You are now my new favorite person.

The Addams Family and Addams Family Values.

I throughly enjoyed them for what they were. I loved the humor, loved the performances, and the atmosphere. But I kinda know the stories are kinda lame. But whatever.

Harold and Maude is one of the most unusual comedies I've seen, but yet it's oddly profound.

The Three Faces of Eve (1957): 3/5 / C+
Joanne Woodward won an Oscar for her portrayal of a woman with multiple personality disorder, and she wholly deserved it. Her triple turns as the three different personalities (the meek and defeated housewife Eve White; the wild and sexual Eve Black; the intelligent and grounded Jane) is nothing short of astounding. Unfortunately, this further perpetuates the stereotype that Best Actress performances are great performances in bad movies, and that's basically what this is. The film was considered daring in 1957 when it was released, but under the heavy-handed direction of Nunnally Johnson, the film comes close to collapsing. Whereas Woodward was given a difficult, adequately-written part, the other two primary actors are given the short end of the stick. Both great actors in their own rights, they are given next to nothing to work with here. David Wayne's Ralph is little more than a caricature, a slow-witted southern man who doesn't understand his wife's disease. Lee J. Cobb's Dr. Luther plays God on this whole affair, calling each of the three personalities at will, and with "of course," Eve obeys. The score is simply distracting, with harsh string tremolos every time a personality takes over. A wild and dirty clarinet plays whenever Eve Black takes over, and high, weeping strings accompany Eve White. The script is broad to a fault--first off, the names of the personalities. Of course, the dowdy housewife is Eve WHITE, and the wild and slutty one is Eve BLACK, and the one with literally no personality is given the filler name JANE. The script draws thick black lines down a sensitive topic, and the film as a whole suffers for it. If for anything, see this for Joanne Woodward. She is truly terrific.
Dir. Nunnally Johnson

The Cider House Rules (1999): 4/5 / B
Lasse Hallström's adaptation of John Irving's novel is a comfortably old-fashioned style weepy. Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire) is an orphan who spent his entire childhood at the St. Cloud Orphanage in Maine, where he had a father figure in Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine, in an Oscar-winning role). Under the care of the doctor, Homer becomes a protege of delivering babies, as well as giving abortions. Upon the arrival of two good-looking people at the orphanage for an abortion, Candy Kendall (Charlize Theron) and Wally Worthington (Paul Rudd), Homer leaves the orphanage and goes with them to the a village in Maine where Wally's family has an apple orchard business, much to the dismay of Dr. Larch. Of course, it's the days of World War II, and Wally ships back off to war to fly planes, and Homer and Candy begin a secret love affair. Where Irving's novel is, I imagine, chock full of deep themes and ideas, Hallström's film glosses over these ideas, and doesn't choose to linger on much of anything. It's a touching film, at times, very touching, but it's all a bit too simple in the end. It's no matter, however. The performances are uniformly solid. Maguire is a good straight man to the colorful characters around him. Theron, gorgeous as ever, gets a chance to show off her noteworthy dramatic chops here. Delroy Lindo, Erykah Badu, Jane Alexander, and Kathy Baker are all very good as well. Caine won his second Academy Award for this film, and it's a fine performance to win for. Not particularly showy, it's a quiet and restrained performance, and clearly the work of a master. Rachel Portman's score is divine (if a tiny bit overbearing at times), and the cinematography is deliciously old-fashioned, but in the end it all feels a bit too Miramax.
Dir. Lasse Hallström

Eh. Some okay movies today, I guess.

I watched Gone a few nights ago. In short, it was a complete waste of my time and the ending was worth a few eye rolls.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012): 4 / 5 / B
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has one of the most bizarre premises of the year, but Timur Bekmambetov's film takes itself very, very seriously. The premise is explained by Dominic Cooper's character Henry: vampires have always existed in North America, but they found a new favorite food when black slaves were being imported from Africa. As a result, vampires mostly live in the southeast United States, and they are everywhere. It is Abraham Lincoln's job, both as means to do what's right and as a personal vengeance, to kill them. The film is stone-cold serious in its handling of themes that are hilarious on paper. There is plenty of visual style to spare, and many of the action sequences are thrilling, but the real star here is Benjamin Walker. Known primarily to theatre fans as the star of another kickass presidential reimagination, the rock musical Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Walker's Lincoln is a stone-faced god among men who can take down any vampire unfortunate enough to get in his way, yet under all of the vampire blood spattered across his face is genuine humanity and emotion. All he wants is justice in the world, and he never strays from that. Simply put, he is terrific. All of the actors are fairly good, here, actually, which is honestly a bit of a surprise. Anthony Mackie, Rufus Sewell, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Dominic Cooper are all fairly respected actors, but their characters could easily have been stock caricatures. Fortunately, the entire ensemble commits to the risky premise like there's no tomorrow, and it shows. Bekmambetov's direction is a little loose in some places (but when he gets it right, he really gets it right--one sequence when Lincoln chases the vampire that killed his mother down has the two characters literally jumping from horse to horse during a stampede, and it is thrilling), and Seth Grahame-Smith's screenplay (adapted from his own novel) is both clever, well-researched, and well-carried out, and I love how shamelessly and blatantly he just rewrites history. It really shouldn't work, but it mostly does. It definitely has some problems, but go in with an open mind, and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter will definitely surprise you. Not nearly as goofy as the title suggests, it is some of the most fun you'll have at the movies this year.
Dir: Timur Bekmambetov

Seeing Brave today!

