The Hangover (2009)


Directed by: Todd Phillips

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis

Other Actors of Note: Justin Bartha, Heather Graham, Ken Jeong, Rachael Harris, Mike Tyson, Mike Epps, Jeffrey Tambor, Rob Riggle, Matt Walsh, Bryan Callen

Plot: A Las Vegas-set comedy centered around three groomsmen who lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Comedy is not a formula. This is why formulaic comedies suck. This is why even really really good formulas that induce laughter 9 times out of 10 still make shitty movies. I'm talking to you Judd Apatow.

When I first saw the trailer for "The Hangover" I said to myself. "Gee, this looks like a formulaic piece of shit." After all, how many movies have used the whole "waking up in Vegas" plotline? Now how many of them are good? And "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" doesn't count before you even say it.

I'm also not a fan of Todd Phillips' past films. "Starsky and Hutch" was pure liquid shit and "Old School" was an hour and a half of wasted potential due in part to shitty performances by Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn, and a disturbingly prophetic performance by a then-still-funny Will Ferrel. So that's another strike on the record.

I literally only watched this movie because the only alternative was "Land of the Lost."

However, sometimes a good writer and director can spin even the most predictable of tropes into pure solid gold. Last summer's "Tropic Thunder" was a perfect example, and while "The Hangover" isn't quite as fucking amazing as "Tropic Thunder" it's pretty damn close.

So you know the story, four guys go to Las Vegas to celebrate their buddy's bachelor party. The bachelor in question is Doug (Justin Bartha) with his two best friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) and his future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifiankis). After his future father-in-law (Jeffrey Tambor) hands him the keys to his very nice car and sends them off for a night of fun in Vegas things go predictably wrong and hijinks ensue.

Now the next morning Alan, Stu, and Phil wake up to find out that there's a baby in the closet, Stu is missing a tooth, there's a tiger in the bathroom, oh and Doug is missing. So the three men set out to find out where Doug is, what they did last night, and why they can't remember anything.


Justin Bartha is the lead of the movie despite the fact that he only has about 30 minutes of screen time. Justin's not necesserily a weak lead but he's far from a strong one. I'm more than glad that we don't spend an hour and a half following Bartha around Las Vegas.

Bradley Cooper is billed as the lead of this picture but in reality he's no more the lead then Helms or Galafianakis are. While Cooper's career hasn't been what one would call unsuccesful with films like "Wedding Crashers", "Yes Man", "He's Just Not That Into You", and "The Midnight Meat Train" under his belt. But not since his criminally under-rated (and prematurely cancelled) television show "Kitchen Confidential" has he really had the chance to shine.

Cooper plays that dickish friend who's selfish, crass, and wild. While the role's nothing new to him he ads more depth to it than he has in the past. Phil is a major dick but you get throughout the film that he's still a nice guy. There seems a valid reason that a guy like Phil would have two reasonably decent friends and a wife and child. His growth as a character is predictable but even his crass prickishness comes off as somehow likeable. Think of him as a toned down Randal Graves.

Ed Helms is the straight man of our three stars. Helms is the guy who has to say "Guys, this is a bad idea" once every 10 minutes or else his contract is void. Fortunately he brings something extra to the performance. Stu's reactions to some of the shit that happens are almost as funny as the things themselves and he plays a song mid-movie that, though slightly out of place, doesn't fail to draw laughter.

Of course the real scene stealer of this movie is comedian Zach Galifiankis in one of his rare movie appearances. Alan is a club-kid from the mid-90s that's been forced to realize that the rave scene is over but failed to accept this fact. He's put on some weight and now looks like some kind of pedophile in ultra-tight "trendy" clothes from 10 years ago and carrying a man-purse. Alan is so off-the-wall and bizarre that you just sit waiting in anticipation for the next time he opens his mouth.

Heather Graham is in this movie, this is the first time that I've found Heather Graham funny, attractive, and likeable in a movie. This is a milestone for me. Seriously though, this film could have benefitted from a bit more Heather Graham.

Ken Jeong plays something vaguely resembling a villain in this movie. The man spends his scenes gnawing the scenery like a rabid beaver in a lumber yard, he gets pretty tedious pretty fast but his entrance into the movie remains easily the funniest part of the entire damn film.


You know how above I mentioned how this movie could have easily been formulaic crap. Well it's not good jokes and good acting alone that breaks it free of that horrible bland prison it could've easily been caught up in.

While the movie takes some cliches head on it manages to deftly avoid others. This manner of picking and chosing its predictability is what makes this movie as entertaining as it is. It leaves you not knowing what to expect and even when it does decide to throw a usual trope at you it's still funny.

For example, when it comes time to get Alan's father's nice Mercedes out of impound you know it's going to be trashed. That's how this shit works, Stu even comments on it, but the movie decides to throw these miserable bastards a bone for once. Or when they put the tiger in the back seat of the car, rufied, anyone who's seen "Tommy Boy" knows what's going to happen and indeed it does.

"The Hangover's" habit of picking and choosing cliches begins to make you wonder if the movie will end by them finding Doug's corpse in a ditch somewhere. This literally seemed like a viable option the first time I saw this.

Which leads me to my next point. I've seen this movie twice, I wasn't sure about it the first time and just wanted to see if my enjoyment would hold out after the initial shock had passed. I've come to call this the "Alien vs. Predator" method as the first time I saw that movie in theaters I loved the shit out of it, but upon second viewing I realized I wouldn't even use the DVD for a cheap shiv to stab Robert Pattinson with. Eh, I hear a Taxi and his fans did my job for me.

I am happy to report that this movie's laugh out loud moments are just as funny the second time around. I found myself laughing at all the same cues and even laughing in anticipation of them.

The cast just has such a great onscreen chemistry that you love every moment of it. And even though our three pseudo-protagonists are almost constantly in some form of trouble or danger you just wait with anticipation for the next crazy bullshit to come up.

Let me also say that the combination of Mike Tyson and Phil Collins' "In The Air Tonight" make for instant magic.


Now I understand there's been talk of a second movie. I don't know what the fuck it would be about. In fact it sounds like a really bad idea to me. This movie managed to be funny, original while still making good use of old jokes, and redeemed Todd Phillips in my eyes. I really hope to be seeing more of him, and if there is a God, more of Zack Galifiankis very soon.

I give "The Hangover" a 5 out of 5. It's not frowned upon like masturbating in an airplane even after 9/11.

Drag Me To Hell (2009)


Directed by: Sam Raimi

Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Dileep Rao, Lorna Raver, Adriana Barraza

Other Actors of Note: David Paymer, Chelcie Ross, Ted Raimi

Plot: A loan officer ordered to evict an old woman from her home finds herself the recipient of a supernatural curse, which turns her life into a living hell. Desperate, she turns to a seer to try and save her soul, while evil forces work to push her to a breaking point. Taken from www.imdb.com.

