anton Yelchin is a great actor, but Odd as a character is paper thin. Odd is a good guy, who is given the answers to solve crimes, he just has to show up and do it, without any internal struggle or conflict. He is a perfect person who has extra abilities and no flaws. The characters aren't improved with "Stormy" either, she flops on screen. As the second Mary Sue, she is immaculate, brilliant, and the source of all of Odd's happiness. Good people are good. Bad people are bad.

Every character also falls into the "single child with no parents" universe which just doesn't work, especially when trying to develop a small town atmosphere. No one has any relation to one another. I get it; these things work better in a novel. In a film like this it only serves to make those characters even more distant and unrelatable. They are on a pedestal, and I just want to see them get knocked down.

Anton Yelchin as Odd Thomas

The bad guys have the weakest motivation I think I’ve ever witnessed in a movie. Frankly that isn’t new for Stephen Sommers, (The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, The Mummy Does More Bad Things, We Ran Out of Mummies, Honey I Shrunk the Mummy) But of course this is going to be a mystery if there is literally no way to solve the crime because it’s entirely spontaneous. They just appear and do bad things because they feel like it. I can’t stress enough how much this movie turns into an episode of Scooby Doo by the end. Odd Thomas runs to the baddie and rips their mask off saying "it was Old Man McGuffin all along" and then everything is right in the world again. Good people are good. Bad people are bad.

I’m making this sound unwatchable. If you want to sit down and watch a movie with some light harmless action and very little detective work by a bunch of detectives, this movie is for you! If you thought Cabin in the Woods was terrible because you didn't bother to think about what was happening, this movie is also for you! It’s not a total fail. It has a mystery element that is genuinely surprising. It also keeps things relatively fast paced because people need to run everywhere, all the time.

Odd Thomas actually does a good job of creating high stakes at the very beginning of the movie, not letting the audience wait around for that to happen. It falters though when they have to maintain those high stakes throughout the rest of the film, because by the end I wasn't very concerned. It also tries so hard to maintain the smart, quick, witty dialogue that it forgets to make the movie smart and witty.

I’d love to hear other people’s opinions on this movie but without a wide release there aren't many reviews up. I have no doubt that a ton of people will think this movie is fantastic. But for me, it should have been a 22 minute cartoon with a doggie sidekick.

IMDB - Odd Thomas (6.6)
Wikipedia - Odd Thomas Movie
Rotten Tomatoes - Odd Thomas (No Reviews)
Amazon.ca - Odd Thomas

REVIEW: 3, 2, 1.... Frankie Go Boom

5/10 - Yes, that's the real title. I assume someone was on mushrooms when it was chosen.

This movie left me disappointed. I felt like a soccer mom, rooting for my kids team, but they still got pummeled.

Frankie Go Boom shares the story of a young man who becomes an internet laughing stock at the hands of his brother. Twice. It's supposed to be a heartwarming story about a man learning to live with his dysfunctional family, finding love after getting his heart broken, and doing so while playing dress-up as a vulgar comedy. It unfortunately fails on all three fronts.

I will say that this is absolutely not a horrible train wreck. It's entertaining and might even by hysterical in the right mindset. The cast is a fantastic ensemble for a lower budget movie. I think every actor improves on the character that was written in the script. It has some unfiltered and unedited moments of comic inspiration, but that just isn't enough.

Lizzy Caplan and Charlie Hunnam are fine as Lassie and Frankie. Just fine. Chris O'Dowd is still quite funny and charming, but I suspect he was put on a leash.

I think that Frankie was trying to go for the Little Miss Sunshine vibe of being sweet and optimistic despite the chaos. Sadly, aside from one climactic moment of real emotion, nothing about this feels optimistic or charming, or even relatable by the end. I don't really ever believe anything important is at stake. The ending just sort of happens, the same way characters just sort of appear and disappear in the movie. All and all it just feels wishy-washy. There are great ideas but it never goes for the jugular. This movie has the balls to put Ron Perlman in drag and feature a blowjob nightmare, but it still doesn't make me laugh or feel fresh.

I would love for other writers to weigh in on where they think Frankie goes wrong, and how they would have done things differently to make it better.

