Reviews

The score (borrowing signature notes from from the 1982 film), the look, and the effects all seem an extension of Carpenter's work, and its connections to that story provide the satisfaction of a completed puzzle. I'm not sure this movie made the most of the psychological aspects of its premise--the paranoid feeling that would come from looking at one's companions up close, in the eye, one by one, and wondering, monster?--but to do so might have required extending that portion of the script beyond theater limits. Someone, make a Thing television series! Until then, this is a worthy companion piece to be seen shortly before or after John Carpenter's The Thing, so that the interlocking pieces are fresh in your mind.

Why you should see it You get much-needed relaxation by visualizing vast, snowy landscapes and blank-eyed creatures composed of random body parts trying to kill you.

Why you shouldn't see it You think a movie title should be much more specific. It might give you nightmares, making it difficult to finish your experiment just when you were about to animate the Leg-topus. Mary Elizabeth Winstead stole your boyfriend in preschool.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

What I Learned 1. Ghosts of newspaper boys love Tiny Tim's 1968 rendition of the 1926 song "Tiptoe Through the Tulips." 2. Skeptical Husband never calls the police. 3. A modified Viewmaster makes an excellent ghost-detector. 4. When your astral body is walking through the nothingness, the nothingness has an astral floor to support your astral shoes. 5. Skeptical Husband is skeptical. 6. If you're wearing a plaid flannel shirt, your astral body is wearing a plaid flannel astral shirt just like it. (Drop it onto the astral floor and see if it disappears.) 7. The Further is very far, but it takes no time at all to get there, because sort of it's right here, or something. 8. All you really need for Halloween is white makeup, dark lipstick, a steady stare and a great big smile. A bloodstain on your chest is just a bonus.

Extra Credit Scenes

After the very last of the credits there's one brief spooky shot that doesn't add to the storyline at all. However if you sit through the credits anyway, you'll see that the film has "additional photagraphy," a "first assistant editor" and no proofreader.

The Story Begins The Lamberts have just moved into a creaky old home, and while husband Josh is out, something strange happens, frightening strangely-spelled Renai (Byrne). Then Dalton (Simpkins) fails to wake up one morning, and when the usual tests don't turn up anything, instead of running this rare, journal-worthy diagnostic challenge by the greatest scientific minds in the field of neurology, the child's doctor says something like "oh well, sorry about that," and sends him home in his coma-like state with a rented hospital bed and a nurse to show Renai where the tube goes. That's when the really weird things start happening: Renai (really, it's pronounced like Renee, so why spell it like "Ren-eye?") finds chairs moved, feels like she's being watched, and suspects that the ones watching her just might be the creepy dead white people who keep startling her, and us in the audience, badly (the sudden abuse of musical instruments in the soundtrack doesn't help).

What I think

In spite of the Saw alumni who made Insidious, this scary fun is of the good, old-fashioned variety, which creeps you way-the-heck out and makes you jump out of your seat whenever it can--no drill-bits or bear traps required. See it while it's in the theater, and make sure it's a digital presentation with a modern sound system, so that you get the full effect when the malevolent voices mutter and the soundtrack artists slam objects against the strings of an open piano, just as a crazy-eyed pale face comes into view. If you get too skeeved out, don't worry: paranormal researchers Specs and Tucker (Whannell and Sampson) will provide some comic relief to relax you just in time to be startled out of your pants again.

Why you should see it: Ghosts are fun.

Why you shouldn't see it: You're a fraidy-cat.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The action--mostly gun battles and car chases--is non-stop, well executed and well filmed. The trailer boasts that Drive Angry was shot in 3D (not converted), and I did enjoy the effect when hatchets and bullets flew at me much more than I would enjoy the effect of actual hatchets and bullets.

Cage is good as Milton, a determined killing machine, and he doesn't have that monstrous haircut he annoyed me with a few days ago when I watched Knowing (2009) on the DVR (I'm sorry, hair that abruptly ends at the tops of the ears without a hint of sideburns is too disturbing for me) but Fichtner's performance as the supernaturally strong, agile and casually murderous man who introduces himself as The Accountant may be the best aspect of this movie. It's too bad Drive Angry seems to be failing at the box office, because I would have hoped for a bigger role for The Accountant in a sequel.

Why you should see it: The 3D image of the moon on Milton's windshield. The scene in which Milton tells Candy (Ross) "I never disrobe before a gunfight."