Alison Lohman can totally mud wrestle a dead woman like a pro

DISCLAIMER: If you are a Sam Raimi fan and you have not gone to see this movie then I kindly ask you to fuck off and die. No seriously, kill yourself, if I hear you whine about no Evil Dead 4 but not support this film because it's PG-13 then go play in traffic. Your use to the world is complete.

I remember an episode of "Batman the Animated Series" where the Joker chastised his clown-faced assitant Harley Quinn saying that if you had to explain the joke then it's not worth telling. I think the same thing applies for Sam Raimi movies. I can explain any of his movies until I'm blue in the face but the simple fact is that if you didn't get them then you never will.

Raimi doesn't make artsy deep pictures, though he's had some very moving and artistic films. He doesn't make "scary" movies, but it's hard to deny that the man has caused some great scares. He doesn't make long drawn out movies with ambiguous plots and endings that you have to watch seven times to understand. Sam Raimi, in his own words, is not an artist but an entertainer. What he has made here is the epitomy of entertainment.

The story goes that Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is our heroine, a sweet but somewhat self-obsessed 20-something with a good job, a boyfriend who is way too good for her, and a desire to distance herself from her fat country bumpkin roots. We find out that Christine is upo for a promotion but faces competetion from the brown-nosing new guy, this is further exacerbated by her overhearing a phone conversation between her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) and his bitchy mother who keeps insisting that he needs to quit playing with farm girls and find a woman who can help his career and social status: this leaves every person in the audience silently mouthing the word "cunt" and wishing the horrible witch would drop dead of a brain anyuerism.

When Christine gets back to work she meets an old gypsy lady (Lorna Raver) who begs her to give her another extension on her mortgage. She feels for the woman but sees that denying her request will undoubtedly secure her the promotion. So she denies her request and ends up shaming the old gypsy lady in front of the entire bank. It's fair to say that Christine never watched Stephen King's "Thinner."

So the old gypsy woman, as old gypsy women are wont to do, places a curse on Christine. The curse dictates that a horrible demon called a Lamia will come in three days and pull her down to Hell. But first, the Lamia is going to fuck with her like crazy and there's nothing she can do about it.

Christine naturally begins to spiral downward into increasingly more desperate solutions and endures various tortures of the Lamia (which are every one a nice combintion of terrifying, disgusting, and hilarious) naturally all these moments serve to ruin her life and make her look stark raving mad. That's really all I can say without ruining anything.

I didn't know Amy Winehouse was in this movie!

Okay, so Alison Lohman is apparently popular. I know this because the annoying tween behind me gasped and went "Alison Lohman is in this!" So somebody apparently knows who she is, but that doesn't matter because I can honestly say that she's brilliant.

Sam Raimi's first choice for the role of Christine was Ellen Page hot off the success of "Juno" but I can honestly say that Ellen (much as I want to make dirty passionate love to her) dropping out was the best thing that could have happened. I don't think she could have brought the character to life quite like Lohman did.

You see, Christine isn't our typical horror heroine, she's not the virginal angelic girl who just happened to be in the giant murderous tard's zip code or accidently dropped her bible inside the haunted house. She's a selfish, mean-spirited, and often despicable character and you'll find yourself periodically rooting for the Lamia. However, as the leading lady, it's important that we don't hate Christine either. Fortunately Lohman manages to play a character that we both care for and feel sympathy toward while at the same time believing that she deserves everything she gets. This is far more complexity of character than the average horror movie even dreams of having which is one of the many things that stops this film from becoming mass-market crap.

Another big surprise is Justin Long as the "straight man boyfriend" role who spends the entire movie going "no honey, you're just imaginging things. The supernatural doesn't exist." If you've ever seen a horror movie ever, you know this character intimately. The good news is Long goes above and beyond the call of duty and adapts Clay into a deep and 3-dimensional character. As the movie progresses you really grow to like Clay more and more and ultimately feel bad for him for what he has to endure for being in love with Christine.

Lorna Ravor plays the "evil" gypsy woman Mrs. Ganush. Similarly to Christine you both feel for and hate her, though as opposed to Christine tipping more toward likeable, Mrs. Ganush tips the other way. It's Mrs. Gansh who serves as the avatar for much of the Lamia's mental torture of Christine. Often appearing as a hallucination and even as a corpse, pulling out her hair, attacking her, and spewing all manner of disgusting liquids all over her. Ravor is the epitomy of the balance between gross, scary, and funny that this movie embraces so beautifully and serves as an instantly memorable villainess.

Everytime I see this picture the only thing that pops into my mind is "ME WANT HONEYCOMB!"

Sam Raimi has been out of the horror game for a long time. His last movie of the genre ws 2000's "The Gift" starring Cate Blanchett but that was skirting the genre as was his previous horror effort "Army of Darkness" in 1992, making his last true horror film "Evil Dead 2" released in 1987.

There were many who said after having spent the better part of a decade making "Spider-Man" movies and the better part of 20 years making other types of movies he just didn't have another good horror effort left in him. This was further exacerbated by "Spider-Man 3" a movie that's flawed but much better than everybody says it is. It was another case of studio involvement destroying the meaning behind a Sam Raimi film: the other case being 1985's "Crimewave", a gonzo crime-noir comedy/action film that featured Bruce Campbell and was written by The Coen Brothers. If you're thinking that this movie should be better than sex then you are wrong, because of studio involvement the Coen/Raimi/Campbell trifecta only managed to make it "okay" in the same way that "Spider-Man 3" was okay. The point is that he managed to do phenominal even when he was given a big damn shit sandwich to munch on, but of course "the fans" (an ominious sounding group of outspoken douchebags who aren't fit to lick the sweat Louie Anderson's taint) claimed he'd "lost it" and abandoned him until he proved himself again.

I wrote that being seemingly pointless paragraph to make a point. In the pat when people gave up on him he came through with a little film called "Evil Dead 2" which you can only hate if you're a elitist ass who takes movies too seriously, or squeamish I suppose... pussy. So naturally when Raimi bombed (it should be noted that this "bomb" was the highest grossing movie ever) he had to come through again.

Now if you've seen "Spider-Man 2" you'll remember a little hospital scene that proved to the entire movie-watching world that despite the different direction his career had gone in, the old Sam Raimi still lived. This movie eliminated any doubt of this.

You might as well just think of it as "Evil Dead 3.5" it may not feature deadites or chainsaws or even Bruce Campbell but the spirit is there and there's a possession scene that seems exactly lilke something out of the "Evil Dead" series. The sense of comedy and horror is exactly the same and one even feels that this story takes place in the same world. Anybody who doubts now that Raimi could make "Evil Dead 4" has been put in their place.

