Guest Critic: Corey Buchillon Reviews "The Lovely Bones"

It feels like all of a sudden every movie that has come out recently has had some sort of blatantly obvious underlying message to it. Avatar comes to mind what with it's whole "white people are the devil" connotations and what not. If we go along with this theme of putting hidden agendas in our movies then comparatively "The Lovely Bones" feels like one big 2 hour PSA about why you shouldn't talk to strangers.

Now I want to establish off the bat that I have never read the book, but I'm going to stand with the old law that the book is ALWAYS better than the movie. Now I enjoyed the movie by all means but it was plagued by some common Hollywood problems. The movies biggest problem was the way it just dragged on and on, and for a while it felt like I wasn't getting anywhere closer to the end. The beginning was pretty good in its way of introducing us to the Salmon family and the crazy psychopath neighbor George Harvey. But some scenes just felt tacked on like the part where her brother was choking. Likewise the ending was also fantastic. Personally I don't remember a time when I was in the theaters where the crowd actually cheered unanimously at the eventual demise of the antagonist. So kudos to Stanley Tucci for his amazing job as portraying George Harvey as the unlikeable bastard killer that he is. But it's everything in the middle that is the problem area. After Suzie is murdered the next hour just feels like one big acid trip. I'm not even sure whats supposed to be happening. The "in between" place Suzie resides in was portrayed beautifully but I just feel they dragged it on way too long.

Also I understand the movie was placed back before these kinds of tragedies were common but a personal gripe of mine involves how absurdly naive the whole town was not to suspect the creepy guy down the street as a suspect until the last 45 minutes of the movie. All in all it was a good film that had everything right in the beginning and end but with a stretched out middle, but that's a pretty common complaint for a Peter Jackson film.

Also, Salmon is a stupid name.

---

Corey Buchillon currently has two blogs: 'Pick up That Can' and 'I AM BETTER THAN YOU'. He updates them "whenever he feels like it."

"Legion" Provides Great Action Sequences, But Fails to Provide a Clear Message

Forget the formal introduction, I'm jumping right into this one.

This is yet another case of an otherwise good movie being dragged down by a crappy, cop-out ending. When will you filmmakers learn that driving off into the distance without tying up horribly loose ends doesn't work? I was really enjoying the movie, then the ending came along. I'm sitting on the edge of my seat thinking, "No, no no, don't you dare end it here without explaining what God ultimately decided. Don't even think about it." I mean, I suppose it was vaguely implied, but that just doesn't cut it for me.

Now onto the acting. Dennis Quaid is certainly to be applauded, but that's about it. He seemed to be the only really good actor in the movie. Everyone else was either overacting or didn't look like they fit their roles. Kevin Durand fit the archangel Gabriel a bit, I suppose, but Paul Bettany (as the archangel Michael) just looked completely out of place. Sure, he's a good actor and all, but he just didn't fit into the role. Then there's Lucas Black as Jeep Hanson. First of all, what kind of name is "Jeep"? Is he Sarah Palin's son or something? Second, his acting was awful. Sure, he was trying, but that's just the thing: you could tell he was trying. He overacted so much that he made Chris Farley look subtle. It was like he was desperately trying to make a bowel movement throughout the entire film. And why was he the only one with a southern accent? Yes, I know Lucas Black is from Alabama. But, again, it makes him looks out of place. Dennis Quaid, who played Jeep's father didn't have a southern accent. So why does his son? Either Lucas Black needed to lose his accent or Dennis Quaid needed to put one on.

I will say one thing, though: the possession sequences were very well done. I actually heard people in the theatre making various vocal responses to the possessions, ranging from laughter to "Oh sh*t." One great exchange of dialogue left a huge impression on both me and the rest of the audience. I have no access to a script of the scene, so forgive me if my transcript is off:

The young waitress, Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) is pregnant. She serves the sweet old lady a steak.

OLD LADY: How far along are you?
CHARLIE: Oh, just about there.
OLD LADY: Where's the father?
CHARLIE: Out of sight, out of mind.
OLD LADY: But the baby...
CHARLIE: I got it under control.
OLD LADY: But it's gonna burn.
(Everyone stops and looks at the old lady.)
CHARLIE: What'd you just say?
OLD LADY: (smiling sweetly) I said your f***ing baby's gonna burn.

It's probably worth it to see the movie just for the possession scenes. The only thing is that when the angels take control of a body, it rips off The Matrix with a very similar way that the agents took over a body.

