Colombiana: Hoping that it goes well for Zoe

Ok...you wont find me doing this often but I am actually rooting for the underdog with this post. 

I say underdog because 'Colombiana' its going up against the unlikely juggernaut, 'The Help', along with other previously released movies AND this weekend's new releases: 'Our Idiot Brother' (Paul Rudd's latest comedic vehicle) and 'Dont Be Afraid of the Dark' (the likely VERY SHITTY horror movie starring Katie 'I was on track to become a great actress before I married Tom Cruise and became content to be better known as Mrs. Tom Cruise' Holmes).  Unfortunately for 'Colombiana' Paul Rudd is an established good laugh and will likely draw R-rated visitors that would instead go see Saldana's film (R-rated comedy and PG-13 violent films target the same audience: 15 year old boys <smile>). 

'Colombiana' starring Zoe Saldana opens this weekend to, what I hope will be, stunning reviews.  According to IMDB they spent approx $40 Mil on this film which  means it needs to earn a gross of at least $50 Mil in 3 months to make Saldana a glorified STAR.  Having followed since her debut in 'Center Stage' I am a huge fan; not only is she quite beautiful but she also has TALENT (something sorely lacking in many of today's Hollywood starlets).  But the film wont earn this amount without your help.  Other than Angelina Jolie's 'Salt' and 'Tomb Raider', female action movies usually dont fare well.  In this male dominated society, we have a hard time picturing someone with beauty and grace kicking ass and taking names but when we do take the time to go see these films we go in droves (see box office receipts of the previously mentioned movies as proof). 

So, here is my best pitch to you for seeing 'Colombiana' by Zoe Saldana:
She made you swoon as the blue girl in Avatar, you laughed at her dating misfortune in Guess Who (with newly minted 2.5 Men star Ashton 'dont call me Mr. Demi Moor' Kutcher), and she made fans of all of you Trekkies with her turn as the Spock-loving Uhura in the 'Star Trek' reboot so please, for the love of everything that makes you want more minority actresses that are equal parts eye candy and talent...PLEASE GO SEE THIS FUCKING MOVIE!  

*I will be there this weekend; even if I have to be the person with the 2 year old in the front row taking trips to the potty every 10 minutes*

My Top Comedies

Quasi Couch Potato’s Top 3 Comedies:

#3 on my list because of its classic lines and timely references is ‘Coming to America’

 ‘Coming to America’ is the brain child of Eddie Murphy.  Twenty years before the Klumps he was playing multiple characters and making us laugh to the point of stomach pain.  This movie is an all-around classic—from the very beginning with Paul Bates singing ‘She’s your queen to be’ to Eriq LaSalle’s ‘Soul Glo’ to John Amos threatening to break his foot off in James Earl Jones’ ‘royal ass’ for insulting his daughter.  I guarantee that, while watching this movie, you will not go more than 5 minutes without a hearty-out of breath-hurt your stomach laugh.   Buy the DVD on sale and watch it over…and over…and over…and over…

#2, the movie that has spawned two lackluster sequels and has helped turned Ice Cube into a household name is ‘Friday’

‘Friday’: Chris Tucker, pre-Rush Hour trilogy, need I say more?   Tucker was at his best as the comedic, crass, raunchy Smokey; delivering line after line of comedy.  Ice Cube does well as his non-gangsterish straight man and John Witherspoon gives yet another outstanding performance as Ice Cube’s ‘shit smells so bad that it peels the paint’ father.

#1, the first movie made by my hetero-life-mate; Kevin Smith

‘Clerks’ fucking rocks because of the brilliant writing of Kevin Smith.  The plot is simple, the acting is amateurish but works because the actors are regular guys in regular situations, and the dialog is BEYOND witty (especially the conversation about the contractors on ‘Return of the Jedi’; pee in your pants funny with a dash of ‘things that make you go hmmmm’).  As far as comedies are concerned this cannot be beat!   Definitely worth owning the DVD and/or Blu Ray.   

Ode to Kevin Smith (the director of Clerks, not my uncle the former drill sergeant in the U.S. Army)

 

 

Oh Mr. Smith, I adore thee and all of thee writing credits that thee has accumulated since before Clerks.  I love your witty banter, your jokes, your stand up routines (yes, even ‘Too Fat for 40’) and am trying to find a way to see Red State and your interview afterward next week at the New Beverly.