Why you shouldn't see it: Someone gets shot in the eye and later grows a new one, and you think that sort of medical misinformation is dangerous to the public. The scene in which Milton tells Candy "I never disrobe before a gunfight"--you feel it promotes unsafe sex.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Mark Zuckerberg, an abrasive Harvard programming genius without blue-blood pedigree, dreams of achieving social status in school and beyond. To do this he creates what would become the most popular website in the world, and he's accused of betrayal several times along the way. Is he a backstabber or simply one of the greatest businesspeople of our time?

The Social Network paints Zuckerberg as neither hero nor villain. He's merely obsessed with his mission and, paradoxically, both a brilliant manipulator of social needs on a broad scale, and blind--perhaps willfully so--to the emotions of those closest to him. (Eisenberg's performance nearly screams "Asperger's!," but otherwise the film never raises the syndrome as a possibility.)

Being a Sorkin creation, this version of Zuckerberg gives us a vicarious thrill in each flash-forward deposition, during which the powers that be smugly attempt to squash him down and he answers with a crushing, unanswerable retort every time. However we are never sure if what he is speaking to power is actually truth, or what he would like it to be.

Why you should see it: You enjoy a good, profound Sorkin speech. You're glad to see Eisenberg differentiate himself from Michael Cera, although you can't decide whether the two of them playing brothers would be a wonderful idea or a terrible one.

Why you shouldn't see it: You want to finish reading the book first. You want to finish reading Facebook first.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Agnes (Judd) is a lonely barmaid who has been emotionally devastated by a personal tragedy. Her friend RC (Collins) casually introduces Agnes to Peter (Shannon), whom RC has just met, and when Peter admits he has no home to return to, Agnes offers him her couch, and later her bed. Peter is concerned about the radioactive material in smoke detectors, miscellaneous toxins in the environment, machines and government agencies, and Agnes is alarmed, not by Peter's behavior, but by the dangers of the modern world, to which she believes Peter is opening her eyes. After he wakes Agnes to tell her he has been bitten by something, Peter searches the sheets and points, but Agnes doesn't see the critter. There it is, Peter exclaims. It's right there! Whatever bit Peter is apparently so tiny that Agnes still can't see it. He points; he insists. Look! Don't you see it?! Still, Agnes doesn't see it. Until she does.

Ever since 2007, when Bug was released in the US, I've been curious about it, but reluctant to see a movie that no reviewer could describe without using the word "disturbing," and I had the impression that the word was well-chosen. It wasn't only the prospect of tiny bugs that crawl lightly over a victim's skin in search of the ideal place to begin burrowing, although I'll admit that I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight if I thought a cockroach was in the apartment. It was also the prospect of a descent into madness, convincingly portrayed. Movies that have done that effectively have always horrified me a lot more than monsters or cartoonish psychos with machetes.

The movie presents three unpleasant prospects: an immense colony of genetically-engineered, flesh-eating, mind-warping, nearly-microscopic bugs; insanity, spreading persuasively from mind to mind and expedited by recreational drugs; and the thought that the presence of barely perceivable but deadly creatures and the presence of insanity might not be mutually exclusive. I won't tell you which specter materializes, but you wouldn't invite any of them for a sleepover, would you?

I've seen lots of movies already this year--about twice the number I've posted about here so far. It may be for this reason that I've been increasingly conscious of the fact that I'm watching actors on a set, performing from a script, probably being filmed out of sequence and edited together later, with added sound effects and music. The willing suspension of my disbelief is not as easy or as complete as it used to be, and sometimes I think it's a shame. This time, though, I was grateful for the extra layer of separation from this nightmare. I was able to enjoy it, in a way, and I won't have nightmares. I hope.

Why you should see it: You like to test yourself with the controlled masochism of spicy food, roller coasters and the creepiest movies you can stand.

Why you shouldn't see it: Seeing two people riddled with parasites, or losing their grip on reality, or both, doesn't sound to you like a good time. Your left calf is itchy right now, just under your sock, and you're trying to resist the impulse to scratch it.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

Early in the film, Moore tells us that he is a card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, and he points out that Canada has more guns per capita and less gun violence than the United States has. If the guns alone are not the problem, he asks, what is? He proceeds to examine aspects of our culture, especially our media, that may promote fear and hostility (he does not blame the common scapegoats, lyrics and video games). It's an important topic, and Moore points out a great number of facts that seem relevant to the discussion.

