The Gnat: Fly on the Wall Reviews

Thanks Gnut

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I'm back again, I was without a steady internet connection for a while, so I have a notable backlog of reviews to do, so I'll try and get a couple up per day.

Step Brothers

Will Ferrell's newest comedy is like all of his old comedies. He plays someone who isn't mature enough to be considered a real man and he just screws around a whole lot. I would like to end my review with that, but I probably should give some reasoning.

The story wasn't anything all that great. John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell are two 40 year-old men who haven't had to grow up since their parents have coddled them. When their parents meet and fall for one another John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell have to figure out how to get along with each other and then how to get jobs and become successes when they end up screwing up basically anything and everything.

The problem is that it isn't any different from Will Ferrell's other comedies. It has so many of the same stupid jokes, and like the rest of Will Ferrell's films (with the notable exception of Stranger Then Fiction) I really don't remember any of them after the fact. A good comedy should get you to laugh when you are watching it and when you remember it. Step Brothers struggled at times to get laughs during the films, and the ones that did hit aren't ones that are all that great and don't need to be bothered to be remembered.

Overall this isn't all that great a film. It has some laughs in it, and there are some very good odd moments, but they are so few and far between, filled with some scattered smaller laughs, but it doesn't make it worth watching for the most part. If you like Will Ferrell's films otherwise, you should end up liking this one decently well, otherwise I wouldn't likely bother it.

Overall Grade: D+
Story: D-
Acting: C
Audio/Visual: C

__________________
"As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-From Identity

King of California

This is a very good independent comedy with a lot of heart and a ton of wonderfully odd jokes. It has two great performances in it that give the film so much of its charm and make it an independent comedy that is definitely worth watching.

The two performances of note are Michael Douglas and Evan Rachel Wood. They play father and daughter in the film, and they play wonderfully opposite of each other in the film. Michael Douglas does a wonderful job as the slightly crazy father figure, and Evan Rachel Wood does a wonderful job playing a very mature seventeen year old who has basically had to run her life. Their chemistry on the screen is just amazing, and supporting cast is also very good. Willis Burks II does a very good job as an old friend of Michael Douglas and he provides a lot of the humor as he talks and interacts with Douglas and Evan Rachel Wood. His slow speed motorcycle chase is great in this film.

The story is also good. Michael Douglas character is somewhat insane and he has this crazy notion, which he figured out in an institution, that somewhere near where they were living, there was some old Spanish gold that had been hidden away a long time ago. The story is about how Evan Rachel Wood tries to stay out of her fathers crazy ideas and schemes and then eventually ends up getting drawn into it. It bounces around with some great ideas and stories that just work out perfectly, and ends up being a surprisingly touching film.

This comedy really does have a strong indie feel to it, it is nothing like Step Brothers which uses too many typical jokes. King of California builds up its jokes and you have to remember things that have gone on early in the film for the punch line that would come considerably later. It relies on odd quirks of the characters, obviously most notably the crazy person in Michael Douglas.

Overall I liked this film a lot. It isn't a comedy for all people as it moves fairly slowly and doesn't have a lot of the sophomoric humor that ends up being in so many main stream comedies. If you like independent comedies, I highly recommend it.

Overall Grade: A-
Story: A
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: B-

Welcome back Gnat, good to see you back here again.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

The Grand

A fake mockumentary about gambling ends up working out well with a lot of well done jokes and spoofs off of televised poker shows like "The World Series of Poker" and "WPT". The actors make this film with the odd stories and odd quirks of the characters.

Woody Harrelson leads the cast playing a drugged out, sex crazed owner of a casino, Lucky Strike. He does a good job being slightly crazy. Cheryl Hines and David Cross do a good job playing a sister and brother poker duo that is in conflict, and with David Cross's character, completely off the wall and slightly crazy. I was also impressed with how many actual poker stars they were able to get in the film. Daniel Negranu, Doyle Brunson, and Phil Hellmuth all were willing to do cameos in it, and I likely missed some other actual poker players who showed up. This cast did a good job of being slightly crazy and eccentric like most poker players are and they seemed to cover what generally seems to be the most common at poker tournements.

The story is an fairly normal one, the tournement is similar to the main event at "The World Series of Poker". Woody Harrelson needs to win the tournement so he can save the casino, which he doesn't really like to run. The other players at the final table are all pro or semi-pro players who are in it to win it. The final table ends up being an odd collection of people. The story isn't profound, but it makes fun of the poker world and all of the odd people. It is more a character sketch in many ways then a film with a typical storyline.