As I said earlier this movie is the very definition of entertainment. Throughout the entire movie I found myself laughing or at very least smiling while at the same time having to physically hold myself back from jumping at various scares and the best part is that you didn't know which was coming, whether the movie would scare you or make you laugh, often these moments came near simulataneously. For once I went to a horror movie and felt that same magic I felt as a kid, feeling those same thrills that made me the lover of the genre that I am now.

Escapism aside I don't want it to be percieved that "Drag Me To Hell" is mindless entertainment. Oh sure it has a screwball sense of humor and certainly doesn't take itself very seriously but beneath that exists a movie with a very deep meaningful message.

The title of this film is deeper than people realize. Oh sure, the Lamia is trying to literally drag Christine into hell but it can be said that by abandoning her roots, her identity, her home and alcoholic mother, and by sacrificing her own morals just to get a job, Christine had already lost her soul befoer Mrs. Ganush had the chance to curse her.

As the plot thickens and the likes of Clay, guru Rham Jas (Dileep Rao), and medium Shaun San Dena (Adriana Barraza) try to help her they each sacrifice part of themself to save her soul. In many ways Christine is dragging everyone who helps her down to Hell with her (in a more metaphorical way of course.) Christine is a perfect example of how even a good person can fall to the trappings of greed and selfishness. Even her attempts to make amends come off as just a means of personal gain and you end up pitying those who care for her more than Christine herself.

"Oh my God, I just realized that I'm a corporate tool used by Apple!"

"Drag Me To Hell" is a well-written, well-acted, and well-directed film. It's a great movie on its own but the theater experience is something that shouldn't be missed out on. It really is something that should be seen as part of an audience at least once. Sam Raimi is back and you don't want to miss it.

I give "Drag Me To Hell" a 5 out of 5. It's still in theaters, go see it now!

Up (2009)Directed by: Pete Docter and Bob Peterson

Starring: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, and Bob Peterson

Other Actors of Note: John Ratzenberger and Delroy Lindo

Plot: By tying thousands of balloon to his home, 78-year-old Carl Fredricksen sets out to fulfill his lifelong dream to see the wilds of South America. Right after lifting off, however, he learns he isn't alone on his journey, since Russell, a wilderness explorer 70 years his junior, has inadvertently become a stowaway on the trip. Taken from www.imdb.com.


So there's this little company, you've never heard of them, they're called Pixar. They're a little art-house-indie development company that's strictly underground and are mostly unknown to the general public. Indeed, the only premier Pixar's movies have ever had was in a Hoboken basement where 4 people attend and 3 of them were promptly killed to keep it non-conformist. This is why you pay me my nominal fee of $1000 and the blood of a virgin a day so that I can dig up these hard to find gems and bring them to your door. [/sarcasm]

So yeah, Pixar made another movie, this time our protagonist is Carl Fredicksen (Ed Asner) a crotchety old man who we first meet as a 10-year-0ld boy watching a movie serial about Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) an adventurer who with his zeppellin "The Spirit of Adventure" and his army of loyal dogs went deep into the jungles of South America and discovered the lost land of "Paradise Falls." While finding the lost world Carl discovered a rare species of giant bird, but his skeleton is dismissed as bullshit so he heads off into the jungle to find proof.

Carl goes walking home and meets fellow adventure-enthusiast Ellie who has the bitchinest club house on the block. She shows Carl her adventure book and tells him of her dream of moving her clubhouse to Paradise Falls and makes Carl promise that she'll help him get there.

We get a musical montage of Carl and Ellie falling in love, getting married, fixing up the clubhouse into a real house, dreaming of having children, the emotional scene where they find out that Ellie can't have children, the two growing old together, Carl realising that he didn't keep his promise and trying to make good in the last mintue just as Ellie gets hospitalized and dies. This scene goes to prove that even in my jaded dark-hearted cynacism, Disney still has the power to make me bawl like a little bitch in public.

So anyway, as a jaded old man Carl totally bashes some guy over the head for running over his mail box and gets declared a public menace and is about to be sent to a nursing home when in a last minute effort he flies his house away via an obscene amount of helium balloons.

Unfortunately Wilderness Adventurer Russle (Jordan Nagai) was looking for the snipe that Carl told him to find under the porch and gets caught up in the adventure. They make it to Paradise falls and meet up with a giant bird, dubbed "Kevin", and a dog with a collar that makes it able to talk named "Dug."

Of course, Dug (Bob Peterson) is not the only talking dog, it turns out he's one of Charles Muntz' super smart dogs on the search for the bird and they are lead back to Muntz's blimp where he decides that they've come to kidnap his bird and shit gets real.


Ed Asner is a wonderful voice actor who anyone who grew up in the 90s will either know as J. Jonah Jameson from "Spider-Man: The Animated Series", Hudson from "Gargoyles", or Seargent Mike Cosgrove from "Freakazoid." Despite which of these roles you remember him for your first thought upon hearing his voice will no doubt be "holy shit, he's still alive?"

Asner's voice makes him perfect for the spiritual PG-rated brother of "Gran Torino's" Walt Kowalksi (He even has his own Asian kid to mentor to!) naturally he feels regret for never having the adventure he promised his late wife he would and blah blah climactic scene blah blah character growth blah blah movie trope. But it works! I swear! Asner works flawlessly as a comedic character and as a dramatic character.

Bob Peterson, who I originally thought was Kevin James, is the source of a good number of the movie's laughs as Dug, the dumb but lovable dog. Between his overly polite broken English and his hatred of squirrels there's really no point in the film where Dug isn't funny.

Peterson also plays Alpha, the sub-villain of the film. Alpha is a Doberman Pincher but his voice collar is broken and he sounds like a chipmunk, this joke is further played out when Muntz fixes the collar and Alpha now has a ridiculously deep voice.

The shining star of this movie is Christopher Plummer as Charles Muntz. Muntz bears a strong resemblence to the late Paul Newman and fits the archetype of the 1940s he-man adventurer character.

Pixar is famous for having some dark and frankly disturbing villains in their series, up until recently the darkest they had gone was the psychotic "superhero" Syndrome from "The Incredibles" with Hopper from "A Bugs Life" hot on his tail. I can honestly say that Charles Muntz tops every single Pixar villain combined.

Muntz comes into the film friednly and cordial, every bit the hero that Carl once idolized but we see that his hunt (which has gone on for about 68 years) for the bird has left him a little, how can I put this nicely, crazy like a fucking loon. Upon suspecting Carl as another bird thief he begins to show Carl his collection of adventure gear taken from the corpses of past interlopers in a scene that might as well involve the works "My severed heads, let me show you them."

As if this is not menacing and mental enough he goes on to send his army of dogs chasing after Carl, Russel, and Kevin. He then tries to burn down Carl's house, drops Russel out of the bottom of his zeppelin whilst very high in the air, comes at Carl with a sword, and then in quite possibly the most disturbing turn in the movie starts opening fire on Russel with a hunting rifle, ultimately bashing down the door to the house with the butt of the gun. It's really the point when he begins trying to kill an 8-year-old that you realize that Muntz is a fucking maniac. He's the Joker of Disney villains.