IMDb - Frankie Go Boom (5.6)
Wikipedia - Frankie Go Boom
Rotten Tomatoes - Frankie Go Boom (41%)
Amazon.ca - Frankie Go Boom

REVIEW: Spring Breakers

7/10 - Watching this movie felt like an acid trip.

Summer time… perfect for a fun, exciting, sexy movie adventure. Just not Spring Breakers.

This movie is a dramatic exploration of party culture. It’s surrounded by sex, booze, music, drugs, and guns, but unlike other movies, it’s not about that stuff, its about girls who get lost in that world. Possibly why so many Disney stars flocked to this movie to shed their wholesome image.

I really enjoyed the story telling aspect of this film. The writing and editing was fascinating. There is very little narrative, this movie talks with it’s action. That being said, this is not a fast paced thriller. It's far more of a character study then a crime movie. If you are expecting a summer hit with lots of memorable action, you've come to the wrong place. 

Writer/Director Harmony Korine seems to take the totally absurd and make it realistic and raw in this universe. I never found anything to be incredibly funny or shocking while watching it, only after did I realize how bizarre this movie gets. At points is uses Britney Spears bubblegum culture to drive home corruption, but it doesn't feel out of place. It just feels honest and gritty.

The biggest flaw in Spring Breakers is how none of the young stars are charismatic or engaging. The four girls who go to Florida are tightly knit but completely interchangeable. It was difficult for me to keep watching, initially because of this, but in retrospect I don't think it was unintentional. 

James Franco as Alien is something else. For being such an incredibly over the top exaggeration of a stereotype, he is also the salt of the earth in this film. I still can't tell whether he is a good actor or whether he is good at choosing movie roles. His role turns this movie around in more ways than one. 

I have a hard time deciding whether I enjoyed this movie. I am grateful to experience something atypical from the Hollywood blockbuster, but there are times when it dragged and felt self indulgent. But again, that's sort of the point. When you get beyond the "shock value" of what you expect the movie to be compared to what you get, there is a satisfying journey that sneaks up and takes the audience by surprise. 

When you take away the stars, this is a low budget, gem that will likely get overlooked. If you do decide to watch it, make sure it's late at night. 

IMDB - Spring Breakers (6.1)

Wikipedia - Spring Breakers

Rotten Tomatoes - Spring Breakers (65%)

Amazon.ca - Spring Breakers

REVIEW: Oz the Great and Powerful

6/10 - The great and powerful cash grab. 

Does this movie add anything to The Wizard of Oz that makes a prequel worthwhile? No, not really.

Is it a great movie that makes you think? Absolutely not.

Compared to some other big budget bombs that have come out lately, this movie really isn't that bad. Zack Braff is very entertaining. The combination of the beautiful score, with the imaginative, saturated visuals engages the senses. I never found it predictable, as the whole movie relies on a suspension of belief. There is a lot of charm in this movie, as it tries to show hope for "goodness", bordering on cavity-inducing sweetness.

It's never lacking in something to look at, or laugh at. It also has lots of those "did you like that part?" moments.

That stuff kind of kills me, as a movie fan. Moments that are cinematic but totally not stimulating. Writer's have to put in those moments, and for the most part I think that's why people see movies, for the big action scene at the end, or that super funny part that they can quote with their friends. It's the overabundance of cinematic sequences that are either predictable, pandering, or irreverent in terms of story. Moments that are either visually stunning, engaging with action, incredibly funny, or obviously emotional. It's movie paint-by-numbers. Sad-part here. Funny-part here.

That's the essential problem with Oz the Great and Powerful- The story doesn't actually make sense, it just wants the audience to feel like it does.

Does Oz learn anything in the end? No. What's the deal with the witches? Why did the evil one become not important, the good one become evil, and the other good one, stay kind of goodish? I still can't make sense of that. And just to get the story straight... They free The Emerald City from the oppressive witch who pretends to be good so that Oz (the guy) can pretend to be good instead? Is this an improvement? It's thin. At best.

I think what lacked in story, translated to some of the performances, on screen. Playing a Wicked Witch ought to be the role of a lifetime. But the three witches are bland and boring. Does Michelle Williams pour her heart out while retelling Oz of the terrible lies her sister has told, about killing her own father? No. It's not even a big deal. She's just stating a fact.