I love the way you poke fun at organized religion (‘Dogma’), were a great friend to Mewes when he needed you most, and continue to keep all of the irritating hipsters in L.A. angry by owning a home that once belonged to the oft-mocked best bud of MattDamon (This is not a typo; it must be said as one word as stated in the ‘South Park’ movie).   I love the way you describe your dogs (the retarded lab, the smart lab, and the wiener dog) and how you incorporate them into your everyday life—the SPCA should make you their honorary spokesperson. 

You do great interviews and even your stuff that is supposed to be self-deprecating actually comes off as self-aware and enlightened (Well, maybe that’s a little too far.  Maybe that’s compared to the bullshit out here West Coast—where no one is honest about anything except whether or not the stalls have toilet seat liners). 

I look forward to working with you one day and hope you at least read this and agree that you are a wonderful writer director and future Oscar winner. 

Glee--Why it didnt translate

I am a HUGE Glee fan; hell, I am a huge Musical Theater fan in general.  I love going to see musicals and I set my DVR to record Glee every Tuesday during the season however, even in all of my fandom (I even went to a Glee sing-a-long that didnt have any of the cast members; just a band and a lounge singer doing covers) I knew that I wasnt going to see the concert movie that premiered last Friday. 


Why? BECAUSE CONCERT MOVIES GENERALLY SUCK!!!!!  Think of any concert movie that DIDNT debut because the primary performer passed away (MJ we love you but we all know that if 'This Is It' were released as a concert movie while you were alive that it would have BOMBED horrendously) and you will agree that they are usually very boring.  Glee, unfortunately, proved to be no exception.  You have the regular cast singing the exact same arrangement from the show AND from their nationwide concert tour that has already been attended by millions of Gleeks.  I know that their target market consists of tweeners and teeny boppers who will spend their money on ANYTHING but even they wont pay for something that they can see for free on TV and hear for free on itunes and youtube and anything else electronic.

Let this be a lesson to other concert/movie promoters:  Dont try to shove the exact same product down our throats over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over....at least take notes from the producers of Final Destination and Saw; they have the exact same movies with the same formulas each time but the twist is always a little different.  When you do a concert movie at least debut a few new songs or arrangements or costumes or SOMETHING. 

And I will not even begin to address the fact that its in 3-D.

I love Glee and will be watching this season with the same vigor that I have watched the previous ones but I cant say that I will be going to pay to see the movie; I'd rather keep my $8 and watch the performances on my DVR...or on YouTube...or iTunes or.....

Conan the Barbarian...Why are we remaking this again?

I have seen a few posters and trailers and all I keep thinking is, 'Why the hell are they remaking this.  Weren’t the first two kind of garbage-y?'  I remember that they starred Ah-nold (AKA Future Governor of California and future father of a love child with his live-in help who was able to keep it a secret until one of Oprah's staff found out and forced Oprah to drop dime on him) and I even remember that Grace Jones was in the sequel and that Bridgette Nielsen (Sylvester Stallone's ex-wife; Ivan Drago's wife in Rocky IV) starred in the spin-off that co-starred Ah-nold as a character of a different name (Red Sonja).  What I don’t remember is any of these movies making money nor do I remember them being anything more than fodder for jokes because of the bad acting and very, very poor writing.

The 80s versions were about a muscle-bound warrior who went around the world fighting for ‘justice’ on behalf of a warrior clan.  The version that comes out on August 19, 2011 is also about a muscle-bound warrior who goes around the world fighting for ‘justice’ on behalf of a warrior clan and, wait for it…., ITS IN 3-D!!!  So, not only is it a rehash of an old—mostly-failed--concept but it’s being released in a medium that is being overused for the sake of marketing (On average, 3-D films make more money than their 2-D counterparts and, since the release of Avatar, Hollywood studios have used the medium to try to prop up even the most doomed-to-fail movies; i.e. Clash of the Titans). 

And finally there is the issue of how it was shot.  Granted I have only seen the trailers of the film, but it looks like the makers of ‘300’ took several shots of tequila and rum before running the battle scenes through the animator.  They look horrible!!!!  The characters look blurry (and not the ‘I need 3-D glasses to watch this’ blurry but the ‘did my 4 year olds color this in?’ kind of blurry), the moments that are supposed to be 3-D-esque look VERY forced (like a punch intended for an enemy grossly misses and heads straight toward the audience in a ‘LOOK WE SHOT THIS IN 3-D’ kind of way), and the make-up and hair pieces are laughable at best. 