As always the visuals are breathtaking to a point that I don't feel like mentioning them further as we all know the score by now.

This film is easily Pixar's most adult and I think that may hurt it. It's not that the movie is filled with questionable content as it's easily half as dark as "The Incredbles" it's just that the story has a lot to do with things that small children and even older children won't really get.

At at least 3 points in this movie I was literally in tears and I'm a jaded soulless cunt. It's emotional and beautiful in its metaphors for life, love, and dealing with the loss of loved ones. While these topics aren't something important for children to learn, they're hard to grasp for someone whose biggest choice lies in whether or not their underoos should have pictures of Power Rangers or Transformers on them. In the past Pixar has made children's films that are watchable to adults, but in this case we have an adult's film that's watchable to kids.

Now, adressing the "darkness" of the film the aformentioned rifle scene as well as the sight of blood on the construction worker's head when Carl beans him with his cane and the "miscarriage" scene have all been sighted as too much for children.

Does the world get qmnesia quite often or am I the only one who remembers "The Goonies" opening with several murders, Mufasa being brutally slain by Scar and Scar devoured by cackling hyenas, two bumbling crooks preparing to kill a 10-year-old Kevin McAllister, pretty much everything about "Monster Squad", Frollo quite obviously (even for kids) lusting after Esmerelda in the "Hunchback of Notre Damme", Syndrome getting sucked into the intake of a jet engine, at least 2 cases of an evil sorceress trying to poison someone in "Snow White" and "The Emperor's New Groove", a body count that ranks near 1000 in "Atlantis:The Lost Empire", and Nazi faces melting in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? That's not even touching on any of the things in "A Nightmare Before Christmas".

So let me ask you, is a small bloody spot on a man's head from a small injury, a tastefully handled exposition of infertility (it wasn't a miscarriage, if it was they would have shown her develop a pregnant belly, the crib was just showing them getting ahead of themselves the same way they did with Paradise Falls and the wall mural), and a man firing a rifle in the general direction of a child (admittedly that was pretty hardcore, but does it really top a dead body in a walk-in freezer or a shotgun blast to a gill-man's chest?) really so horrible? Kids are more resiliant than you think. I think if I can handle "Robocop" at age 4 the average 8-year-old can handle this of all things.


As expected, Pixar outdoes itself in delivers a powerful, beautiful, and entertaining movie whose influence and themes resonate long after you've left the theater.

I give "Up" a 5 out of 5. But honestly, if you're expecting any less out of Pixar at this point you're probably an asshole.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

Directed by: Shawn Levy

Starring: Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Hank Azaria

Other Actors of Note: Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais, Bill Hader, Jay Burachel, Clint Howard, Eugene Levy, Ed Helms, and Jonah Hill

Plot: When the Museum of Natural History is closed for upgrades and renovations, the museum pieces are moved into federal storage at the famous Washington Museums. The centerpiece of the film will be bringing to life the Smithsonian Institution, which houses the world's largest museum complex with more than 136 million items in its collections, ranging from the plane Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) flew on her non-stop solo flight across the Atlantic and Al Capone's (Jon Bernthal) rap sheet and mug shot to Dorothy's ruby slippers, Fonzie's jacket from Happy Days, the still from M*A*S*H and Archie Bunker's lounge chair from All in the Family. With a forwarded resume, Larry (Ben Stiller) becomes another caretaker at the Smithsonian, where Kahmunrah, an evil Pharaoh will come to life with the reestablishing of a tablet as a magical force in the museum bringing the old exhibits (Such as Theodore Roosevelt and Dexter) and new exhibits (like General Custer and Al Capone) back to life, and in conflict with each other. Larry enlists the help of Amelia Earheart, who he develops a romantic interest in, and together they try to put everything back in order. Taken from www.imdb.com.

When it comes to mainstream sequels, the idea is to take everything that worked in the first movie and supplement it with things that are bigger and, theoretically, better. However this plan rarely works.

I am quite unashamed to admit that I really enjoyed the first "Night at the Museum" it was a fun little movie with a sense of adventure that didn't try to be too serious but also didn't patronize its intended audience. Ben Stiller and Robin Williams (as well as Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan) were funny and managed to not feel forced. No to mention the message about meuseums was understated and, I thought, well put. Not to mention they managed to capitalize on Mickey Rooney's insanity. For those who claimed that it was juveneille or stupid, I would like to remind you that it was meant to entertain fucking 8-year-olds you elitest assholes! If you feel the need to complain about this movie then you obviously don't remember "The Pagemaster", "Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest", or any of the other godawful kids movies from the 90s.

However, as much as I liked the original movie, this sequel represents everything that goes wrong when studios try the "go big or go home" approach.

So, we rejoin Larry Daley as a succesful businessman who has quit his job as a night guard but still drops by the museum every once in a while. But of course he's become horribly overwhelmed with bring rich and famous and just doesn't have time to talk to museum exhibits anymore. Well now most of the exhibits are being removed and taken to the Smithsonian in the national archives, the monkey ends up stealing the tablet of Akmunrah and his brother Khamunrah is awakened in the National Archives and vows to awaken his army of the dead to take over the world using the tablet. Larry goes to Washington DC to try and save the day.


As much as everyone hated Ben Stiller in the first movie I thought he gave a good performance that may have fallen short of some of his truly great roles (Mr. Furious in "Mystery Men", Tugg Speedman in "Tropic Thunder", Gary Focker in "Meet the Parents") was certainly still one of his more entertaining and funny characters. Stiller still remains one of the good points but without a good cast of characters to have chemistry with he's kind of weak here on his own. There's a good moment early on between him and another security guard played by Jonah Hill that is far too short and sadly not lived up to during the rest of the movie.

So Carla Gugino pissed off with no explanation, so in her place we have Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. Sweet Jesus, if the real Amelia Earhart was this goddamn annoying then it was no accident that she dissappeared without a trace, it was divine intervention. Adams is one of the most obnoxious characters I've seen in quite some time, which makes the romance between Larry and Amelia seem even more forced than it was already. At very least she wears tight aviator's pants and the cameraman seems obsessed with giving us shots of her ass.

Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan are one of the few good things that returns from the first movie (the t-rex, Easter Island Statue, and Robin Williams only make small appearances at the beginning and end of the movie) but they don't get much of a chance to shine until the big fight at the end that involves a wonderful pisstake of "300."

Hank Azaria plays 3 roles, a very over-the-top (in a bad way) Abraham Lincoln, a thinker statue that sounds like JFK for no reason, and the villain of the film: Kahmunrah. Azaria does a Boris Karloff impression but it sounds more like a Stewie Griffin impersonation done by Jeremy Irons. Hank Azaria is a funny actor but this just another one of his big-budget flops. Then again when you have to fill the shoes of Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobb you're going to lose.

