I almost wound up seeing this in theaters back in January of this year, but instead I went with Slumdog Millionaire. After finally getting around to seeing Yes Man I … well, I kind of regret not seeing it back then (although Slumdog was good!).

A seriously underrated comedy (based on critic reviews), Yes Man manages to be hilarious and awkward as well as warm-hearted and romantic. Jim Carrey is the perfect actor for this role, and he really is the driving force of the movie. Sure, the story is a bit simple and one-dimensional, but I actually didn’t think the movie as a whole would be as good as it actually was. Needless to say, it was surprising.

While many of the supporting characters aren’t developed well, it doesn’t detract from the overall feel of the movie; it’s more about Carrey and Zooey Deschanel – though I did find myself thinking about that age gap a lot since he’s 47 and she’s 29, in real life. As a whole, the movie works fairly well.

I wouldn’t say Yes Man tops some of Carrey’s other films like Bruce Almighty, but it definitely deserves a lot more credit than critics have given it so far. Check it out!

Never been big on gore unless it has to do with zombies, but I decided to see Hostel anyway as part of a self-assignment. Honestly, after all that I don’t see why people like these kinds of movies.

Hostel starts out like every college fratboy’s dream movie: a trio of bros go backpacking around Europe, smoke some dope, try to hook up, and eventually find their way to a hostel in – surprise, surprise – some tiny nowhere town in the middle of Slavokia (why does this sound so typical?). You can probably guess what happens from there as it’s a no-brainer: some people die, one survives and fights against all odds to survive and tell the tale. Texas Chainsaw Massacre anyone?

On one hand I find it hilarious how Hostel is essentially made up of two things: gratuitous nudity and mostly-implied violence. On the other, neither can make up for the predictable plot, lack of actual scary moments, and borderline ridiculous situation. Honestly, I think The Dentist had a better story, one where you at least were able to get into the head of a psychopathic killer and see what makes him tick. In Hostel, you get a Rick Hoffman (who?) monologue that makes a last-minute attempt to explain just what the hell is going on here. Pretty lame, Mr. Roth.

As far as horror films go, Hostel is fairly tame. It’s all cringe moments, with the majority of them not even being shown in the unrated version. Sure, you see some blood and a few fingers and eyeballs, but you never really see all that much to tell the truth.

There are much better horror films out there, and probably a few that fall under the distinct “gore” sub-genre – the first Saw is a good example (can’t say much for the ass-load of sequels though). Unless you like watching people get dismembered (WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?), don’t bother with this one.

I came into this movie with zero expectations, given that I had neither seen the trailer nor read a single thing about what the film was even supposed to be about. Sure, I heard a few people say it was “kind of like Blair Witch but better”, but that’s not really saying a whole lot. And given the apparent demand for this film to be released nationally I figured it had to be worth watching. WRONG.

The big problem I have with Paranormal Activity... well, there are a number of them. Despite taking the mockumentary/found footage route the entire film feels set up, unrealistic, and overly amateurish – though that last one may be intentional. The protagonists just don’t feel “real”, especially when the creepy stuff – some of which is actually pretty scary – starts kicking in, and it’s the usual stuff you’d actually kind of expect from a crappy horror film: guy tries to be all “I’m going to kick its ass!” manly while the girl is all “I’m so scared but hopefully it’ll just go away if we leave it alone”. Seriously, if doors were slamming on their own right in front of you wouldn’t you just want to, oh I don’t know, GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE? But no, that would be a boring movie.

The film’s slow progression creates a kind of repetition that isn’t very engaging or fun to watch, especially considering you see the same bedroom shot about twenty times. And while the scares start in a subtle way that’ll definitely creep you out, it starts to get a bit too dramatic. In fact the whole plot started to feel more like a cheap rip-off of The Amityville Horror (which is an awesome horror flick for ghost fans!). I won’t spoil the ending, but it made me chuckle instead of cringing from fright.

And seriously, the deep bass noise that kept coming (other viewers know what I’m talking about) was so unnecessary. It works for Silent Hill, but not here.

Overall I wouldn’t recommend paying money to see this in theaters. Unfortunately it’s too late to get my $12 back, but you can save yourselves the trouble. While it has some merits in that it doesn’t rely heavily on “jump” moments like Resident Evil, it’s not nearly as scary as the majority of fictional horror films out there. You can get a pretty good idea of what Paranormal Activity is like by watching Ghost Hunters or Most Haunted. And it won’t cost you nearly as much!