The jokes in the film are good. A good number of them are based off of the odd quirks of the poker players. It doesn't work like a typical comedy in many ways as it has some of the sophomoric types of jokes, but it doesn't always have a ton of them. For being a comedy that works around the quirky type of humor that shows up fairly often in the area it is mocking, it does a very good job.

Overall this was a good comedy, it doesn't have a ton of heart like some other indie comedies and relies more on being quirky. If you have watched poker on the television ever, this could be entertaining as it has a good amount of humor that people who recognize the poker worlds quirks.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: B
Story: C+
Audio/Visual: B-

Thanks Gnu The last 2 I have added to my list to watch

Alright, I have been gone a long time, and I'm hoping that this will be the beginning of a triumphant return with some great reviews. Being that I have been gone for ages, I probably have a lot of films that I must get through, so I'm going to start it off with my favorite from the summer.

G.I. Joe

This film was everything that it set out to be. It was an action film pure and simple. They had a little back story for motivation for most of the characters, it was slightly lost on one or two of them, cheesy lines, and a lot of fight scenes. No one should have gone into this film expecting more then that, and if you didn't you shouldn't have left disappointed.

The story is pretty simple, that of world domination. That is what the Cobras and the Joes have always fought over in the past. The Cobras trying to take over and the Joes stopping them. And in this film, the plan is actually somewhat sneaky. Sure, they were looking to blow up three major cities in the world, not so sneaky, and they did take out part of Paris for good measure. But when you get down to it, it is a simple plan, but a smart one.

The action in this film is a lot of fun. Channing Tatum moves well from the realm of dance films into the world of action, and my biggest worry going into the film, Marlon Wayans actually is very entertaining. There is one joke that he devliers that is really forced, but I don't think anyone could have delivered that line without it being forced (the line about being sensitive as well as tough), but otherwise, he delivers a lot of great one liners. The rest of the cast is solid for an action film. Eccleston is fun as the bad guy (so hard for me to imagine him in that roll after the first season Doctor Who) and Quaid is good as General Hawk. The oddest casting, I felt, was Gordon-Levitt as Rex. It just didn't seem to fit all that well, and while it didn't turn out terribly in the film, it definitely was a weaker link.

I was very happy to hear that they were doing a sequel. Sure, it won't win any awards, but a good mindless movie is fairly often hard to come by (see Transformers II) and G.I. Joe delivers one of those purely entertaining films. I highly recommend it for a late night when you don't really feel like thinking anymore.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: B-
Story: B
Audio/Visual: B+

Star Trek

J.J. Abrams reboot of the classic switches the story line from the original, but he does so in a way that shouldn't insult the purist too much and should launch of new generation of Trekkies. It was a fun fest of action and story and definitely didn't skimp on either.

When replacing iconic characters with new talent, you have to be careful. It would have been very possible for Pine and Quinto step in quite well replacing the legends of Shatner and Nimoy. No one will ever be able to fully replace those two, that is a given, but Pine and Quinto do a respectable job of it. The rest of the cast is solid as well. Cho, Pegg, and Saldana are all very good in their roles. And Urban and Yelchin steal the film at times when they are on the screen. Hopefully we will see them continue to develop those characters and talents with more Star Trek films.

The story is a massive reboot of the series. Without going into much detail it is really an earth shattering split from the original series. The one thing that they do well is make most things fairly plausible. The Vulcans would have serious issue with the logic of Nero's plan, but as an emotionally charged response, and one that is really put together on the fly, it kind of makes sense. There aren't any real holes left in the story and definitely some new twists with character interactions as well.

Visually, coming from Abrams, you know it is going to be impressive. "Lost", "Fringe" and Cloverfield were all extremely impressive visually, and the standards of those shows and film is met with Star Trek. I don't know if I was wowed by anything visually, but Abrams doesn't make mistakes, so visually it is clean the whole way through.

Overall this is the must see of the summer (late spring). This films delivers on every facet and people will enjoy it even if they haven't been a Trekkie for years, of if they have watched every episode of every "Star Trek" series, and there are a lot of fun homages to the original actors in the film.

Overall Grade: A
Acting: A+
Story: A-
Audio/Visual: B+

Nice reviews, Gnat; welcome back!

Good reviews... but ewwww, Star Trek. So so so so SO overrated.

__________________

Repo! The Genetic Opera

This is a goth-rock-opera. It is quickly becoming one of my favorite films. It is well shot with everything fitting the style of film that it is.