Bill Hader does a rather humorous General Custer, constantly obsessing over his hair and coming up with horrible war strategies. Unfortunately he only appears in 2 or 3 scenes while we have to put up with Amy Adams for the whole fucking movie.


The plot of this movie is pretty much non-existent. Larry goes to DC to save his favorite museum exhibits. He then gets trapped trying to stop Kahmunrah when he could just turn the middle piece sideways to turn everyone inanimate. You might be saying, "But Baytor, this is a children's film." But I remember catching plot inconsistencies like that when I was a kid so I don't accept that.

This is also added to the fact that there doesn't seem to a single night guard on duty in the whole Smithsonian and all the museums and the Washington monument are right next door to one another. There also appear to be no security cameras to catch Larry causing millions of dollars worth of damage.

Aside from this it's an hour and a half 0f throw away jokes with a few good ones intersperced every now and then all around the thread of a big advertisement for the Smithsonian. Naturally everything is fixed by the time the movie is over. None of the original charm is there from the first movie and only the vaguest hint of the humor remains.


This movie is a perfect case for why going for broke on the sequel is a very very bad idea.

I give "Night of the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" a 2 out of 5. Skip it.

Terminator Salvation (2009)


Directed by: McG

Starring: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Moon Bloodgood

Other Actors of Note: Helena Bonham Carter, Bryce Dallas Howard, Michael Ironside, Anton Yelchin

Plot: After Skynet has destroyed much of humanity in a nuclear holocaust, a group of survivors led by John Connor struggles to keep the machines from finishing the job. Taken from www.imdb.com.

"Officer Token Angry Blackguy reporting for duty, sir!"

Kids, don't cheat on your wife. Seriously, bad shit happens. When James Cameron sold out and made the horrible film "Titanic" proving universally that shit can be successful so long as you have an army of tasteless screaming teenage girls on your side. (This hypothesis would later go on to be tested when "Twilight" came out.)

So anyway, Cameron offered a role to his then-wife Linda Hamilton A.K.A. Sarah Connor. Well Linda turned down the role apparently to further pursue her successful acting career (that's a joke) and the role was given to Cathy Bates who to this day remains the only person in that whole goddamn movie who actually manages to act. But I digress, so anyway, long story short Cameron ended up sleeping with on of the actresses and Linda Hamilton won the rights to the "Terminator" films in the divorce.

Now surely, "Terminator" being Linda's only memorable role, she's going to make sure that the series is treated with the utmost respect and care, right? Well, according to "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" the answer to that question is a most emphatic "fuck no!"

So this was the chance to make everybody forget the third movie. Arnold is busy ruling California with an iron fist so he's out and that's for the best. Nick Stahl was politely asked to fuck off, that's 2 for 2. And they hired... the guy who directed the "Charlie's Angels" movies to direct.... okay, now you're just trying to fuck shit up.

So after hiring McG (A monicker that implies he's Irish, a gangbanger, AND a douchebag) they approaced Christian Bale, hoping for him to play the role of the terminator for this movie. But Bale said, "You know what, why don't you take this page and a half of dialogue for John Connor and stretch it out to encompass most of the movie, I'll play that."

McG tried to negotiate but then Bale took off his pants and began screaming "I AM BATMAN!" in a raspy voice and proceeded to noogie the fuck out of him. The producers eventually agreed to rewrite the script so he would quit giving McG swirlies and asking him if he liked Huey Lewis and the News and proclaiming that professionally they were "fucking done." And thus "Terminator Clusterfuck" was born.

So, let me see if I can try and piece this jigsaw puzzle together in a way that makes a modicum of sense. So, it's the future and John Connor is not leading the resistance at all, in fact he's getting bossed around a bunch by Michael Ironsides and anyone else who fits the stereotypical grizzled-army-commander template. He finds out about a signal that can be used to stop the machines and decides to field test it. Flash on over to LA where Marcus Wright, a convicted murderer who we met in the prologue with a completely superfluous appearance from Helena Bonham Carter, walks on screen naked and screams. We immediatly know he's a Terminator cause that's how this shit works, also because they told us he was one in the trailer.

Marcus meets Kyle Reese who gets kidnapped by robots and he hooks up with super-hot downed pilot Blair (played by Moon Bloodgood, who is apparently a night elf) and then trek on over to an inevitable confrontation between Connor and Wright. This confrontation is both needlessly epic and inevitably homo-erotic.

So some shit goes down, some more stuff blows up, the Arnold-bot shows up for reasons unexplained and the movie ends with a kind of weird ending. But given the alternative I think it's obvious that this turd was polished as much as can be reasonably expected.

They're totally about to kiss.

So, Christian Bale is not the star of this movie despite what he and the producers clearly want you to believe. I think he's finally going the way of Kevin Spacey and slowly selling out as this performance is at best "good." His role in the movie feels like it was written in last minute and even the part that was written into the script originally just isn't overly impressive (we get to watch another John Connor futiley try to fight against yet another T-800: oh gee fire didn't work, maybe you should try punching it!)

Contrary to Bale, Sam Worthington is actually quite good, oh sure he's a bit two-dimensional and badass. But on the scale of cool Terminators he falls somewhere between the T-1000 and the T-RiverTam. Even in his 2-dimensional glory he actually manages to be a compelling protagonist. This would work better if he wasn't interrupted every 15-minutes by Bale whispering dramatically into a walkie-talky.

Anton Yelchin is 2-for-2 on franchise destroying sequels. Not only does he actually manage to look like Michael Biehn but he manages to have that raspy voice without it feeling forced. He seems to have studied the part and it's easy to believe that Yelchin's character in this film eventually becomes Biehn's in the first movie.

Moon Bloodgood and Bryce Dallas Howard serve no purpose and could have been entirely removed from this movie without anything important having changed. I don't know about Bloodgood but Howard is too good of an actor to be relegated to such a small bland role.

Oh, park a helicopter on top of them and shoot them in the face, Sarah Connor should have just tried that.

Despite my annoyance with Christian Bale, McG, James Cameron, and really everybody who brought this into existence not to mention my overwhelming indifference for seeing the robot war, there are a lot of things in this movie that actually work.

For one, the post-apocalyptic atmosphere works perfectly. Everything feels suitably desolate and barren and despite the fact that they ignore everything that Kyle Reese said in the first movie (I.E. that they fight during the day and young-Reese says that Hunter Killers hunt best at night despite the fact that old-Reese said that the resistance only fights at night.) Things are suitably explodey and filled with all sorts of different kinds of killer robots but that help is also a hinderance.

Some of the T-1s are still hanging around from "Rise of the Machines" but not many, perhaps ED-209 threatened to sue for copyright infringement, I don't know. But we also get to see the Hunter Killers from the opening of T2. There are water snake terminators, giant people grabbing Terminators with motorcycles in their legs. Yes you read that correctly, there are evil robot motorcycles.