You have to give credit where credit’s due, and unfortunately it doesn’t seem like Wong Kar-Wai gets much when it comes to Ashes of Time.

As a long-time fan of Wong’s films I was extremely glad when he decided to go back to give Ashes a remake, not only because the only DVD release was of shitty quality, but because the film itself… well, it didn’t make much sense. It’s true that all his films are very non-linear and require some careful thought, but Ashes always kind of suffered most, feeling like a huge jumble of unconnected occurrences. The Redux version actually fixes this problem. There are still some problems with understanding the timeline of the film, but overall it flows much better, and the connections between the characters is made clearer.

To comment on the review below, I’d have to say that Ashes is not a film for everyone. The slow pace, confusing story, and non-traditional slow-motion action scenes will most likely turn off those who are looking for Jet Li and John Woo style films, but to those who are familiar with Wong Kar-Wai’s aesthetics, you’ll walk away with appreciation for an auteur who really does care about his work and the way it is received. If anything this is a film about lost loves and missed chances, not bloody sword fights.

Ashes of Time was, and still is, a very unique addition to the wuxia genre of Chinese cinema as well as Wong’s filmography. The Redux version is a great restoration of what is surely an underappreciated film, and I’m glad to see it got the treatment it deserved from its creator.

I really had high hopes for this film, which I think was the biggest problem I have when writing about it. After finishing the series most of my friends who were big Death Note fans recommended the live action movies, claiming they were as good as the show, or close enough to it.

The animated series was compelling if somewhat convoluted by the end, and I liked the ambiguity of the whole good/bad dilemma – who is right? Kira or L? One of my biggest gripes with the film adaptation was that it seems to abandon this ambiguity by the end. It’s interesting that they make Light more realistic – more human, you could say – but at the same time Ryuzaki is the complete opposite, a cartoon character embodied in a live actor. And in the middle you’ve got the “meh” CGI Ryuk.

It’s not all bad though. The film itself, while mostly following the original series (with some additions/omissions as expected), is slightly less convoluted than the series due to Light’s character being a bit more subtle. I’m usually not a fan of simplifying things for mass appeal, but it certainly makes this feel more like a real movie and less like an anime. At least until L shows up on screen.

I’ll probably watch the sequel with lowered expectations, but I’d have to say Death Note is still worth watching if anything because it’s a solid adaptation of a fantastic series. It’s always difficult to faithfully adapt any source material across the divide between mediums like animation and real life, but Death Note does it in a way akin to Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City: by sticking to the source.

Funny People isn’t as bad as I’ve others say it is. It’s not bad at all in my opinion, it’s just not The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which is probably why most Judd Apatow fans are scratching their heads wondering what’s up with his third directorial effort.

First off, Funny People is like a post-teen in that awkward transition between adolescence and maturity. On the one hand the film tries to take itself seriously with characters who by all means are usually not taken very seriously (they’re comedians, after all) and a story about death and lost love, while at the same time falling back on dick jokes and awkward moments in order to provoke LOL moments from the audience. It’s a weird – though not at all unpleasant – sensation for awhile.

And when I say “awhile” that’s where the problems start. The lengthy running time (two and a half hours) seemed too long for a movie like this, and a good twenty minutes or so could’ve easily been cut with similar effect. I’m not one to complain about how long a movie is, but it works against Funny People in this case.

The other problem comes from the blatant transition that comes about in the middle of the film. Whereas the first half is dark and broody (with a touch of typical Seth Rogen hijinks), the latter half turns into some kind of weird romantic comedy… with unromantic romance and not much in the way of comedy. Sorry to say, but I just didn’t see anything between Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann, and the resolution of their part of the story left me a bit cold.

Otherwise though, I really have to applaud Judd Apatow for Funny People. Adam Sandler actually plays his part surprisingly well, and is supported by familiar faces. The stand-up segments are hilarious (wish there was more footage though … maybe when the DVD comes out), as are the cameos by people like Ray Romano, Eminem, Andy Dick, and others.

Not his best work, but still a better film than I anticipated.

Personally I’ve never read Rudyard Kipling’s book, but I do see the resemblance to The Jungle Book in Neil Gaiman’s latest work. He’s proven that he’s quite capable of writing stories for both adults (American Gods)and children (Coraline), and The Graveyard Book feels a bit situated in the center, with some dark themes like death and murder made lite.