I didn't agree with everything Moore said and implied, though, and you certainly won't. For example he criticizes local news broadcasts for repeatedly showing African Americans in handcuffs, and this imagery seems to me to be more a symptom of gun violence than a cause. He ambushes Charlton Heston in his home under arguably false pretenses, and asks the actor and NRA chairman to apologize for holding rallies near, school shootings. While his accusation of insensitivity may be on target, Moore chooses, at this point, to ignore his earlier point, that given the example of Canada something other than high rates of gun ownership must be at work. He might have addressed this point in his conversation with Heston and acknowledged the possibility that by holding these rallies the NRA might be making the same legitimate point that Moore himself was making in the beginning of the film; that gun ownership rates and gun violence (with its associated raw emotions) could be separated in the national conversation.

Bowling for Columbine is by no means an evenhanded treatise, nor does it offer a clear path to a reduction in gun crime. However it's an important film because of the questions it will raise in your mind, many of which have probably not occurred to you.

Why you should see it: You take the duties of citizenship seriously and believe you're obligated to give a fair hearing to multiple opinions on an issue like gun violence.

Why you shouldn't see it: Hearing the name "Michael Moore" renders you incapable of giving anything or anyone a fair hearing for approximately two hours.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

What I Think Nolfi uses Philip K. Dick's clever premise to its best advantage, with an effective script, directed well. The principal roles couldn't have been better cast, the suit and hat attire of the Bureau members is just right, and the effects, such as the doors that open into random locations across the city, are seamlessly executed.

It's possible that some viewers, depending upon their religious views, might take offense at The Adjustment Bureau, because its conflict could be interpreted as not only fate versus free will, but faith versus free will. Sometimes a little offense is a good thing, though, because it can lead to thinking.

Putting myself in David's place (as a moviegoer should), I wanted to ask Richardson and his cohorts more questions, and more pointed ones, sooner than the protagonist did. You've asked me to trust you, now tell me why I should. You might want to start by telling me exactly who and what you are. Has anyone even tried to come up with a plan that gets us from A to Z without (bad thing)? If you want my cooperation, you'll explain why there's no other way. Come on, sell me on it, walk me through it. I have a right to that much. It's a compliment to the filmmakers, I think, that I cared enough to want answers before they were provided.

I don't find the film's treatment of Fate as a mystical force to be quite as profound as it's probably intended to be, probably because I'm not big on mystical forces. However as an action-adventure, an intricate romantic fantasy and even as a diverting philosophical exercise, The Adjustment Bureau succeeds.

Why you should see it: You like it when Matt Damon runs around and Emily Blunt has emotions at people. You enjoy mislabeling fantasy as science fiction. You can pretend this is a sequel to The Devil Wears Prada, in which Blunt's character has given up the fashion world for ballet and magically teleports onto the field at Yankee Stadium with Jason Bourne, Senate candidate.

Why you shouldn't see it: You're afraid you'll accidentally use the word "Chairman" in church.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

Everything on the screen in Mars Needs Moms is rendered superbly, with a common exception: human eyes. The makers of Toy Story 3 say in one of the extras in that DVD set that they've learned the importance of striking a balance in the realism of human characters in a computer-animated film. Audience members want the faces to be fairly realistic, but too close to actual people and they'll be creeped out. I think there is something to that theory, because I find the faces of the humans in 2004's The Polar Express (of which I've seen only commercials) and Mars Needs Moms slightly unpleasant to see. My theory is that the muscles of the eye, the eyelids and the face around them move with such intricacy that animators can't mimic them closely enough to fool us, so the character's eyes seem lifeless to us and on some level we feel like we're looking at a corpse-puppet. We have no such subconscious standard for aliens and rickety little home-made robots so the other characters in Mars Needs Moms don't disturb anyone. My favorite Martian is Ki (Elisabeth Harnois), the friendly, vivacious and independent-minded young ally who demonstrates the joy of graffiti for our youngsters and secretly helps Milo and Gribble.

Milo's pre-Mars contrition notwithstanding, the film's message of appreciation of mothers is of course not without merit, and the scenes in which Milo gets some feeling for the depth of his mother's love are heartwarming in spite of the patronizing heavy-handedness that may be necessary for the youngest kids in the theater. Milo's dad is little more than a visiting buddy, but let's not quibble about that.