In the not to distant future humans run into trouble because organ failure becomes an epidemic. Along comes the savior to humanity, GeneCo, very creative I know, but less noble then they sound. With giving people new organs the typical problem arose, not everyone can afford it. So they come up with a solution, and that is, get a loan to get your new organ. Then, of course, what happens if you can't pay, the Repo Man comes and takes it away. This is the basis to the whole film, and it is very entertaining, the add in the music which isn't separate from the film but is basically dialog.

The talent in this film is interesting. Anthony Head (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) is the Repo Man, and he can sing quite well (if you've watched Buffy, you've seen him sing before. Alexa Vega, from Spy Kids of all films, can actually sing as well, and she does well as the Repo Man's daughter. The most impressive voice has to go to Sarah Brightman, a singer from in the UK. Her voice is simply beautiful. Darren Smith and Terrance Zdunich, the two creators of the Genetic Opera also appear in this film, and considering it was a small show they would perform as a short musical, they do a great job. Paris Hilton is also in this film, and as disappointing as that sounds, she plays a shallow narcissistic character, so it really isn't acting for her, it is just real life.

Visually the style of the film fits. Darren Lynn Bousman, director of Saw II through IV, makes a film that is much better then those. He keeps the darker horror style from the Saw films but blends into a world of the future quite well. The tiny city vertical city, and the mass graves are well done. The style in many ways has hints of stage play to it. There isn't always a ton of 360 degree action where it floats around, but being it is a musical, it works out just fine.

Overall, this film isn't for everyone. It is fairly unique, like a Rocky Horror Picture Show, and because it is unique, it is worth checking, but not everyone will love it. It is very interesting, and the fact it uses the music as dialog instead of a separate song and dance that is inserted so it can called a musical, it is fun to watch.

Overall Grade: A
Story: A
Acting: B+
Audio/Visual: A

Transfromers II: Revenge of the Fallen

This was the very bad summer film of the year. Michael Bay falls into the Spiderman and X-Men three syndrome, just one film too early. Michael Bay doesn't like stories and he proves it in this film. Every bit of cheesy story that was in the first one, which makes it entertaining, is squeezed out for more action and more robots.

This film does what Michael Bay does best. It is full of explosions and action more explosions and more action. In that way, it isn't a terrible film, you expect that from him, but most of the time you expect something more, like someone actually writes a story that Michael Bay puts his explosions and action to.

The acting in this film lives up to the failure from the first film. Megan Fox still really can't act, but she is very hot to look at. Shia LaBeouf also isn't all that great in this film. I haven't found him all that great in any films, but he knows he can phone it in for a film like this and he does that. He comes off as whiny and annoying, as in the first film. John Turturro is probably the only good thing when it comes to acting in this film. He is a little whiny and annoying at time. However, he provides some much need comedy.

Now, onto that somewhat cryptic statement about Spiderman and X-Men 3. Those two movies, thirds in their respective series, have too many characters to focus on. Spiderman 3 flits between three bad guys without really building up any of them. X-Men 3 has more superheroes and super villains than what knows what to do with. Transformers II has too many robots, to put it simply. We like the classic characters from the first, we don't care about all 25-35 others Bay and company add in. Keep it simple, stupid. Sure, you can add a couple of new ones in, develop them a little bit, but don't drown us in new characters that we just see and don't care about at all.

Overall this film doesn't do justice to the first film, or summer films in general. It wallows with no plot and terrible acting, in a summer film you need a simple plot, see GI Joe and Transformers. This one doesn't even have the comedic timing down that the first one had. Overall, it was a disappointment to the first film.

Overall Grade: D
Acting: D-
Story: F
Audio/Visual: C+

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

This was a quite interesting film. Ben Stein makes an interesting point as he hosts this film which looks at how the scientific community shuns those who even consider the possibility of intelligent design. Even if you don't agree with the idea of intelligent design, the fact that it can't be proven or disproven or even investigated.

Ben Stein stays quite well focused throughout this film. The one part that does seem to be a little off focus when he looks into the holocaust. There was some connection that he creates between intelligent design and the holocaust, but that aspect of the film seemed to focus much more so on him personally, which is fine, but detracts a little bit from what he was doing in the film.

The scientists who he talks to in the film are interesting on both sides. It was interesting to see how those who do shun their fellow scientists who want to look into intelligent design and how they wouldn't even recognize the potential that people could have a different view, and how in many ways that can stunt scientific discovery. If scientists don't challenge what was believed to be true, we would still be living on a flat earth and the solar system would revolve around the earth.