Brave......I'd give it an A for animation and a D- for story.

My conclusion is that Pixar clearly wanted to tell a fairy tale taking place in medieval Scotland, but they just didn't know what to do with it story-wise. What a recycled, cliched mess of a film this was. Here's what happened: princess doesn't like the traditions of her culture, princess gets pissed at her mom, princess gets mom turned into a bear, princess makes a speech about how the traditions are stupid, everyone decides they agree (with no real thought process going into this), mom turns into a human. The end. Yup.

That's it. Nothing else. I don't even need to put a spoiler alert in this because you'll figure it out before the half-way mark. This is the fourth Pixar film in a row that I didn't like. Not a good sign.

Edit: I swear, reading the comments from all the butthurt Pixar fanboys whining about the film's 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is more entertaining than watching that film. "waaaaaaaah, Pixar would never make a bad film!"

Well, I don't which films you saw, but considering that the last four Pixar films were Cars 2, Toy Story 3, Up, and Wall E, I think I'd ask what was wrong with them. I didn't see Cars 2, but the other three seemed well-deserved hits.

Wall-E was brilliant. That film was their crowning achievement. I meant the last four including Brave.

Cars 2 sucked. I think that was a pretty universal consensus. It was about as shallow as a kiddie pool.

I'm sorry to say I had a lot of problems with Toy Story 3. I thought the humor was pretty low-brow and lacked the same comedic timing as the first two. But that's pretty minor. My biggest issue with that film was that it was too dark and far removed from the first two. The first two films were fun adventure films that still had a lot of heart and soul. The third film sucked all of the joy and fun out of this franchise and replaced it with a sad, depressing downer of a film. The characters were constantly in peril and everyone was negative. And, hey, that would be fine if this was an independent film instead of a continuation of a series. This would also be fine if the film wasn't so heavily marketed towards children. Children who may or may not be at the stage where they've grown out of their toys. How are children suppose to relate to Andy? Isn't it kind of cruel to present them with an idea that could shatter everything they know and love? It's like telling them that Santa Clause isn't real when they're obsessed with Santa Clause. Let them figure it out for themselves. They aren't going to be able to relate to growing out of toys- to them, their toys are their world. Does that make sense?
I'm not against dark films- my favorite film of all time is Requiem for a Dream. But I left the theater feeling sad and bitter. That is not how I want to feel walking out of a Toy Story film- it's Toy Story for crying out loud.

I also had a lot of problems with Up. I thought that the fantasy elements were lame. The premise of it was great (an elderly person and a young child going on an adventure). It didn't need talking dogs and all that other garbage they threw at us. Quite frankly, it was all just so ....random. I kept waiting for an explanation. Perhaps there would be a crazy twist and it would turn out it was all in their heads. That would be cool. Or maybe the talking dogs symbolized something. But nope. We were suppose to just sit back and accept it all. Was this a fantasy world? No, it couldn't have been, it took place in South America. So.....what the hell was it?

It wasn't marketed towards children as much as you think. It was more for those that grew up with it. The first film came out in 1995. The third came out 15 years later. If you were a child and remembered that first film, then you all but grew up by the time that 3rd film came out. And that was what it was all about. Growing up and putting aside your toys, and the imagination that brought them to life...and saying goodbye. And more importantly, moving on.

I think you've difficulty grasping the full scope of the emotional panorama that's in some movies and the symbolism presented as well. (Rotten tomatoes has it at 98%. That must seem strange to you that critics universally liked it. that it was nominated for Best Picture must be equally strange)

I understand what they were trying to do, but again: Toy Story was always marketed towards children and families. You can't have two films that were one thing and then make the third one completely different. They basically deserted the main target demographic of the first two films.

But even still. I just couldn't enjoy it because...... where was the joy? How am I suppose to enjoy watching these beloved characters be put in terrible situations? The inferno scene was powerful though. If the majority of the film was like the first two and then ended the way it did, it would have been a lot better.



No, I was referring to Cars 2, which was universally hated by audiences and critics alike. What symbolism was in Up? I really do feel like I missed something with that film, so clear it up for me. Maybe I'd give it another shot. I felt like all I watched was talking dogs and randomness.

I thought it had a lot going for it emotionally, yes. The first ten minutes were sweet, but a film should not be praised for having a strong first ten minutes. It would have made a cute short film, if removed from the rest of the cluster of randomness.

So you're okay with talking toys but a talking dog is taking it too far...?