However I insist on quibbling about the film's promotion. Specifically, young Seth Dusky, who voices Milo, is ignored completely on the poster, in commercials and in interviews, unless he is the subject of a direct question. The filmmakers will then reluctantly admit that they had to discard the wonderful Seth Green's voice work (they couldn't make it sound young without making it sound artificial) and bring in Dusky. They'll fawn over Green's motion-capture performance as an 11-year-old (I'll admit, Green did a great job) and shrug off the impressive performance by Dusky, an actual 11-year-old, to make it clear that it was Seth Green who should be credited with playing the role. If it bothers them that as of March 29 even major newspapers such as The New York Times erroneously credit Green with the voice performance, it hasn't yet bothered them enough to compel them to set the record straight. Maybe it's in Green's contract, but it's not so much the disrespect for Dusky that offends me--the kid will be just fine. It's the disrespect for truth.

Why you should see it: Like Milo, you're not allowed to see Zombie Dawn 3 tonight, so you figure dead-eyed CG faces will be the next best thing. Your little girl just yelled "I hate you" because you made her clean her room, so you want her to have nightmares about your abduction.

Why you shouldn't see it: Zombie Dawn 3 sounds like a lot more fun.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

What I think: I'm not sure I'd watch an all-day Rogen-athon on Comedy Central, but I enjoy a Seth Rogen movie now and then. If you don't like him, beware, because despite appearances, the little guy in this film is very much him. Paul is kind-hearted (unless you're a bird, as you've seen many times in the commercial), smokes both tobacco and marijuana (this annoys me a bit), uses "bad" words constantly and "moons" people frequently.

Paul also scoffs at Intelligent Design theory and casually states that his very existence "disproves every one-world religion," so if you care about such things (I don't), be warned.

I don't mean to imply that Paul is little more than a Rogen stand-up routine; much of it is an exciting series of escapes from government Agents Zoil (Jason Bateman), Haggard (Hill Hader), O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio) and The Big Guy, whose female voice gives Agent Zoil his orders by phone.

If you spent part of the twentieth century in movie theaters, you'll catch references to ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Aliens, Back to the Future and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Some of them are direct--a flashback has Paul on the phone with Steven Spielberg in the 1980s--and others are quick lines that echo the summer blockbusters of your youth. That is, assuming you were young then.

The CG Paul is well rendered, so you'll only occasionally feel like you're watching a cartoon character in a live action film (reaction shots of Graeme and Clive, with Paul off camera, are overused). The other effects also work well.

Why you should see it: You're essentially a child who's old enough to get into an R-rated movie.

Why you shouldn't see it: You insist that all portrayals of extra-terrestrials be consistent with documented encounters. You insist that the proposition that life exists on other worlds is blasphemy, and aliens with amazing powers are actually demons in disguise. --from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Once upon a time a boy was found in the womb of Queen Victoria earlier than any other babies possessing male genitalia, giving him the authority to rule Great Britain as Edward VII. The son of Edward VII who was born first reigned as George V, although by this time the King wasn't really expected to rule anything, just to hold still for a little bit so someone could draw a portrait to be printed on the money; surround himself with precious objects and loyal subjects; and make speeches. (If this puzzles you, here is a clear discussion of the Divine Right that serves as foundation to any monarchy.)

This brings us to the beginning of the film, where I switch to the present tense. George V's son Prince Albert (Firth) hasn't been George V's son quite as long as his brother David, but David is a playboy and considered something of a flake, and at any rate, being even the second son of a king makes one very important, requiring public appearances. Surprisingly Prince Albert doesn't need to know about things and write speeches about the things he knows--they have people for that--but the Empire depends on him, as it depends on his dad (and as the United States depends on its Presidents), to recite profound words and pretend that they are his. Big problem: the Prince stammers terribly. He's seen several experts about it and has given up, but his wife Elizabeth (Bonham Carter) wants him to try a London speech therapist whose last name is actually a suffix meaning "speech." He reluctantly goes to see Lionel Logue (Rush), who insists on being in charge within the confines of their professional relationship, even going so far as to call the Prince "Bertie."

What I think Colin Firth stammers wonderfully, and the Albert/King George VI on screen is a buckling vessel pumped so close to the point of rupture with frustration and fear, poetically revealed by David Seidler's script, that we feel deeply for him. Geoffrey Rush is believable and entertaining as a man who respects royalty and yet stands up to it for the sake of his royal client, and who cares not at all if his methods appear silly, because he knows they work. His main task, though, is to convince Bertie to forgive his own vulnerability, allowing him to embrace his own strength.

Why you should see it: You like things that are good. You'll feel all cultured and whatnot if you see an Oscar© winner in which everyone has an English accent. You want to justify your purchase of three dozen "Wormtail for Prime Minister" bumper stickers.