Now, this movie did do something that the T2 changed and T3 ruined entirely. For the first time since the first movie the T-600s are scary and all I can say is it's about fucking time. Finally the T-600 looks like it has some size and weight to it and not a very elaborate animatronic puppet that could break in a stiff wind. Honestly the T-1000 was cool but far from scary and the T-X was just fucking pathetic so it's nice to feel a sense of at least mild fear from them again. But of course my big problem is with the lone T-800 in this movie.

So the Arnold-bot shows up for no real reason (unless he's fulfilling the prophecy he gave in T3, but it doesn't really come to pass as he said it would and what happens would break continuity and end with past-Connor totally dead) but then decides to break continuity entirely. You see, thus far in the movie the T-600s have been uncharacteristically weak, they die far too easy seeing as it took a hydraulic press, a vat of molten iron, and a nuclear blast to kill them in past films respectively. So when Arnold-Bot gets a vat of molten iron poured on him I was understandably confused when he didn't fucking die. That shit killed the T-1000, why is the lesser-model surviving from it. Does this mean we're going to be seeing an even more powerful T-1000 in a future sequel? Someone call Robert Patrick, he's not busy Governating anything! (I'm sorry Kristana Loken, but you can eat shit and die.)

Other than that it's action-packed, not as bloody as it should be but at least much ballsier than T3. I was kind of bothered and annoyed by the gratuitous line quotes ("I'll be back", "Come with me if you want to live", "What day is it, what year?") and there were far too many T3 references (Mrs. John Connor, the Arnold Bot, the Terminator nuclear fuel cells, the T1) as hoping McG would ignore that movie and just move on.

Pictured: Scary

It's an entertaining and suitably desolate and dangerous, but it never really feels like a Terminator movie and that's really what hurts it. It's still twice as good as T3 but if you're a hardcore fan that maintains the series ended at T2 this won't change your mind.

McG almost seemed to get it and he's got two more sequels to figure it out. Mr. G, if you're reading this (and you're totally not because I know only like 3 people read this) my first advice is to beat away Christian Bale's ego with a big stick (use fire if you must) and try and write a movie that meshes with your idea as well as Cameron's. I fully believe you can do this if you just try harder.

I give "Terminator Salvation" a 3 out of 5. There's nothing really wrong with it but there's certainly nothing right either.

Star Trek (2009)

Directed by: J.J. Abrams

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Eric Bana

Other Actors of Note: Leonard Nimoy, Winona Ryder, Tyler Perry, Oz Perkins

Plot: A chronicle of the early days of James T. Kirk and his fellow USS Enterprise crew members.


Hey, remember how back in my "Twilight" review I gave Trekkies a pass on the grounds that the Twunts are rabid lunatics with no souls and serious emotional issues? Well, before you all get too cocky thinking you'd get off scot free, it's your turn.

So "Star Trek" is a sequel/prequel/reboot/camp stove/flash light to the entire Trek series. And while it does follow the events of "Star Trek: Nemesis" it's the new extreme "Cool Ranch" to the original film's "Nacho Cheese" flavor.

So apparently the studio execs realized that we had pretty much milked the teat of the adventures of Captain Picard, Worf, Data, the black guy off "Reading Rainbow", that guy with the beard, that one chick, the other chick, that other guy, and that other guy till it started squirting out blood, and rather than make another sequel they made a deal with Mephistopheles to restore order to the series. He agreed, hiring J.J. Abrams to un-fuck things, but as we "Spider-Man" fans know... Mephistopheles doesn't work for free, he had certain terms...


Okay lets ignore J.J. Abrams and Satan for right now, we'll get back to them later. Right now I want to talk about the cast:

Okay, we'll start with Chris Pine. I HATED the idea of Chris Pine playing Kirk, he had the look of an actor whose Starfleet uniform would have a popped collar and would constantly call Spock names like "Bro'sef", "Bro'mosexual", and "Bro'lcun." Fortunately I was dead fucking wrong and I salute J.J. Abrams for finding someone so perfect for the role.

Now Pine isn't a perfect reproduction of Shatner. First of all in this continuity Kirk grew up without a father so he's a bit more rebellious and cocky (if such a thing is possible) than the original, but it never feels forced or too different. The fact that Pine bears a strange resemblance to Shatner circa 1966 doesn't hurt anything either. Pine owns the movie and really makes for a good leading man. I truly hope that if this franchise doesn't take off (or even if it does for that matter) that Pine will get a lot more roles in future movies. It's good to know there are still actors under the age of 35 who can act.

Karl Urban was the one that I could not accept under any circumstances ever ever ever ever. I looked at his past roles in films like "Doom", "The Chronicles of Riddick", and "Pathfinder" and went "What the fuck is this cocksmith doing playing McCoy?" But you know what? Miraculously he fits McCoy perfectly, and no one is more surprised than me, he even manages to be as fuck-ugly as Deforest Kelley (and that shit isn't easy!) Urban's role was almost entirely reduced to "wacky side-kick" territory, but just like with Kirk it works very well. I however don't want to see Urban in any more non-Trek movies.

I am sad to say that Zachary Quinto (the actor I was actually okay with) is mildly disappointing as Spock. Now this isn't to say that he doesn't play Spock well, he just fell short of my expectations I suppose. Spock seems a bit more prickish than normal and much less sage-like. Which I get it that he's young Spock, but Kirk's supposed to be the dickish hothead, not Spock.

We do get the right Spock though because Leonard Nimoy reprises his role as "Spock Prime" (who I'm guessing turns into a fire truck and leads the Autobots to defeat Unicron after the credits roll.) Nimoy is as good as he ever was (that amount being "great") and commands the screen when he's on it. He even gives the intro narration (strangely they chose the intro from "Next Generation" rather than the original series) as we watch the Enterprise head off into space.

Zoe Saldana plays a more than capable Uhara. Admittedly this Uhara is the typical sassy smart movie chick which makes it all that more awkward when she falls into Uhara's intended role of "Sit in this chair and look pretty, every now and then swivel around and give the viewers false hopes of seeing up your skirt." It's not that Saldana can't act, in fact she plays a more than capable Uhara, it's just that her character is vastly under-utilized which is entirely the writer (and to some extent Abrams') fault. There's also a romance between she and Spock part way through that just sorta pops up out of nowhere, but it's mostly ignored and you get past it.

Anton Yelchin does a good job as entirely superfluous Chekov. His part in the movie is to talk funny and tell us things we already know. Once again, not the actor's fault, it's the writer's. (To be honest I'm kinda surprised they didn't just make him go "Nuclear Wessels" over and over and over again.)

