Ted (2012)

1/3

Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy, has a quirky and crude sense of humor. In Family Guy and other stuff he's done, he often draws humor from his own nerdy fan base's inside jokes of esoteric, little-known cult classic trivia (like Flash Gordon and Star Wars, to name a couple perennials). This has made him, I can only imagine, a dork in real life, probably something of an outcast growing up, but ultimately popular and successfuly because of the crowd of fellow nerds who get his humor (and references). I dig that. We're all a little nerdy, aren't we? He’s obviously an intellectual person, but I also think he uses his inside jokes and references as a way to show off, to earn his self-validity. It's almost an arogant humor, really. But let me do say that this odd quirkiness works in his 22 minute cartoons. Though crude and punchy, it's a funny show.

A cartoon is different from a movie, however. On the silver screen, you have to have a longer plot development. Obviously, since he’s not used to writing screenplays, he couldn’t find a way to escape a god-awful cliché story line to keep the audience connected for two hours. You know the cliché story line, right?: protagonist must choose between an immature best friend and a serious girlfriend in order to grow up, accidentally pisses off girlfriend, they break up, he tries to get her back, goes through great distress and problems but gets her back and somehow everyone's learned something. I could probably list a hundred films with this  basic structure. 

I will concede, nonetheless, that I’ve often said that I can tolerate crappy story lines for actors’ quality natural humor (I think Pineapple Express is my favorite example of this, in that despite the predictable storyline, it was a hilarious movie experience because of James Franco, Danny McBride, and Seth Rogen). The humor in Ted, however, didn't quite hold up as well. There were just too many cheesy cartoon-style effects (Ted, the bear itself; cutaway joke scenes interrupting the present tense, like 30-second flashbacks; stupid sound effect plugins; bad narrator jokes; 80's humor, God help us; stupid fantasy cutaways, etc etc). It was an overload. We drowned in it.

On an unrelated note, the friend that I saw this with and I both agree that Mila Kunis is smoking hot here and very much in her prime at 28 years old! Damn. Giovanni Ribisi played a hilarious and very disturbing creepster and we almost needed more of his character.

In the end, MacFarlane is obviously in love with his nostalgic cheesy 80's and the city of Boston and his dorky self. I think this movie was more Seth's tribute to all that than to quality humor or writing. So I did laugh out loud in a couple of places, yes, but mainly I got annoyed and bored. Next time I want this humor, I'll just watch 22 minutes of Family Guy.

The Hunger Games (2012)

2/3

I was initially drawn to this book because the plot takes place in the dark post-crisis society that Suzanne Collins predicts for the future of North America. I guess that sounds weird, but it's because I've always enjoyed books that tell of brave individuals fighting a dystopian totalitarian government (1984, The Giver, Anthem, It Coulnd't Happen Here etc etc). The Hunger Games held up as a book in this genre, so I had to see the movie. I was ultimately satisfied with the movie, but not as extraordinarily thrilled as I had hoped I'd be.

First off, it was always going to be a tough adaptation to the screenplay, considering that the novel is written in first-person present tense, from the perspective of our young female protagonist. You try putting a story's worth of internal thoughts and calculations into visual/action movie-form and tell me how easy it is. Then, add to this the difficulty of staying as true to the story as possible, like in the Harry Potter adaptations, to keep all the young fans of the book happy and eager to watch the next two movies. I guess that's why they brought in Collins as co-screenwriter. But one of the consequences of this is that the script wasn't as creative as it could have been, and it got a little bit dull visually at a couple places and resulted in a long film too, at 2 hours 22 minutes.

Also, the director, Gary Ross, was perhaps not the most obvious choice for this adaptation. His career has been as a rather ecclectic writer, doing Big, Dave, Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, directing the latter two. This resulted in a unique vibe throughout the movie, something quite different from the all-out Hollywood blockbuster feel of the later Harry Potter movies. The camera work was unique with lots of closeups and hand-held effects, plus there was an odd selection of instrumental, classical, music. Both of which, by the way, were a bit distracting at times. Also, it felt like Ross was trying to keep a low budget on effects because a couple scenes' CGI felt more like a high school art project than a professional job, namely the futuristic capitol city and the all-important flame costumes.