Why you shouldn't see it: You despise things that are good, because they encourage the sin of Pride and inspire admiration, which leads to more pride, leading to more achievement, making for a never-ending cycle of "la dee da, look at me and the various and sundry good things I bring to the world because I'm such a big fricking deal." You speak only the Twi dialect of Akan, you don't like subtitles and you're fairly certain The King's Speech is not yet dubbed in Twi. (Someone must be translating this for you.)

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Begins: Coincidentally-human-looking extraterrestrial Kainan (Caviezel) crash-lands on Earth near a Viking village, so he uses a nifty contraption to instantly learn ancient Norse, which sounds just like modern English. Until his rough landing he had been transporting a dangerous creature; when the escaped Moorwen starts ripping and incinerating people, he can't help feeling a little responsible. The Vikings, however, think he may be responsible in the sense of having actually dismembered the people of a neighboring village, so they tie him up, making it difficult for Kainan to do the whole hero thing. The daughter of chieftain Hrothgar, Freya (Myles), acts as the captive's caretaker and she slowly and reluctantly becomes smitten with him, unaware that she is a cliché.

What I think: The special effects are good, the action works and the story is engaging. Kainan's friendship with a rival, who could have been used as a stereotypical secondary enemy, is refreshing.

Why you should see it: Freya's long red hair. Kainan's troubled frown.

Why you shouldn't see it: A merciless Viking crew came ashore to sack and burn your town one cursed moonless night in the year 1975 AD. You don't like science fiction. You don't think the problem of violence can be solved with more violence, as the film implies. You are only beginning to discern shapes and colors and don't yet interpret them as signs of a physical reality outside of yourself; there's no television in the maternity ward anyway. --from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story A woman (Olivo) has made a full-time hobby of talking her way into homes, conking people over the head and, when they wake up, finding creative ways to torture them to death, smiling and chatting most of the way. She finds it all quite amusing. Don Carpenter's house (with conveniently soundproofed home recording studio) is her next stop.

The scenes in which The Girl charms people into trusting her are tense and at the same time clever, as are the scenes where delusion is juxtaposed against reality (movie reality, anyway), and we aren't sure which is which. However The Girl reserves most of her creativity for her torture sessions, in which she improvises with staples, nails, glass stirrers, and too many other implements to remember. You'll want to grab The Girl by the shoulders and ask "why?," long before the question occurs to Don. If you haven't yet been desensitized to movie violence, this movie will either do the job or give you nightmares.

Why you should see it: You're getting numb to movie gore, and you're watching 365 movies this year, so you ain't picky.

Why you shouldn't see it: The Girl is one movie monster who stops being fun to watch before long, and the glass swizzle-stick scene is an ordeal even if you're used to horror movies.

The atmosphere on the dark, dirty, decaying vessel is downright creepy, and the pale, snarling creatures hunting the humans don't, at first, help. Cam Gigandet is convincing as the furious and terrified Gallo and Ben Foster is ideally cast to provide an infectious state of high alert beginning in the first moments of the film and never letting up. The mystery of Bower's circumstances adds to the tension and fright as different explanations for what the heck went wrong run through your mind. The creatures gradually become too familiar and almost silly, breaking the spell somewhat, but in spite of this Pandorum is a must for both horror and science fiction fans, no matter what Rotten Tomatoes might say.

Why you should see it: You like monsters and you like space ships, so you won't pass up anything that has monsters on a space ship.

Why you shouldn't see it: You're still angry at Russell for cheating on Claire with that art professor, and Ben Foster played Russell, which means he looks just like Russell, and you can't get past that.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story If you've seen anything by David Lynch you know that accurately summing up the story--or even the premise--is no simple task, especially since "what's really going on?" is often the central mystery, as it is here.

It starts in the blurry point of view of someone apparently about to collapse, and then Rita (Harring) in an uncomfortable situation in a limousine, which gets into an accident. Soon after that Betty (Watts) encounters Rita, who now has amnesia, and the two set out to investigate Rita's identity and situation. Meanwhile, director Adam Kesher (Theroux) joins a meeting in which the humorless Castigliane brothers glower at him, point to a photo and say, "this is the girl"; and a hit man visits a friend in his office. Reasons arise to doubt the reality of some of the events we're seeing, plus we jump from one story line to another and watch them cross each other in a manner reminiscent of Pulp Fiction.