Now, Simon Pegg has been kind of controversial as Scotty. The poor bastard doesn't get introduced until halfway through the movie and then they just kind of haphazardly cram him in there and hope nobody notices. Now if you think about it, the way he enters the movie works (and they had to have some way to introduce Nimoy so he was necessary) but it still kinda sucks as Pegg steals the show (as always) and minus his little bumpy Ewok sidekick he's perfect in his role. Some say he's "too jokey" but Scotty was always one of the more lighthearted memebers of the crew to begin with. Oh, and yes, he does say "I'm givin' 'er all she's got, Cap'n!" This film needs a whole lot more Scotty.

John Cho was the only casting I didn't like in this movie as Sulu. It's not that Cho doesn't play the part well. It's not that he's Korean instead of Japanese. The problem is that Cho just doesn't feel right for the part, it seems like they just cast the first capable Asian actor they could find and that really hurts things. But seeing as Sulu's entire purpose is to pull a lever back and forth for 90% of the movie (the part where he's not doing Kung Fu and "fencing" with his collapsible samurai sword) so it doesn't become tired.

Now, Eric Bana plays a suitably angry and menacing Romulan in Nero. The problem is that he's so damn 2-dimensional that if he turns side-ways you can't see him. He's a Romulan from the future that's pissed at Spock so he went back in time to kill everybody because his planet blew up. So he's decided to suck every planet into a black hole via drilling a hole into each planet's core using his uber-menacing giant ship (for some arbitrary reason) and injecting some red goop that creates black holes and must be extracted with a comically large syringe.

Also: Tyler Perry is in this movie. What the fuck?!


Abrams (aside from tossing in his usual "Slusho" reference) throws in a lot of nods to the old series. Besides the Spock intro and Scotty's famous line we also have the Vulcan shoulder grab thingy, Kirk banging a green chick, and the horrible death of a red shirt! These all add nice little asides to the film and fortunately never become distracting. But lets not let my fountain of praise distract from the mistakes.

Abrams tries to make the point that this is the future and as such there are lots of alien races hanging about. The problem is the races seem less "Star Trek" and more "Star Wars" particularly the bumpy Ewok and the long-faced weirdo red herring hanging out at the bar.

Partway through the film Kirk gets jettisoned out of the ship onto an Ice Planet that might as well be called "Not-Hoth" and gets chased by what looks like a 4-legged Wompa beast which then gets eaten by a red "Cloverfield" monster that proceeds to follow Kirk through a super elaborate chase sequence. When a mysterious stranger in a parka chases the monster off, I expected him to turn around, revealing himself as Han Solo, and go "Shit, you're not Luke" before running off.

Also Abrams paints Iowa as a desolate wasteland filled with nothing but hay bales and dickhead highway patrolman. Which is fucking spot on. But nowhere in Iowa is there a giant gorge for Little Kirk to "Thelma and Louise" his space-Mustang into. Seriously the deepest spot in Iowa is maybe 50 feet.

These small problems aside the film is visually stunning and there's not a set in this flic that doesn't look picture perfect.

The story falls back on the old chestnut of time travel that we've already seen in past Trek films but even if the idea has been used it works in paying tribute to the fans, the non-fans, and anyone else. This time the situation doesn't get miraculously un-fucked at the end. The crew doesn't go back and fix things, a parallel universe is now permanently formed and Spock is trapped in it with his younger self and some other bad shit that I wont spoil happens.

The plot's a bit simple and retreads a lot of familiar territory but it does a suitably good job of re-introducing the characters and entertains. Which, in the end, isn't that really all it needs to do?

Now, about your precious fucking continuity. Everybody finds a reason to bitch about this, even Crybaby Central had to put in their 2 fucking cents on this. I don't know how I can make this any clearer than the movie did. This film takes place in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, the events at the beginning of the film takes your precious canon and throws it the fuck away. Do you know why they did this? Because you whiny fucks bitch and moan in every single movie about "continuity errors" in everything from "First Contact" to "Wrath of Khan" and that's not even bringing up the numerous TV shows.

You mouth-breathing fuckheads and the ever-growing tome that's being written every time something vaguely involving Trek comes up alienates new viewers and it's a reason that the only show that's picked up any new fans in the last 20 years was "Enterprise" which your pissing and moaning got canceled.

J.J. Abrams was wise to just hit control, alt, delete and restart this thing as it brings on new fans who may one day learn to appreciate the original series and maybe even stop making fun of you!

Yes that's right portly 30-something wearing a way-too-tight Slayer t-shirt. People will understand you're a sweet nice guy who really means no harm and just needs a nice girl to remind you to wipe the cheeto dust off your hands and bathe every once in a while.

Yes, bespectacled girl with messy hair wearing a baggy sweater and sensible shoes. People will start to look past the Vulcan ears you insist wearing everywhere and see it as "cute" rather than "fucking weird" and see the true beauty within you despite the fact that you smell like ben gay and cheap perfume.

Yes, angry web-forum troll, they will see the black heart that lurks within your dark exterior and destroy you for the monster you truly are.

In simpler terms, this is what happens when you ignore continuity and start over:

This is what happens when you don't:

Any questions?


This movie did exactly what it needed to do. It's a fun, compelling, and entertaining film that panders to its fans and brings in new fans whilst breathing new life int oa series that was long past dead. It actually made me interested in "Star Trek" again, which I haven't been since I was 10.

I give "Star Trek" a 5 out of 5.

Observe and Report (2009)


Directed by: Jody Hill

Starring: Seth Rogen, Ray Liotta, Michael Pena, Ana Faris, Collette Wolfe
Other Actors of Note: Danny McBride

Plot: Bi-polar mall security guard Ronnie Barnhardt is called into action to stop a flasher from turning shopper's paradise into his personal peep show. But when Barnhardt can't bring the culprit to justice, a surly police detective, is recruited to close the case.


Every once in a while a movie comes out that just doesn't fit into the mainstream market and on these things I'm torn. I'm glad because more non-traditional movies deserve the big screen treatment but I'm also annoyed because you can't sell a non-traditional film as what it is, so you get a bunch of people who don't understand where the movie is coming from that don't enjoy the film and sadly that side is usually populated with a lot of whiny fuckheads with imdb forum accounts.

I've seen these moments when movies like "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "In Bruges", and "Slither" came out. I found all these movies brilliant but some people just didn't really get them, expecting the cookie-cutter bullshit they're used to. So I understand why you don't like this movie and I respect your opinion.



That said, you can all go fuck yourselves, this movie was great!

With that out of my system, let's proceed. "Observe and Report" tells the tale of Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen) a tubby 30-something loser with nothing to his name save the massive chip on his shoulder. Ronnie is the head of security at a shopping mall and like any security guard he thinks he's Judge Dredd.

When a serial flasher assaults the shopping mall at the same time as a string of robberies, Ronnie sees this as an oppurtunity to beat his rival, Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), win the woman of his dreams, Brandi (Anna Faris), and become what he's always dreamed of being. A hero.

