Bruno (2009)

"Bruno" is Sacha Baron Cohen's follow-up to his mega hit "Borat".

While I think Cohen has a lot of talent, I don't think he puts it to very good use in "Bruno".  He is funny at times, but overall the story of the film just lagged.  It wasn't a very good story.  I also don't get if people are supposed to believe this is real.  It obviously is phony, so what is the point really?

There were a couple scenes that I thought were pretty funny like when he has a sexual encounter with the spirit of Milli Vanilli.  

Overall "Bruno" was an OK film.  It was entertaining at times, but on the whole, the film needed a lot of work.

C+

The Final Destination (2009)

"The Final Destination" not to be confused with "Final Destination" was released in 3-D this past year.  I ended up watching it on DVD in 2-D.

The 3-D effects seem fun for a movie like this, as long as those damn glasses don't give the viewer a head ache.  But this is the type of 3-D that the medium is meant for.  There are many scenes of things flying towards the camera including tires, snakes, and fire.  

The story of "The Final Destination" is unoriginal.  Every single sequel is the same film as the original.  Someone has a vision, they evade the accident, they all die.  Nothing too new.

The effects were terrible in the film, but what can you really expect from this.  It is almost like a live action "Looney Tunes". 

The main character and his girlfriend were OK.  The supporting characters were bland.  The douche surfer dude and the racist hick were very annoying.  I guess you have to have a good annoying character in these films because when they die, the audience gets very excited.  

"The Final Destination" is just mindless entertainment.  You go in just to see things blow up and see people get decapitated.  That's pretty much all there is to the film.

C-

Extract (2009)

Ay ay ay...  Boy was this a real stinker.

I couldn't believe how unfunny "Extract" really was.  There was only one scene that was mildly amusing involving Jason Bateman smoking pot, but the rest of it was so boring.  There was not one character I liked.  

I thought that the only redeeming quality "Extract" would have for itself is that Mila Kunis stars in it.  I like her, but she is barely in this and I don't even like her character.  

I am not the biggest Mike Judge fan.  I hate "Beavis and Butt-head" and I think "Office Space" is just OK, but "Extract" was worse than either of those.  At least those had funny points to it.  

D

Jennifer's Body (2009)

This was a strange choice for Diablo Cody's follow up to her Oscar winning screenplay of "Juno".  I was curious to see it because I loved her writing in "Juno", but the trailers made this film look terrible.  That was a good representation.  It was a bad film.

Frankly, I don't get what all the fuss is about Megan Fox.  She's pretty, but nothing special.  She looks more like a cheap porn star than a movie star and her acting is on the same level as a porn star.  She is terrible in everything I have seen her in.  It almost seems like this film was made specifically for her to show off how slutty she can get.  

Amanda Seyfried was the best thing about the movie.  She was good and I liked how her character totally changed by the end of the film.

I'm sorry to say that Diablo Cody's script was a bad one.  While I didn't mind the dialogue in "Juno", I couldn't stand it here.  It has the same type of speech that Kevin Williamson used to write for his characters in "Dawson's Creek".  It didn't bug me back then, maybe because I was younger, but now it irritates the hell out of me.  

"Jennifer's Body" was a dumb movie.  It seems like it was trying to bring back the style of horror "Scream" made popular in the 1990s.  Something is missing for it to work though.  There just wasn't anything special about it.

C-

Gracie's Choice (2004)

Why am I reviewing a Lifetime movie, you may ask?  Why did I watch a Lifetime movie?  Well the answer is plain and simple: Kristen Bell.  I think she is a terrific actress and I am interested in all of her projects.  Also Lifetime movies have an addicting quality.  Even though they are incredibly corny, they are fascinating and hard to stop watching.

"Gracie's Choice" did have that quality of being addicting and very corny.  It kept my interest all the way through, but it wasn't the best Lifetime movie I had ever seen.  

Kristen Bell did a very good job playing a teenager who has to fight her mother for custody of her brothers.  Anne Heche played her crackhead mother and she did a great job.  She really seemed to embody what a druggie's life is like.

"Gracie's Choice" is an interesting movie that will pass the time on a rainy day.  I wouldn't say you should go out and rent it as soon as possible, but if you get the chance to see it, maybe you will enjoy it.  The film screams "Lifetime", which isn't always a bad thing.

C+

Peter Pan (2003)

"Peter Pan" is a strange story for me in the fact that I am not crazy about every film adaptation.  I love Disney's version, but I was worried about this one.

This version of "Peter Pan" is just OK.  It has some good stuff, but a lot of bad stuff.  The best thing about the film is the score by James Newton Howard.  I really liked it.  The flying theme was later used by Disney for their Disney Parks commercials.  

I also kind of liked Captain Hook in this version.  I probably liked him because he resembled Hans Conreid's Disney version.

Now for the bad...  The worst thing about the film was Tinkerbell.  She was one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen and that says a lot when she didn't have a word of dialogue.  I didn't care about her at all.  All of the other actors were average.  Nothing stood out.  Another big problem with the film were the visual effects.  They were some of the worst I have ever seen, especially when it came to the giant CG alligator.  It was ridiculously huge!

My final problem with the film was the ending.  After a long disappearance, the Darling parents don't even ask their kids where they were.  They just accept them with open arms and act like everything is perfect.  It was strange.  

This version of "Peter Pan" lacks the magic and fun of the Disney version.  It was bland and it dragged on.  I'm not going to say it was a bad movie because I can see how some kids would enjoy it, but overall it was not a good movie.

C-

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Quentin Tarantino proves again why he is such a unique filmmaker with this tale of a group of soldiers out to kill Nazis.

I thought "Inglorious Basterds" was going to be outrageous with many graphic scenes of violence, but it was not.  It did have a few violent things that were tough to watch, but most of the picture was dialogue driven and that dialogue was some of the best I have ever seen.  The script was incredible and it was brought to life by some wonderful actors, including Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, and Diane Kruger.  But, the standout actor is Christoph Waltz who plays the head Nazi nicknamed "The Jew Killer".  His performance was amazing because you really sort of like him, but he is incredibly evil at the same time.  What is even more amazing is the fact that Waltz speaks three different languages throughout the film and each accent seems to be perfect.  He really was quite the find.  

But the reason the script works so well, especially with Waltz's scenes, is because of the anticipation.  You are just sitting there, waiting for him to snap.  There is always an underlying tone that Waltz knows more than what he leads on.

"Inglorious Basterds" is a great story and the climax is one of the best I have ever seen.  I really enjoyed the way the film ended.  It may not be historically correct with what is portrayed in the film, but it works.  There is nothing more satisfying than watching Nazis get what they deserved.

A-  I recommend it.