I'm fairly certain that I mostly understand what "really" happened in the movie, although there's at least one scene (in and behind a diner) that I still don't quite get. I noticed after seeing the movie that inside the case of the DVD there is a list of clues written by Lynch, telling you to pay close attention to particular images to, in the words of some copywriter, "unlock" the mystery. Even with this key, though, Mulholland Dr. is a movie that seems to require multiple viewings.

Like most of David Lynch's work it gets increasingly strange and clever, sometimes erotic, often disturbing, but always interesting.

Rating R, earned with four breasts. There is also violence in this story, but it's nothing you haven't seen during prime time on CBS.

Why you should see it: You like puzzles, dreams, Naomi Watts and Laura Harring.

Why you shouldn't see it: You want your plots to be linear, and the only kind of mystery you like is the kind in which a detective explains everything to all of the guests in the parlor just before revealing one of them as the killer.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

Chris (Rhys Meyers) seems then to be caught between passion (is this love?) for Nola (Johansson); and affection (or is this love?) for Chloe (Mortimer) and the comfort, safety and status of membership in the Hewett clan that comes with her. I say seems, because for most of the film we don't know what he's thinking. We see him with Chloe and with Nola, but we wonder what he feels as opposed to what he thinks each of them wants to hear.

Woody Allen is no stranger to navel-gazing characters trying to figure out what they really want, but Match Point is a departure for him: if there are other films by Allen that take dark turns into Hitchcockian deception and betrayal, I haven't seen them. It's well done--as clever as some of the rotund master's films--and executed with style.

Why you should see it: You like Hitchcock's films, but you've seen them all and Hitchcock died years ago, so you'll settle for Hitchcockian films.

Why you shouldn't see it: There's no nudity and no blood on camera. You have a rare neurological condition that causes you to urinate when you see Emily Mortimer.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Ninth, led by the father of Marcus Aquilas (Tatum) disappeared in northern Britain in the year 117 AD, and later Hadrian's Wall was built to divide island of England in half. Twenty years after the disappearance, at a time when it is considered suicidal for any Roman to travel north of the wall, Marcus does just that to retrieve the eagle standard of the Ninth Legion and his family's honor. He brings with him Esca, the Briton slave whose life he recently saved.

The two have conversations reminiscent of Enemy Mine until they encounter a tribe of Britons, portrayed as a cross between Native Americans and Klingons. We then confront interesting questions about Esca's loyalty to the Roman who saved his life (and to whom he has vowed obedience); or to Britons. Unfortunately, some of his choices in that regard are unconvincing, but the movie does succeed at times in describing the hatred bred by a history of war, the battle sequences are well executed, and Tatum gives a good, emotional performance.

Why you should see it: You like Romans and partially-fake history. You want to know how soldiers can advance within a cocoon of shields, for future reference.

Why you shouldn't see it: You're half Druid, on your mother's side.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

Katherine (Aniston) is plastic surgeon Danny's longtime assistant, who agrees to help Danny to deceive Palmer, and of course it gets complicated. When the web of lies expands to include Katherine's children, her daughter Maggie (Madison), who wants to be an actress, sees it all as a fun exercise in improv. This adds another, entertaining level to the premise: what if the Whose Line Is It Anyway comedians had to fool an audience member into thinking the sketch was real? Members of Just Go With It's makeshift acting troop slip up or make ill-considered choices, and the others are forced to accept the challenge and "just go with it" in order to keep their increasingly intricate collaborative work of fiction from contradicting itself. I didn't laugh out loud, but I suspect I was as amused as most people are when they disingenuously type "lol" online.

Sandler's affinity for children (he has two) shows in his scenes with his two young cast mates, and Aniston is charming, as she's been in every role in which I've seen her. The romantic side of this romantic comedy keeps to the usual template, for the most part, but I knew that going in, and the same old thing is done well.

Why you should see it: You like sweet fluff, when it's done fairly well.

Why you shouldn't see it: You fear cinematically-induced diabetes. You were hoping for a heartbreaking death scene or a horrific murder.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Number Four (Pettyfer) and his protector, Henri (pronounced either "Henry," or "Olyphant") fled years ago from another planet because Number Four was one of a group of children with powers potentially valuable in the fight against the evil Mogodorians (who have fangs and extra nostrils), so the "Mogs," as they are familiarly called, want them all dead. For some reason the gifted kids, now teens, can only be killed in sequence, which is no comfort to Number Four, because his number is literally up. Despite his perilous situation, though, he frequently defies Henri because he is tired of running from town to town and longs to lead a normal life (familiar, yes?). Sarah (Agron) is a fellow student and talented amateur photographer at the current stop, the town of Paradise, where Number Four calls himself John Smith. Further complicating John's life is Mark, the jock who bullies Sam (McAuliffe) and happens to be Sarah's ex.

