This weekend's DPRK approved movies!

There's a new censor in town! Don't be sad. Our movies have always been censored, even by Hollywood itself when it closes out projects that rub them the wrong way!! So, let's get right to it and see what the Supreme Leader has in store for us this weekend.

• Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb : Totally unacceptable. This abhorrent, so-called movie portrays the known imperialist dog Theodore Roosevelt as a kind and humorous person.
• Annie : We allow it. Shows how the capitalist system exploits children for the benefit of the rich. Peasant child Annie overcomes Western indoctrination, in heart-warming story of revolution.
• Mr. Turner : Forbidden. This is a very confusing movie. It could be censored on many grounds. Ultimately, the reasons are of no consequence to you. The Supreme Leader has spoken.
• After the Fall : This film shows the consequences of capitalist exploitation. Family man loses his job and must turn to crime to survive. You will all go and see this movie. Persons who do not view this film within four days of its release will have disappointed the Supreme Leader. Do not disappoint the Supreme Leader.

Please Enjoy your DPRK approved movies this weekend. However, do not enjoy them to such an extent that it would be unseemly and capitalistic.

Review Round-up

• Reds *
  Yeah, that "Reds" -- with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton. It was good. I appreciate that, although Mr. Beatty is sympathetic to his communist subjects, he didn't go overboard in whitewashing the facts of the story. (At least, not as far as I can tell.)


• Red (2010) *
  This is the sort of popular junk I normally pan. But, keeping in mind that it's not a particularly serious movie, Bruce Willis keeps it fun enough to push it over the line to one star (worth watching). Vaguely reminiscent of "The Whole Nine Yards".


• Strangers on a Train (1951) *
  Merry Christmas to me! I got one of those cheap collections with four Hitchock movies on 2 disks in one case. It was outstanding.


• True Grit (2010) **
  The Coen brothers have done it again. I loved this movie. The Coens' versatility in being able to remake this movie, yes, better than the original is simply astounding.


• Salt 0
  This movie has some redeeming qualities. Jolie is pretty good. I just can't recommend it, though.


• Wild Hogs 0
  The only reason I'm reviewing this is to say, it's not as bad as I expected. Just regular bad.

review: Avatar

It's got to be said: this movie disappoints. I'm giving it zero stars (same old crap).

It's a feast for the eyes, OK. But, the essence of a movie is its story. And the story in Avatar was a badly recycled cliche. The evil military-industrial complex oppressing the noble, nature-loving natives. This movie was little more than "Dances with Wolves" plus "Star Wars" (plus some pretty impressive CGI). Before 30 minutes had passed, I knew the entire plot -- and that really ruins a movie. It didn't help that none of the characters were particularly interesting.

review: Tombstone

This is a [sort of] old movie that I watched again recently with my son -- whom, incidentally was not yet born when it was made. I've come to the conclusion that you should not try to review a movie you haven't seen in years because you may have been watching it with different eyes way back then. On several occasions I've seen a movie from years gone by and been hugely disappointed that it wasn't anywhere near as good as I'd thought when I was younger. This was not one of those occasions.

I really enjoyed Tombstone. It's proof that a movie done well at every level doesn't need any gimmicks or novelties to succeed. As a bonus, I looked into the historical accuracy of the movie later and found that it very closely followed the actual events that it was based on. A great movie and a little history to boot!

(Tombstone (1993): One star)

review(not): The Last Airbender

Sometimes I read something just so shockingly stupid that I can't ignore it. In the third paragraph of that link (a review of "The Last Airbender") there is this amazing statement:

The chances of the series ever reaching four movies will depend on worldwide acceptance of a children's fantasy wherein kids save the (imagined) world while adults offer not much more than enthusiastic coaching or outright villainy.

Where "reaching four movies" means being successful and having sequels. Now, the movie (which I've yet to see) is apparently pretty bad, based on a large number of bad reviews. But, a "children's fantasy wherein kids save the world" is neither an original plot device nor the slightest impediment to success. Compare "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone". ... And "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban", ad infinitum. The Harry Potter blockbusters are just one recent and notable example. Last time I checked, children like fantasies where children save the world. (And, if the Harry Potter series is any guide, adults can put up with them, too.) It may not be believable, but this is fiction. The statement that that aspect of "The Last Airbender" is some sort of deficiency is inane beyond comprehension.

It is sad, however, that the movie is being received so poorly. I have watched the television show and it is one of the best children's shows on the air. It is one of the best children's shows ever made. It's perfectly done. It blends action, humor, and drama masterfully. I suppose we should all skip the movie. But, if you haven't seen it, go get the TV show on DVD!

review: Shutter Island

Pretty darn good. Definitely a little different for Scorsese. Well worth seeing.
(One star)

review: Alice in Wonderland

Abominable. Usually, when I don't like a movie, my family will argue with me. "Oh, it wasn't that bad." But, in this case there was full agreement. My wife got up to check her email during the movie. My son -- who has defended dozens of mediocre movies to me -- simply said, "it sucked." With Tim Burton and an impressive cast, I know it's hard to believe, but it really was that bad. (negative one star)Does it say something about me that I'm more motivated to write a bad review than a good review?

review: Night at the Museum: Battle

Do whatever you can to miss this awful movie. Pretend you're sick if necessary. (negative one star)

About movie ratings

(Who am I kidding, exactly? I don't live in the world of a professional critic. While Mr. Bowman's system remains my inspiration, I have to add the "negative one star" in order to separate "the usual crap" (no stars) from the "physically painful to sit through". When you're negotiating DVD rentals with your family on a Friday night, brother, you'll thank me to know the difference.)

I've read the movie reviews of one James Bowman for many years. Mr. Bowman is as much a cultural critic as he is a movie critic. I love his reviews and usually learn something more from them than just whether I should see the movie or not.

In addition to being a wonderful writer and incisive thinker, Mr. Bowman has identified a major flaw in the traditional 5 star movie rating system. You can read his explanation on his own site, of course. Here I'll give my thoughts and explain why I use the same system.

Five stars are much more than are needed. All it really accomplishes is to capture one man's opinion of the fine shades of mediocrity that we encounter in most movies today. What exactly is the difference between a 3-star movie and a 2-star movie, anyway? One is merely pretty crappy and the second very crappy, I suppose. But, this is no longer part of a useful critique; rather it is a sort of consolation prize for movie-makers who rose above the awful to make something merely unremarkable.

To the point then, the system I'll use here only has three possible ratings:

• Two Stars : Wonderful. Must see.
• One Star : Good. Worth seeing.
• Zero : The usual crap.
  

And to be clear, the default is zero. Time is valuable. If a movie is just "O.K.", then I will give it no stars. I will only give it a higher rating if I would actually recommend to my friends that they see it.

Having read many of Mr. Bowman's reviews, something that sticks out is his view that Hollywood is a business. (Well, obviously.) And, their biggest customers are teenagers. Ergo, a large number of movies are adolescent pablum. And, even when a movie is not obviously so, I believe that quality is often secondary to keeping the pipeline full of new movies. Understand this and you'll understand why you often leave the cinema disappointed.

So, be careful: You can never get a refund for two hours of your life.

review: Burn After Reading

Perhaps the grandest farce that I've seen come out of Hollywood. I laughed out loud. And yet, almost miraculously, it's populated with realistic characters, with real foibles and, sometimes, real hearts.

It gets my highest rating. (two stars!)