I know it’s the end of the ‘Summer-Let’s See How Many Crappy Action Movies We Can Release Before Audiences Say ‘You’ve Gone Too Far.  I Refuse To See THAT’–Season’ but DAMN.  Does that mean that we have to be subject to THIS; this seemingly crappy remake of a crappy movie with a crappy plot and crappy special effects?   I think the only saving grace is the cast.  According to IMDB the cast members listed are mostly B+ actors with a few B actors sprinkled in; their careers should be able to survive this calamity (I mean, Rose McGowan’s career survived Charmed and Marilyn Manson so this should be no sweat). 

Harry Potter---All the build up for THAT?

I am ready, willing, and able to admit that I am not an avid reader but I am an AVID MOVIE WATCHER.  It should come as no surprise that I have not actually read any of the Harry Potter books but I have seen all of the movies, except the most recent release, at least 20 times.  I watched with great anticipation as each movie ended hoping that the next would reveal the epic battle between Voldemort and Harry, and while I was secretly hoping Voldemort would win I knew that Harry would find a way to beat him (After all, you can’t sell children's books that have the 'hero' losing.  That’s too much like reality and parents won’t stand for that.). 

Imagine my excitement standing in line to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 2--I have seen the previous 7 movies so many times that I can quote them.  I have so many unanswered questions because I have decided to not read blogs or articles or the books; I want to be surprised by what happens on screen--Which character will end up with whom?  How will Voldemort die?  Is Snape really a villain?  So many questions...and only 2 hours and 10 minutes to answer them.

For the two or three of you out there who have not seen it, I will not answer all of these questions but I will begin a tirade on the most important: The Death of Voldemort.  So, if you can’t handle it, please leave now….

Dear Warner Bros, J.K. Rowling, and all others involved in the making of this EXCELLENT MOVIE SAGA:            How the hell can you  justify making 7 movies that lead to an epic battle between good and evil and have the two heads of each faction only fight for 3 on-screen minutes????!!!!  CMON MAN!!!!! (ß It made me so angry that I actually typed a colloquialism).  I understand that he had to destroy the horcruxes (*sp) and that he had to get his army together to fight Voldemort’s but when they got down to it—after all of the horcruxes were destroyed—Harry killed him in 2 or 3 waves of the wand?  Really?!  That’s how the Merciless Lord Voldemort dies?  By the hand of a high schooler waving his wand, casting a spell or two, and poof, that’s it, he’s gone?!  This is the Hitler of wizards.  He killed people because they didn’t believe in the same philosophy as him.  He killed, dads, moms, babies, animals, EVERYONE.  He was so bad that when he tried to kill Harry as a baby but the spell backfired he still didn’t really die….only his body died but his spirit remained.  Are you telling me that a wizard who is that powerful can really be vanquished with a spell?  That’s as dumb as him actually believing that Draco could/would kill the mighty Dumbledore; anyone could smell the fear on Draco trying to kill a mouse yet we are supposed to believe that Voldemort believes that Draco killed him?  Nu uh….NOT HAPPENING!  

I understand that Voldemort had to lose but I was hoping for more of a Rocky-esque fight where they were casting spells at each other for what seemed like an eternity until they hit each other with a doozy of a spell and both fell on the ground exhausted/knocked out.  Then, Harry would find a way to get to his feet just before Voldemort and WAMMO, hit him with the final spell that would kill him forever.  That would have been a great ending to their story; an ending befitting of the 14+ hours that it would take to watch the previous 7 movies. 

Don’t misunderstand me, the SAGA was excellent--right up there with Star Wars and Lord of The Rings—but I was expecting so much more of a fight between Voldemort and Harry.  I mean I was expecting WWIII and ended up getting the equivalent of a slap fight between 2 frat boys at a beer pong table.  An anti-climactic ending to the best build up of a story…EVER. 

Rating, rating, rating:  I am obligated to give it my 'go the movies AND buy it on Blu-Ray' rating because it is the end cap to a  great SAGA....but that damn fight scene still pisses me off! 

No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits...Whats the difference? REALLY?!

Okay.  This is only my 2nd post and here I am already writing about 2 movies that I have never seen and will save until a 2am cant sleep so lets get this over with marathon.  We have all seen the trailers for these movies, we know the stars are established actors and know that both female leads are both extremely talented and beautiful (VERY DIFFICULT TO COME BY IN TODAY'S STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE SOCIETY)...and we also know how each movie is going to end.  This formulaic crap is the reason that many movies from Hollywood lose truckloads of money: we know whats going to happen before we plunk down our hard earned money!!