In the trailer, Number Four finds out his number in a conversation with Henri, but they didn't use that scene. In the final cut Number Four knows his number already and tells us in voice-over, I believe.

I recommend a large-screen-format showing, not just for the visual effects (mostly things, people and monsters being blasted by bluish-white or red light), but also for a sound system that makes it feel like a great deal of energy is being transferred. (I saw it in "XD," Cinemark's answer to the proprietary IMAX; I don't guarantee there's no difference, but I would guess that if one of the two formats is superior it's IMAX, simply because it's been around longer and has more money behind it.)

The Mogodorians are so far depicted as purely evil, no rationalizations for their actions required, which makes them in some ways less interesting but perhaps more fun to root against. The story is intriguing, the action is well executed, and I find no fault with the acting.

Why you should see it You like aliens and special effects. You think Alex Pettyfer is super hot and you totally wish you could be his girlfriend.

Why you shouldn't see it You want to read the book first. You want to wait until it's available in tiny television format.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story The Reverend Cotton Marcus was a huckster but seeks to redeem himself by exposing exorcisms as a dangerous scam. To do so, he agrees to perform one last exorcism for a documentary crew.

The premise is wasted. The principal actors have skill and talent, but a crucial scene depends on the actors with smaller parts, and it becomes obvious that they aren't expected to speak or emote because they can't. Instead of giving the film a "this is really happening" feel, the hand-held camera documentary style (in combination with the amateurs in minor roles) only gives it a "this is really cheap" feel, and it seems as though the story is improvised scene by scene rather than written by Botko and Gurland. The Last Exorcism comes across as a hastily proposed acting exercise, so none of it is especially scary or convincing. Beware.

Why you should see it: So far you haven't agreed with me, so you've decided to do the opposite of anything I recommend. If this is the case, I urge you to see it.

Why you shouldn't see it: In the time it takes you to watch The Last Exorcism, you can get your shower so clean it sparkles.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

There are a few minor similarities between The Roommate and Single White Female, the script being one of them. However Single White Female took place in an apartment, and The Roommate takes place in a dorm room. Totally different premise. (Minka Kelly is thirty, but there are lots of "non-traditional" students these days.) In any case, The Roommate performs the SWF/Fatal Attraction trick of turning Rebecca's knob from "soft kitty" up to "screeching monster that will not die," and doing so gradually enough to seem plausible. What seemed (to the characters, anyway) like quirks and insecurities reveal themselves to be very red flags, as the scenes alternate between "the monster strikes" and "other." Although the pattern is familiar, it's not entirely devoid of fun and a touch of cleverness here and there.

A side note: The last thing a socially awkward student, or one who struggles with depression or bipolar disorder, needs is to be thought of as "creepy," and to be avoided for yet another reason. I hope real students don't use this movie as an excuse to make school life harder for those who already have more than enough to overcome. However The Roommate might teach those unfortunate students one lesson, in spite of itself: no one should, or has the right to, depend on any one person for everything.

Why you should see it: Single White Female is some old movie from olden times, and only old people would bother with it.

Why you shouldn't see it: The Roommate is for kids who were in diapers when you went to college and think Single White Female is an old movie.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

Not that this new movie (ostensibly not a remake but a "re-imagining") had to be campy, but draining the humor out of the film was not enough to make it new. This Nightmare does one thing differently and well (but not differently enough or well enough to make it remarkable). It increases the focus on the horrible predicament in which the characters find themselves: they are extremely sleep-deprived, but are terrified of the prospect of sleep. Which brings me to what I do in an alternate universe where I'm asked to direct this movie.

What I do in an alternate universe where I'm asked to direct this movie I take the many implications of sleep deprivation to the extreme. Think about it: there is so much a film-maker could do with picture and sound to convey both the desperate need to sleep and the losing struggle to stay awake. Think also of what an actor could do with the disoriented, weepy panic at the extremes of sleep debt. Combine that with Freddy, as terrifying as he could be made to be, and we have a new level of horror.

And since it's a "re-imagining" and not a remake, I also ditch the striped sweater, and maybe even the hat. Can't mess with the glove, though.

