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.