Movie Review: 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'


“My dear Frodo, you asked me once if I told you everything there was to know about my adventures. While I can honestly say I’ve told you the truth, I may not have told you all of it.” And so begins The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment in director Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. It’s been 9 years since we’ve traveled to Middle-Earth, and fans of Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings have been dying for an excuse to go back. Whether or not this will entirely satisfy that craving though, I can’t say. We never want something we love to come to an end…but sometimes, it’s better to end on a good note rather than to milk something for all it’s worth. At nearly three hours long and covering only a mere six chapters of the book, The Hobbit proves that there is indeed such a thing as too much of a good thing after all.
Taking place 60 years before the events ofThe Fellowship of the RingThe Hobbit follows young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who joins the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves on a quest to help them reclaim their homeland. The story is a simple one, and easily could have been told in a single film. But alas, we’re not so fortunate. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty here to admire; the film is a visual treat, one that is greatly enhanced by the 48 fps 3D. It may take some getting used to at first, but the higher frame rate (twice that of the regular 24 fps that film usually runs at), serves to create a crystal clear picture, letting no detail go by unnoticed. You’ve never seen Middle-Earth look quite like this before. Martin Freeman is a delight as Bilbo, exhibiting both charm and good humor. However it’s Andy Serkis as Gollum that makes the biggest impression. He only has one scene (if it were up to me, there would be a lot more), but it’s that one scene that catapults the film out of its bloated, dragging state and reminds us why these movies are so widely loved. The “riddles in the dark” scene, the one in which Bilbo obtains the infamous “one ring that rules them all” from Gollum, may very well be my single favorite movie scene of this year.
So let me ask you this: why, oh why, did this film need to be verging on three hours in length? Furthermore, why do we need three Hobbit films – which will no doubt add up to a total of nine hours to tell the story that the book told in just 300 pages? This is purely a set-up film, not terribly unlike Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (or what I like to call: Harry Potter and the Never-ending Camping Trip). The thing about a set-up film is, it needs to actually make you want to see the film it’s setting you up for -- something that Harry Potter still accomplished. The Hobbit? Not so much. Because let me tell you, no amount of technical wizardry can mask the mind-numbing boredom inspired by that middle portion. The Hobbit has moments of greatness, including an action-packed last half hour that seriously does that 48 fps 3D justice -- but in the end, there is nothing unexpected about Jackson’s refusal to err on the side of brevity.
Rating: C+

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Interview: Joseph Gordon-Levitt talks 'Looper'




Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the man of the hour. Hot off his hilarious gig hosting Saturday Night Live last week, it seems like Gordon-Levitt is everywhere; he starred in this summer’s biggest blockbuster, “The Dark Knight Rises,” the action-packed bicycle-chase movie “Premium Rush,” and come November you’ll see him starring alongside Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven Spielberg’s much-anticipated “Lincoln.” As if all that’s not enough, he’s also currently working on his directorial debut, “Don Jon’s Addiction,” while always making time for his company, “hitRECord” – an open-collaboration online production company which has its members work together to produce everything from films and music to short stories and photography. In his latest film, “Looper” (out in theaters today), he plays a specialized hit man whose job is to eliminate targets sent to him from the future. To play the daring role, Gordon-Levitt teamed up with writer/director Rian Johnson, whom he previously worked with on the acclaimed high school noir film “Brick” – which is precisely where my conversation with the down-to-Earth young actor began.


What is it about Rian that makes you want to work with him?

JGL: Well first of all I just love him, he’s a great friend of mine. We’ve been close ever since we made “Brick” together. So it’s rare that you get to work with someone you know personally and are close friends with. So that’s the first thing. And I also just – even if I didn’t know him – I think I’d be an enormous fan of his. He makes movies that are sincere and intriguing and unpredictable and fun, and, you know, that’s what I want.

What kind of prep work did you do to play a younger version of Bruce Willis?