Why you should see it

You're curious now, and intrigued by the idea of a 1984/2010 Nightmare on Elm Street double feature. You love horror movies--the more, the better. You've been a Jackie Earle Haley fan ever since he rolled up to the ball field.

Why you should avoid it

You only allow yourself one horror movie per year, so you'll take my advice and see the 1984 version instead. That is, unless you have access to the aforementioned alternate universe, in which case, let me know how I did.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Cobb (DiCaprio) and his partner (Gordon-Levitt) perform corporate espionage by entering the dreams of executives and stealing their sensitive information. A client (Watanabe) challenges them to go a step further and plant a new idea into the mind of his business rival (Murphy), a concept called "inception," so they assemble a team. Complicating it all is Cobb's back-story. There are echoes here of Shutter Island, and success where Solaris didn't quite make it.

Once again, Christopher Nolan is weird and brilliant. The intricate story will challenge you, but it plays fairly by its own rules and keeps you working at the puzzle. The special effects alone make it one of the very few discs I could justify purchasing and watching again every time you're fortunate enough to come across another friend who hasn't seen it.

Why you should see it You can't wait to use your big HDTV to its full advantage.

Why you shouldn't see it You still have that little thirteen-inch, twenty-five-year old Emerson TV with rabbit-ears. Seriously, what are you waiting for? --from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story Jessica (Highsmith) moves from farm country to a bizarre apartment building where the manager's office is the elevator and there only seem to be a handful of tenants. Everyone seems to both offer and expect Too Much Information, and insist that Jessica attend that night's New Year's Eve Party on the roof. Meanwhile, Jessica sees bloody corpses, which she finds a bit disturbing, mostly because they disappear each time she tries to show someone.

I just finished watching it, and I don't... I mean, I sort of get the lesson she was supposed to...um, no. And how did they...if they...huh?

Why you should see it

So you can explain it to me. Because two female characters exist only for the scene in which they take their shirts off and make out on a broken desk for no discernible reason. Or maybe you can explain that too.

Why you shouldn't see it

You'll probably need someone to explain it to you.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The Story

Chelsea/Christine (Grey) tries to balance her relationship with her boyfriend (Santos) with her ambitions to grow her business as a high-priced call girl in Manhattan. She offers the full "girlfriend experience": she listens to her clients talk about themselves, eats with them at the restaurants of their choice, sees whatever movies they want to see and then has sex with them. She convinces herself that it's a mutually respectful business arrangement, and makes major life decisions based upon "compatible" birthdays.

In trying to shoot it documentary-style, Soderbergh makes The Girlfriend Experience look like a student film. In casting a recently-retired porn star (Grey), he centers the film around someone who is guarded and seemingly out of touch with her own emotions, as Chelsea would be, but who would need more acting experience, training and, perhaps, time away from her old business in order to show us what we really want to see: the dramatic falling-away of Chelsea's facade, revealing Christine. I was glad, though, that Soderbergh did not exploit Grey as he might have: aside from a brief flash of nudity we see only her acting. There is no porn here, soft-core or otherwise.

Why you should see it

In spite of the movie's flaws and limits, it is an interesting character study, and you'd like Grey to continue to make films whose titles you can say in mixed company.

Why you shouldn't see it

You're too young. Move on or I'll tell your parents!

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com

The credits say that The Rite is "suggested by" the book of the same name by Matt Baglio, described at the author's site as a work of journalism, in which the names of the principal characters are different. As a work of non-fiction, the book (of which I confess I had not heard until today) at least plays to our natural curiosity as to exorcism's prevalence and place in the modern Roman Catholic Church, and how today's exorcists balance, or reconcile, their faith with the need for a standard of proof to differentiate demonic possession from mental illness. The movie, unfortunately, makes no such efforts or claims (concerns about undiagnosed mental disorders are conflated with Michael's crisis of faith), apparently having no aspirations beyond rehashing the exorcism films we've all seen, not the least of which is The Exorcist. Father Lucas jokingly asks Michael if he was expecting pea soup and a 360-degree head-turn (signaling to the audience that this is less exciting only because it's Real Life, so we should find it more exciting). However the rest of it is there: The possessed contort, change in appearance and taunt the hero with the prospect of underage sexuality, his painful memories and the subjects of his guilt, just as Regan did in 1973. "Suggested by" doesn't make it fresh.

Why you should see it

You never tire of The Exorcist and its imitators. You think "suggested by" makes this real, so you're looking for pointers, just in case.

Why you shouldn't see it

The Exorcist is available at Blockbuster.

--from my review at www.1man365movies.com