Mila Kunis seems to want to bring the drama, but her role doesn't make any sense. She's a witch, doing nothing, who becomes love sick, and then turns evil against her will. She should be a powerful central figure, but she floats through it all. Should a powerful witch be so easily crushed by a broken heart?

Rachel Weisz has one of the best roles in the film, being the one major schemer who's truly evil and sinister. But she is hardly remarkable. Not to mention James Franco. I will admit, that their must not have had an easy task, presumably filming most of this on green screen. Perhaps that's why these characters don't seem to react or resonate. The original Glinda was glorious to behold. Oz ought to be smart as a whip, and charming beyond belief.

The movie also drags it's heels, trying to make unimportant sequences grandiose. It runs at around 2 hours and it should be 90 minutes, max.

I have a lot to pick apart in this movie, but that might be because on first watch I saw that it was technically sound, very entertaining, and the scenes kept rolling, as it should in a big budget spectacle. It's not really a terrible film, as long as you don't think about it afterwards.

IMDb - Oz the Great and Powerful (6.6)
Wikipedia - Oz the Great and Powerful
Rotten Tomatoes - Oz the Great and Powerful (59%)
Amazon.ca - Oz the Great and Powerful

My life, as a writer

It's me! It's me! It's really me!

Hello internet. Again.

I wanted to share another youtube video that I made with my friend Tracey. We discuss (or argue) what things we are good at, and what things we are bad at.

REVIEW: Snow White and the Huntsman

I have to preface this review by saying that I watched this movie back when it first came out, and thought it was a perfectly fine movie. Some weird bits. Went on too long, but pretty good otherwise.

That's why I bought the movie when it was on sale.

Now that I am watching it again, I don't know what I was thinking. This is a big pile of stinking garbage.

4/10 - I liked it once. Now I want to tear out my eyeballs it's so bad. Please don't make me watch this again. 

I take it some people in Hollywood think it's trendy to adapt fairy tales. Why anyone banked on this being a good idea is beyond me. (Maeby Funke?) There are a grand total of none that have been good. I have my score card to prove it.

Trying to turn the kids story of Snow White into a dramatic, stylized, action movie is the equivalent of trying to polish ... mud. I am supposed to take this "mirror mirror on the wall" stuff super seriously? And the seven dwarfs? That's straight out of Game of Thrones! Of course I'll think it's legit.

The redeeming factor is the fact that every scene with Charlize is golden. The lady can do crazy. Watching her is like watching a bad student art project, but with a $170,000,000 budget. She's fabulous but it's not movie redeeming fabulous.

The fact that I am expected to spend two full hours of my life watching Kristen Stewart prance around with the same "vampire lover" expression, is the mental equivalent of water boarding. Saying "this is bullshit" would be an insult to bullshit. I don't think I can remember anything she even did in the movie, and she's the damn protagonist.

At least Thor gave us something to look at. He gives a good effort. I can get the point he is trying to make, as his sexy voice narrates the movie. There is however, one point where "Snow" says some stuff to the people and they revolt against Queen Charlize (God Bless the Queen). This was clearly the Braveheart moment of the film. She was supposed to be the driving force to help the people. What a flop. She showed the ambition of a wet noodle. Do Kristen and Chris have chemistry? No, of course not. Not that I blame them. I don't think little miss "wahh" face couldn't make that happen, since there are no tight close ups with Muse playing in the background. Their romance is cringe-worthy because I feel sorry for these people, having to act it. This is a $170 million dollar film, and I feel sorry that the actors have to do this crap. What kind of movie is this?

In conclusion, if you want a Lord of the Rings style version of a predictable children's tale, with bizarrely amped up moments that appear to be totally irrelevant to the plot, as well as some of the worst acting ever recorded on film, this movie's for you! It's so slow, and dull that you might fall asleep and not realize!

I am reluctant to even link to this movie because I don't want to make anyone else endure this torture.

IMDB - Snow White and the Huntsman (6.2 - You've got to be kidding me)
Wikipedia - Snow White and the Huntsman
Rotten Tomatoes - Snow White and the Huntsman (48% - That's more like it)
Amazon.ca - Snow White and the Huntsman