Naturally Ronnie eats his share of shit sandwhiches when he approaches Brandi, tries to solve his cases, and attempts to become a member of the police force. We slowly watch Ronnie deteriorate into a complete lunatic and have a complete mental and nervous breakdown.

And it is hilarious!


I now take back every bad thing I've ever said about Seth Rogen. On the surface you're looking at Seth Rogen as the same character he's played in every movie he's been in ever, but if you stay on the surface the latter half of the movie will be really messed up for you.

Rogen successfully plays a character that's already unstable at the beginning of the movie but slowly turns into an absolute nutcase as the movie progresses. The thing is that Rogen's so likable that you don't immediately see the warning signs and the change is so subtle that once he's there it comes as a shock. For all intents and purposes Ronnie Barnhart is Travis Bickle and he plays it much more subtly than DeNiro ever would have.

There are a lot of early moments in the movie that the audience seemed to take as typical comedy fair that didn't quite sit right with me. This all culminated at the film's turning point where you find out that unlike most audacious losers, Ronnie is actually frighteningly capable of backing up his ideals and while many found this moment triumphant, I found it fucking terrifying. Nothing is more frightening than a mentally unstable person with a false sense of authority and the means to enforce it.

Anna Faris has finally found a role in a movie that doesn't suck ass and while she doesn't get much time to shine, she makes use of what she gets. Brandi is every shallow skanky bitch you have ever known and the part is played impeccably. She's an easy character to despise and a definitive cause of Ronnie's eventual breakdown. If anything, this film could've used more Anna Faris.

When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was dissappointed to see Ray Liotta was in this movie. Sure he can be a good actor but for every "NARC" we have to sit through 3 "In The Name of the Kings," fortunately this manages to fall in the former category with one of Liotta's finer performances. Liotta forms a nice foil for Ronnie in that this man is as much of a sadist as Ronnie is a delusional sociopath. One particular scene he leaves Ronnie in an area where he knows more than likely that he will get killed just because he's annoying him and it was those small touches that made him a more than capable villain to the piece.

I'm still torn on Michael Pena's performance. On one hand, Pena does a straight up send-up of a classic John Leguizamo character. On the other hand, I don't think this was done on purpose. Pena has proven to be a very capable actor in "Shooter" and "Crash" but I couldn't help feeling like his aping of Leguizamo was less parody and more lack of effort. No less, Pena manages to be very funny, if albeit a bit over-the-top and clich'e.


Now allow me to support my point here. This movie is "Taxi Driver" re-written as a comedy and if taken as that you kind of start to get the idea. Rogen's likability kind of clouds the fact that this is not a likable or admirable man and it's not until he's already super-crazy that this point really comes across. I was debating this with another person that Ronnie was crazy even from the beginning, she said that it was at the halfway point when he was taking his medication that he "went" crazy.

But I disagree, you can see in his actions and words that Ronnie thinks he's the hero of this story and his monologues only seem to support this fact. His obsession with catching this pervert pushes the man over the edge and when he doesn't make it as a police officer it becomes his very goal and you can tell he will go to any cost to become the hero he envisions himself as.

The entire movie is a trainwreck of one low after another where Ronnie goes from mostly harmless, to delusional, to predatory, unstable, and flat out insane. And the beauty of the whole thing is that by the time the credits roll, just like Travis Bickle before him he doesn't get that swift kick in the ass from reality. He gets validated, vindicated, and even praised. He becomes the hero, and it's both frightening and humorous at the same time.

Next I want to touch on something that everybody's been getting on their soapboxes about. There is an instance of date rape in this film. I should say that the word "rape" should be used rather lightly as it's only technically rape. What happens is Ronnie takes Brandi out on a date and after drinking like 15 shots of tequila and taking all of Ronnie's pills (which she asks him for and proceeds to eat like they're m&ms.) It should be noted that Brandi is conscious and consentual for this encounter, she's just blasted out of her fucking gourd. This has prompted many people, especially feminist groups, to go up in arms about how in bad taste this is.

Okay, let's think for a moment here. In "Beerfest" a man is so intoxicated that he goes home with what he thinks is some sort of super-model like woman and then proceeds to have rough nasty sex with a large vaguely abusive woman, this is portrayed as funny. In "A History of Violence" Viggo Mortensen rapes his wife, this is portrayed as beautific. In "High Plains Drifter" Clint Eastwood rapes a woman, this is portrayed as vindicative. And in my favorite example, in "40 Days and 40 Nights" Josh Hartnett is raped by a vengeful ex-girlfriend and then his current love interest walks in on this and breaks up with him for "cheating on her" and he APOLOGIZES! So you know what? Get the fuck off your goddamn soap-box, I'm not going to hear any arguments about what is technically rape when the "victim" was awake and consenting to the act and yes she's intoxicated but Ronnie didn't make her drink herself stupid or swallow the pills.

Not to mention the date rape is kinda the point. Ronnie has a skewed perception of reality where he's the man, why should he think that the fact that she's drunk is the only reason she would want to sleep with him? When she doesn't move he actually does stop and ask if she's alright to which she replies "Why are you stopping, motherfucker?" and he goes back to work. In his mind Ronnie is doing the "right" thing, of course it's not, but that's because he's fucking delusional! DUH! Ronnie is not a character to be admired and respected, he's a fucking anti-hero you stupid tits!

One other point I wanted to touch on is the fight scenes. There are three fight scenes in this movie and they are all coreographed beautifully. They're gritty, violent, and the best part is they seem natural and not rehearsed. The big fight scene toward the end of the film that pits Ronnie against about 20 police officers with nothing but a mag-lite is more than reminiscent on "Oldboy's" famous hammer scene down to the continous flowing shot as the protagonist fights off waves of attackers.

While this review has been nothing but praise I want to make the point that this is not a perfect movie. Some of the scenes fall flat, and a lot of the jokes at the beginning aren't very funny, not to mention Seth Rogen's likability hurts the audience's ability to see what kind of a character he is from the beginning which makes the mid-film point incredibly jarring which I felt hurt it. I am not part of the crowd that thinks this movie should be nominated for an Oscar, it's not that good and I certainly see and clearly understand why people don't like it. This is just a movie that's too indie for its own good. What it is is funny, dark, thrilling and just a damned entertaining movie that requires perspective for optimal watching.


I know a lot of people are divided on this but I firmly hope to see more well-thought-out dark intelligent comedies like this in the future. Though this movie has cult classic written all over it. Don't expect "Paul Blart 2: Blart Harder", this is something entirely different. And you know what, if you don't like it then I'll take this movie and keep it up on a pedestal of truly unappreciated and great films like "The Cable Guy" and "The Ladykillers" that I truly appreciate while you stupid cunts miss the point. Me and the other people who enjoy these are gonna continue to praise them for years to come.

All six of us!

I give "Observe and Report" a 5 out of 5. Fuck the haters.