Ross also made certain casting decisions that weren't necessarily convincing. If his objective was to stick close to the novel, I think he strayed off course with the choice of Josh Hutcherson as lead male. The book painted the character as somebody much less assuming and arrogant, someone naturally more introverted and good-natured. Woody Harrelson's character in the book was both a bumbling drunk and a caring role model, but his portrayal only lived up to the former. And, finally, our protagonist Katniss Everdeen was played by Jennifer Lawrence, an inexperienced actress who is too much like a supermodel in real life (for proof, see her on the Red Carpet here) to play this role. In fact, she overdid her stoicism and reminded me of a young Juliette Lewis, the actress who played the middle-aged, knock-you-in-the-gut, mascara-smeared, roller derby hotshot, "Iron Maven" from Whip It.

But, bringing it all back in, I did like the movie overall. The brutality of teenagers killing each other in cold blood was successfully kept PG-13, other than casting choices it lived up to the book, and made me ready for the sequel.

Jurassic Park (1993)

3/3

This is one of my top all-time favorite movies and here's why. We are drawn into another world, full of magic and wonder - dinosaurs are alive! - but with ever-mounting foreshadowing of trouble in every scene. Things get ugly and out of hand real quick.

At the time, early '90's, Spielberg's CGI was revolutionary. I daresay it's the first movie to every successfully employ computer graphics of this magnitude and the dinosaurs turn out very realistic and scary and a lot of fun to watch. I can't even imagine how long it took computers back then to process all that data.

Michael Creighton's theories are intriguing and backed by enough science to make it good science fiction. Just mix a little dino DNA you find in mosquitoes stuck in amber with frog DNA and bam, you get a new dinosaur. But, as with any Creighton story or Spielberg movie, Jurassic Park was about much more than just the thrill of the chases and the graphics.

For one, there was solid acting here. Sam Neill is a good hero: distant, cold, serious at first, all about science and no nonsense, but comes around in the end, as he gets to know the kids. His American accent comes off a little stiff and proper, but it works. Samuel L. Jackson (wait, he was in this movie?!) must have a clause in all his movies saying he's got to have a great line. Here, it was, "Hold on to your butts." And Jeff Goldblum was basically born to play this role: a smarmy, sarcastic, unkempt, pompous know-it-all who would get on your nerves in real life but who is fun to watch in a movie.

Secondly, the theme music was composed by none other than John Williams of Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter. It is now legendary. We played it in band in middle school.

Finally, there were some deeper questions raised with this movie, questions about the ethics of scientific experiments and exploiting nature in the name of business. Even if we can do something, we need to stop and think if we should or not. Is it a good idea to bring dinosaurs, huge, strong, ferocious animals, back into existence? We learn pretty quick that "life finds a way" and that nature usually wins out over man. As for a little writer/director commentary, the first person to be eaten by a dinosaur is the lawyer, as he sits on the toilet, crying for his mommy.

All in all, Jurassic Park is an unforgettable movie. The best Spielberg scene is when the T-Rex gives a loud roar amongst the ruin of the fossilized bones, as a the Grand Opening banner falls down in the background. Boom.

Extraordinary Measures (2010)

1/3

I didn't even finish this movie, so I have no idea if the sick girl dies or not before Fraser and Ford find the cure for her disease. And, the thing is, this movie was so poorly written and acted that I just don't really care.

Brendon Fraser is fat and a bad actor and Keri Russell, who was his wife in the film, only plays one note and that gets old. Harrison Ford in this movie is probably much like the actor is in real life: a jerk who spends the entire movie yelling and whining. The plot moves very slowly and the writing was generally quite bottom-of-the-barrel.

After this movie put me to sleep two nights in a row, I decided I wouldn't waste my time trying to finish it. I didn't really want to see it to begin with, please note, but this was one that I had on my computer, having picked it up not knowing what it was. I guess this is what happens when you're bored at night in another country.

Trainspotting (1996)

2/3

Trainspotting sort of reminded me of a Scottish version of the movie SLC Punk: a youth is giving commentary about his lifestyle, his circle of friends, his town and in so doing exposes the local hip culture and drug problems. So that means lots of vulgarity and crudeness in general, naturally. Of course, this is a Scottish production, so you can imagine the foul language. Also, this movie, I felt, got darker than SLC Punk and had some kinda graphic consequences of heroin use (the dead baby, depression and desolation, AIDS, the awful sickness that comes with heroin withdrawal etc).

In the end, the young characters from both movies grow up, move on and get clean, but at quite an enormous cost. In the end, everybody loses here. Parts were funny and ridiculously out there, but its anti-drug message was pretty clear. So kids, don't do drugs! I still don’t quite have the title figured out, maybe it's some Scottish slang that I just don't understand.