Dont believe me?  Watch this:
Man and woman are friends.  Both have crappy luck dating people or realize that they dont have the time to get to know someone because they are always working.  During a conversation at a bar or dinner or at a wedding of mutual friends they decide that they can do without the relationship and what they really want is sex.  They then say, 'hey I find you attractive and you find me attractive so lets have sex without the commitment'.  Both agree and they spend the next 5 screen minutes in a montage of positions and high fives.  Afterward they are each told by their respective friend groups that it wont work but they refuse to believe it.  Then they see the other with a date and get jealous.  The woman cries, the man fights, they realize they are meant to be together and its another happily ever after.

If I am wrong, PLEASE TELL ME.  In the meantime I will continue...

My problem isnt only that these movies are made but its also that people will go see both of them EXPECTING them to be GREAT.  Come on, people!  What about either title, description, or trailer says to you 'this is going to be a good movie worth paying at least $8 per ticket for?  NOTHING!  I am a HUGE Portman fan and thoroughly enjoyed Kunis in 'That 70s Show', 'Black Swan' (of course), and even in 'American Psycho 2' (yes the movie SUCKED but she played it very campy which made it watchable) but there is no way that you can convince me that either actress can make those movies anything close to classics like 'When Harry Met Sally' or 'Sleepless in Seattle' because the plot isnt there for them to turn into cinematic gold. 

Please, for the love of everything that is holy, stop watching crap like this!  I respect the fact that actors need to make money because independent movies with great plots that also pay well are few and far between but maybe if we stop going to see this stuff Hollywood will allow better written movies to be green lit and thus provide movies to the masses that have excellent plots while also allowing actors and actresses to see the type of paydays we all dream about. 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Let me start by saying that I have not joined the droves of newly minted James Franco fans (I mean, really...am I the only one that remembers the very angst-y job he did in Spider-Man or that he STARRED in such cinematic 'gems' as "Annapolis"???) nor was I a fan of Tim Burton's Ape movie (better known as the 2 hours I will never get back with a cast of stars that looked great on paper but made me weep because they were wasted on screen).   I was NOT enthused to see this movie but was invited on a hetero-man-date that I had been putting off for far too long.  While I went in with no expectations I was VERY happy with what I saw.


The movie was great; not because of the special effects or even because of the rehashed concept, but because of the fact that it actually had a PLOT and a realistic timeline associated with it.  It didnt say; here are monkeys and here is a drug and 24 hours later all hell was breaking loose.  The movie actually defied recent Hollywood logic by allowing the writers to write a GOOD story and by allowing the director to DO HIS JOB and make it come to life.

John Lithgow was masterful as always and Freida Pinto was typecast as the intelligent girlfriend and thus didnt add or take away from the movie.  I want to focus on Franco and the plot, the two real stars of the movie.  As I mentioned earlier, Franco actually had a script to work with and didnt mess it up.  He was excellent as a well-meaning animal conscious scientist looking for a cure for Alzheimer's.  He didnt behave as though his research was the end-all-be-all for the world nor did he act like the monkeys were there for his amusement and well intentioned torture sessions (those thoughts and intentions were left to the villain who was well played by David Oyelowo<---hats off to you for being the CEO I loved to hate).  He cared about whether or not the primates were treated humanely and was driven by a very personal reason to pursue his scientific theories; his father, played by John Lithgow, was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.  When watching the movie you could feel his hope increase while he watched his ape learn and his father improved.  You could feel his contempt for his boss when things didnt go as planned, and you could see the pain and pride in his eyes at the end when he realized what he had to do.  It is the first time I have ever seen Franco actually ACT and I find myself going on IMDB to see what he has coming next. 

The plot was astounding.  As a professional movie watcher (I have seen at least 100 movies over 100 times each and can quote more than a few movies from opening to closing credits) I take pride is destroying movies with bad plots.  I sit quietly watching a movie; taking mental notes of every gaffe, every botched edit, every mistimed speaking part and use them to go on ad-nausea to whoever will listen about why the movie was CRAP.  Imagine my surprise when I was watching 'Apes', waiting for it to reveal itself as a typical summer movie sham, only to realize that the writers and director actually took the time to give back story to each character and to show the lapse of time between scenes so that the audience wouldnt think that the entire movie takes place within a week but over SEVERAL years.  This movie proves that even a summer blockbuster can fit plot, characters, and a great story into 1 hr 45 min without movie-file feeling like something has been left out.

I give Rise of the Planet of the Apes my full 'go to the theater AND buy it on Blu-Ray' seal of approval.