But if you go to the movie looking for a message, you're not going to find one. Basically, the premise was that God lost faith in humanity and sent a bunch of angels to exterminate them, but Michael disagreed with him. The difference between Gabriel and Michael is that Gabriel "gives Him what He wants" but Michael "gives Him what He needs." In the end, Michael is rewarded for doing so. Is the message here that God is not all-knowing and all-powerful? That someone, anyone, even an angel, knows better than God? If you ask me, the entire premise of the film was just a big middle finger in God's face.

So, overall, the movie was okay but lacked in timing, acting, and premise. I'm not saying don't see it, just don't go in expecting anything more than some laughs, some tension, and a few good action sequences. Nor should anyone involved in the film expect an Oscar.

Grade: C+

"Daybreakers": Oh Holy God, Look At All The Blood.

I saw the trailer for this film and thought, "Oh hey a movie about vampires that actually looks...good!" I mean, come on. Corporate vampires. That's awesome. And to be honest, the movie did not completely let me down. It was a great movie. There were just a few flaws, particularly the ending. Which sucked. Which brings the movie down one full letter grade.

The first thing I have to emphasize is that there is blood. A lot of it. Well, of course there's going to be blood, it's a movie about vampires. Frankly, I think they overdid it just a tad. They are vampires, after all, and they do need to feed, especially given the circumstances in the movie. Apparently there is a blood shortage and as the vampires are depraved of blood they become more and more zombie-like. This, of course, naturally lends itself to the gruesome factor. But you can only have so many close-ups of people getting their limbs torn off. For God's sake, cut to the next scene!

If there's one thing I absolutely loved about this movie was how they made the vampires to be vampires. Not all this sparkle-in-the-sun-like-diamonds nonsense. When these vampires are exposed to sunlight, they burn. As they should. In fact, the movie introduces you to this fact in the first scene where a young girl vampire commits suicide by going outside and waiting for sun to come up. When it does, she bursts into flames and disintegrates. The vampires also don't reflect, appearing in mirrors as empty clothing. They have yellow eyes and noticeable fangs. There was no mention in the film about vampires having an aversion to garlic, but none of them were ever seen eating Italian food, so I'll let that one pass.

As I mentioned earlier, the biggest qualm I had with this movie was the ending. I'm not going to give it away because I don't want to spoil anything, but I doubt it would be any great loss even if I did. The ending was basically the same device they used for I Am Legend. It's as if they said, "We've got a good movie here, but how do we end it? I've got an idea, let's just stop it here and go for lunch." I mean, a bit of effort, please. This could have been really good if they'd just given it a satisfying ending.

Other than that, the visuals were good, the plot was fairly original, it had some great acting (especially on the part of Sam Neill as the head corporate vampire) and it had some really good shocking moments until they started to overdo it. That being said, I'd say it's worth seeing, but only if you're okay with a lot of gore and don't mind walking out of the theatre feeling less than satisfied.

Grade: B-

A Brief Word About "30 Rock"

I love the NBC comedy series "30 Rock". Why? Because it's probably the best written and most underrated show on television today. The writing is clever and the humor is fresh. It has a healthy dose of political humor, but not so much that it becomes preachy. It's a difficult feat to find that line and not cross it. A lot of shows today step over it, some practically long jump over it (I'm looking at you, Family Guy). But 30 Rock finds a perfect balance. The main character, Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) is implied to be a Democrat, or at least left-leaning. But to counter it, the other main character, Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin), is a staunch Republican. Sure, the character could be considered a mockery of corporate conservatives, but the character is just so awesome and likable. But the show doesn't rely on political humor and when it does make use of it, it doesn't get preachy. That's what's great about it. Watch it sometime. I swear it's one of the funniest shows on television.

Sherlock Holmes" Far Above Elementary, My Dear Watson

I went in to see this film with high expectations. I love Robert Downey Jr, especially after his successes in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder. Jude Law also phenomenal, and I looked forward to his performance as Dr. Watson after seeing him as Hamlet. The previews themselves looked great and, although not to be trusted as with the case of 2012, did not let me down.
I'm not going to go too in depth into the plot of this movie because the entire thing would just turn into one giant spoiler. In fact, I'm going to keep this review fairly short.

The first thing that captured me was the dialogue. Not only does it have extreme speakability, it's incredibly authentic. There are no cliches, just purely natural yet delectable. And that's honestly the only word that can adequately describe RDJr's speech in this movie. There is so much quirkiness to it, like listening to an eccentric genius talk. If you're familiar with the anime series "Death Note", you'll know what I mean when I say that parallels can be drawn between this Sherlock Holmes and L. For those of you not familiar, this might give you a basic idea. While we're on the subject, I came across this great video by someone who evidently shares my opinion.
If you're familiar with the Conan Doyle novels, you may be able to pick out some lines in the film that allude to the original works. One of my favorite lines from the film ("Data, data, data, I cannot make bricks without clay.") is taken from "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches".