As usual, Gaiman’s writing is cool, clear, and has it’s own style and sense of humor about it. The characters are developed well enough with many intentionally left ambiguous to leave it up to the imagination. Since the majority of the book takes place in one setting it’s difficult to keep it from getting stale, but Gaiman manages to throw in enough characters – after all, he has an entire graveyard’s worth! – to keep it interesting.

The structure of the book felt more like it was made up of individual episodes rather than a novel, which at times was slightly jarring for some reason. It just felt like there wasn’t much continuity from chapter to chapter, and with the book already short (don’t be fooled by the page count) it kind of made the whole thing whiz by. Couple that with the fact that it almost entirely takes place in the graveyard and… well, yeah. I would’ve liked to see more outside in the real world, but I guess that all depends on the story, eh? In that sense it felt very much like Coraline’s concentrated world around her house.

I’m enjoying Neil Gaiman’s versatility, and it’s been interesting to see his popularity grow since reading Neverwhere over a decade ago. I’m kind of hoping he’ll return to the realm of adult novels though, since he hasn’t done anything since Anansi Boys in 2005, which was a bit disappointing to me. I’ll be watching Twitter.

None of Natsuo Kirino’s novels that have happened in English has yet to disappoint me in any way, she’s three for three as far as I’m concerned. Real World is another well-written piece of crime fiction infused with feminist musings and cultural anxieties aplenty.

Once again, Kirino jumps from character to character, situating the reader right there inside each of their heads. Although the characters in Real World felt slightly too similar – in the same way many of Haruki Murakami’s protagonists do – they are made unique through their personal histories, nuances, and outlooks on life. As the novel progresses, the theme of the story really starts to shine from character to character, and you realize just how strong the work is overall.

Personally, I think there could’ve been more though. I was surprised when I saw how short this novel was compared to the two previous ones put out by Vintage/Knopf; I finished Real World in a week whereas it took me about a month for Out and Grotesque at a similar pace. Not that it detracts from the story, but it does make me think that Kirino could’ve delved deeper into some of the other characters who don’t get nearly as much “screen” time (to use a film term). Even though by the end you really feel like you understand all of the characters, some of them remain a bit of a mystery. Maybe I just like closure in my novels.

Overall though Real World is a fantastic piece of work, and Natsuo Kirino has quickly become one of my favorite authors. I’m glad to see another one of her novels has been picked up for an English translation, and I hope more of them will – after all, she’s written like 16 novels and a bunch of short stories.

To put this review into context: I’ve never been a fan of the original Star Trek, and though I’ve seen maybe two of the films, I know next to nothing about the series. That being said, I’ll say this: this movie was terrific.

J.J. Abrams manages to not only revive and revitalize the Star Trek franchise, but he does it in a way that’s very appealing to non-fans. There’s enough visual and vocal backstory to help build the setting and help you figure out what’s what in the Star Trek universe, and enough action and special effects to keep those who don’t care about the story watching for the full time. The casting, at least in my opinion, is very well done; it was fun seeing Leonard Nemoy playing his original character.

Frankly, the narrative is what I liked most about the film. Despite the suggestion that this film is a reboot of the franchise, one could easily argue that it fits within the continuity of the series. I don’t want to spoil anything, but to those that have seen the film: think about it. I chuckled to myself in the theater when I first realized this.

I can’t think of many shortcomings of the film from my end, though it does feel a bit less epic than I originally envisioned. Heck, the film didn’t even feel as long as IMDB says it is, which may or may not be a bad thing. At any rate, it’s a popcorn flick really, but one that at least has more substance to it than, say, 300. Expect a sequel probably sometime in the near future.

As much as I like David Lynch, Eraserhead is the kind of movie that’s only good in hindsight, after you’ve already familiarized yourself with his themes and tropes. Sure, it’s easy enough to read about it and listen to Lynch’s own comments about how it’s all about alienation in an industrial town, but if you can’t get that from the movie itself it kind of defeats the purpose.

To Lynch’s credit, Eraserhead is very, very different. It certainly earns the title of “experimental”, but two other adjectives come to mind when placing it alongside the rest of his work: unfocused and unrealized. The narrative is completely boggling to even the most patient viewer, and it’s hard to distinguish between fantasy and reality for the most part. It’s more surreal than a Haruki Murakami novel, and the gnarling soundtrack certainly helps this image.

Artsy film students will naturally continue to praise Eraserhead as a classic experimental film from one of the more eccentric filmmakers of the world, but only because of Lynch’s reputation. It doesn’t make Eraserhead any easier or fun to sit through.