Visually Frankowski does a good job. It isn't as theatrical as a documentary by Michael Moore, but for a very typical type of filming of a documentary, they keep it varied enough and moving quickly enough that it doesn't really seem to drag.

Overall this is a film that was panned fairly well by the critics, but didn't deserve it. I think a lot of the issues with it was because people often equate intelligent design to be creationism (which it often can be), but Stein does a good job of removing that aspect from his documentary and instead of making it a religion versus science debate, he simply asks the question: why can't it even be looked it, why are scientists only allowed to investigate evolution or be kicked out of the scientific community. Stein just wants the ability to study into either.

Overall Grade: B+
Acting: N/A
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B

Adventureland

This was a fairly touching film, but completely miss marketed. They built this up to be a comedy film of the ilk of a Superbad but this film uses some comedy to makes it point, but this is primarily a drama. Even the aspect is dark compared to that of films of the ilk. If I hadn't known it wasn't going to be as much of a comedy going into it, I would have been very disappointed seeing it.

The story is pretty well constructed. It is the teenage/college age angst sort of film, but it does a good job of creating more then one dimensional side characters and the dark humor does work quite well into the story. A few of the sides that it goes on, you wonder a little bit why it steps that way, but that does create the side character dimensions.

The acting in this film isn't all that bad. Jesse Eisenberg plays a Michael Cera sort of character, or vice-a-versa depending on how you look at it, and he does a good job in that role. Margarita Levieva and Kristen Stewart both do a solid job in their roles. I had really only seen Kristen Stewart in Twilight before and compared to the cheese of that film, she did a very respectable job and she has potential to be an up and coming actress in Hollywood if she doesn't get type cast as the cheesy love interest because she will be known of Twilight and its subsequent sequels. The rest cast does a solid job. None of the performances really stood out to me, but as a whole, they were good.

Overall this isn't a bad film. It doesn't stand out a ton in many ways, but it avoids a lot of a cheese that these films are known for. It is something that has been done before, but if you enjoy this teen angst type of film, this one is more enjoyable then most.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: B+
Story: B+
Audio/Visual: B

Zombieland

This film is obviously going to draw comparisons to Shaun of the Dead and for good reason. These are the two big zombie spoofs. However, Shaun of the Dead came first and Zombieland has to live up to the standards, and unfortunately it doesn't quite make it to those standards.

The story is pretty typical survive a world full of zombies. And Jesse Eisenberg has a set of rules to do that, and we hear about a lot of them. He meets up with Woody Harrelson and then Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin. It breaks one of his rules, but of course, without breaking that rule, there wouldn't a be a ton of story. They are all trying to make it somewhere and just survive. There are a bunch of odd little jokes that they run together into the story, but it isn't as good for jokes for Shaun of the Dead. Jesse Eisenberg and Woody Harrelson aren't as good as Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

Visually this is a gore fest. They do it well having a lot of fairly realistic gore, but it is fairly over the top. They set up nice shots for catching the splatter. They go through a wonderful set of locations and ending up at Billy Murray's place was a nice touch. And the sound track for this film was good. They use a number of high tempo rock songs, which fits well for the zombie slaying.

Overall this is a pretty funny and entertaining film. It can't live up to the standard of the original, Shaun of the Dead, though. Zombieland matches the standard of Shaun of the Dead pretty well but when you are the second, you have to raise the standard, and it doesn't.

Overall Grade: B
Acting: B+
Story: B-
Audio/Visual: B+

Nice review, and a pretty good point. I love Shaun of the Dead but still felt pretty differently about Zombieland. The comedy's a bit different; it's comedy inside a zombie movie, but not entirely reliant on it. Less a parody as a "no, really, what would it be like if people who'd seen zombie movies had to live through one?" kinda deal. So I'd respectfully disagree that Zombieland is a "spoof" in the same vein as Shaun, though obviously this comparison is inevitable. But that's just one man's opinion.

I agree with everything that you said in this review.This Movie Was Beautiful To Watch in My eyes.
Probably some of you can watch more movies and then we can get the catch of them all

I liked SUPERBAD, maybe not quite as much as you did...it definitely is about 20 minutes too long. I agree that the female characters are underdeveloped but the film isn't about them, so I can forgive.

God, I hated this movie. Of course, my white-hot hatred Gwyneth Paltrow might have had something to do with it.