The score is also definitely worth mentioning. The main instruments used (or at least the ones that stuck out the most to me) is the honky-tonk piano and the cimbalom, the combination of which set the mood for the setting of the film: London, 1891, during the Industrial Revolution. The score makes use of broken down, out of tune, and sharp, clangy instruments which creates a harsh, industrial feeling. Also, the mostly minor key of the music reflects the dreariness of the soot-stained, foggy atmosphere of Victorian London.

The visuals are incredible. I can't even go into that much because no description I give will do it justice. All I'm going to say is that the famous Tower Bridge makes an appearance in it's unfinished state. In fact, the climactic scene takes place on top of it. The costumes are also very well done, especially Holmes's outfits. He appears in a drastically different costume in every scene, which adds to the quirkiness of his character. When I pictured Holmes, I would picture him wearing those brown woolen hunting clothes and his trademark cloak and hat. Nowhere in the film do those make an appearance and definitely not to any detriment.

Finally, the acting. What can I say? Although Jude Law is great, RDJr. establishes himself as the dominant lead throughout the film. Jude Law is English and RDJr. is an American putting on an accent, but by his mastery of the speech one would think that it was the other way around. The intensity in Downey Jr.'s eyes convey Holmes's constant thinking, analyzing, and processing. When he comes across a piece of evidence he is very methodical, you can tell he's doe this all before, he knows exactly what he's doing. Still, beneath the professional, experienced exterior, there remains that eccentric, troubled mind. A great scene is when Holmes is sitting in a room by himself, staring straight ahead while he plucks out various note on a violin. He gets increasingly intense until he suddenly stops and throws the violin on the floor and goes face-palm, all in one fluid motion. RDJr. gives a remarkable performance that, as hard as they try and as close as they come, no other actor in the film and quite match.

Sherlock Holmes was a great movie. It has top-notch acting, spectacular visuals, and a solid story to boot. Plus, it has a greatly satisfying ending with no loose end left untied. It keeps you fully involved from start to finish and I'd definitely recommend seeing it, even if you're not a fan of or have never read the Conan Doyle novels.

Grade: A

No, Julie Andrews, no! You still have a career to lose!

I went to a movie a few days ago and saw a preview for a new Dwayne Johnson movie. Now, if "The Rock" doesn't strike fear into your heart, nothing will. A message to athletes: STAY IN SPORTS. DO NOT BECOME ACTORS. IT NEVER WORKS. Anyway, this upcoming piece of crap, titled Tooth Fairy chronicles the riveting tale of a professional hockey player (The Rock), nicknamed the "Tooth Fairy" because he often knocks out other players' teeth (do I smell foreshadowing?), who is sentenced by Julie Andrews to become an actual tooth fairy because he is labeled a "killer of childhood dreams" or whatever. I ask you: What in God's name could have possessed an accomplished actress like Julie Andrews to think that signing up for this movie was a good idea? And now a note to all actors: GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS. NO MOVIE THAT STARS THE ROCK IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESS. I mean, good Lord. I don't know. I had to say something.

An Introduction

I love movies. I love the general experience of going out to see one. It's an event. Whether you see one with your family, your friends, or just by yourself, a trip to the movies is a fun time for all.

My name is James Hope. As of the time I am writing this, I am a freshman Theatre Major at DeSales University. I've always had a passion for film and I eventually hope to go into film and television.

When I see a really good movie or a really bad movie, I just need to talk about it. I remember when I was younger I saw the Haunted Mansion movie. It was so bad that I just wanted to tell everyone "Don't see this movie! It's awful!" (In hindsight, now that I've been on the ride the movie makes a lot more sense. But it's still terrible.)

The title of this blog comes from something my Intro to Theatre professor once said. "After you see a show, go out for pie and just talk about it." It's actually a really good idea. It helps you to process what you've just seen in a relaxed setting. Now, when he said this he was talking about theatre, but why not movies as well?

So, here's how it's going to work: I'll give a brief overview of the movie, review it, give a comment or two from a fellow moviegoer I interviewed at the cinema, then end with a final grade (A+ to F-). Sound good? Good.

Well, I suppose that's all I really need to write for now. If you have any questions, just ask. Also, if you want to let me know what you thought of a movie I've reviewed, just put it in the comments section.

~jhope