JGL: Well, I studied him. I studied his movies, I watched a lot of his movies. I would rip the audio off of his movies, and put that on my iPod so I could listen to him…Bruce even recorded himself doing some of my voiceover lines and sent that to me so that I could listen to that. But the most important thing I think was just getting to know him and spending time with him, hanging out, having lunch, having dinner, talking…and letting it seep in.

In the movie you make a lot of decisions that are kind of difficult for a human being to make, and you choose characters that kind of have dark complexes -- I haven’t seen you play a role this dark since “Mysterious Skin” -- so is it really difficult for you to put yourself in that situation?

JGL: You’re right, and that’s one of my favorite things about “Looper” and I’m glad you brought that up…there’s a lot of moral ambiguity in it and I think that’s realistic for the way the world is in real life. No one is black or white, everyone is a shade of grey, and while it is a convenient and often crowd pleasing device to have heroes and villains, that’s not really the way the world is. And in “Looper” every character feels like they’re doing the right thing, and there’s some horrible, atrocious things happening. And that’s violence for you. And “Looper” is really the story about the source of violence and how violence begets violence and whether you can solve any problems with more violence.

Are we going to see a trailer for “Don Jon’s Addiction” any time soon?

JGL: We finished shooting about two months ago and we’re in the process of editing it now…Scarlett [Johansson] did a really good job; she’s playing this character that’s I think really different than anything she’s played before. Julianne Moore is, I think, you know, one of the greatest actors alive; Tony Danza played my dad, he’s also really different than you’re used to seeing him. And I had a ball, man, I’m just having a great time.

What’s it like directing yourself?

JGL: Yeah it’s, you know, it’s something that I’ve been working up to for a while and I do feel that, like, the time I’ve spent with hitRECord was important in being able to do that. Because I’ve practiced seeing myself on screen – and that can be a disturbing or odd experience for many actors, and I remember it used to be for me. It’s just really a matter of practice, to get used to it. If you’ve spent enough time looking at yourself eventually you get used to it, and those feelings of anxiety go away and you’re able to, you know, kind of be productive and analyze it more objectively. So all these little videos that I’ve been making for years on hitRECord I think really helped me be able to look at the monitor, see myself, and not just be like ‘Oh god, I look so weird!’

Do you experience that in “Looper,” because of all of the special effects make-up?

JGL: Well it’s actually just the opposite, because I see someone else, which is, you know, really reassuring, ‘cause that’s what I wanna see when I see a movie that I’m in – I wanna see somebody else. I feel like if it’s reminding me of myself then I’m not doing the job right, you know, so, the make-up certainly helps that. And that’s my favorite thing as an actor, to become somebody else and so I think “Looper” is really the most transformative role that I’ve gotten to do.  And I love it for that. 

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower'



Coming-of-age high school movies are a cliché in and of itself. So for a film to take that subject matter on without any real plot to back it up – and for it to feel like a movie we’ve never seen before – is quite a remarkable feat alone. But “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” isn’t just new and fresh; it’s filled with a zestful spirit that can’t help but fill you with sentimental longing for days and years gone by.
Based off of the incredibly popular 1999 novel of the same name, “Perks” is narrated by Charlie (Logan Lerman); he’s a shy and introverted high school freshman, and very much a loner. That is, until two eccentric seniors, Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), take him under their wing and invite him into their group of friends, helping Charlie navigate through the often tumultuous waves of high school.
The author of the novel, Stephen Chbosky, also wrote and directed the movie. It’s evident how much he loves these characters, and it’s a love that doesn’t get lost in translation. This is, by all means, a perfect book-to-film adaptation; nothing of importance is sacrificed, and in some cases things are even improved upon in their transition to the big screen. The movie deals with some pretty intense and controversial issues, such as mental illness, suicide, and sexual abuse, but in Chbosky’s hands, everything is handled gracefully, with tact, and just the right amount of emotion. Thankfully, the movie never veers into after school special mode, something it could have very easily done. Chbosky resists the urge to lecture us, or treat the audience like children – and it’s precisely that that makes both his novel, and the film version, something that easily connects with people of all ages.
This isn’t a teen movie, it’s not begging for the adoration of the “Twilight” young adult crowd – it’s a movie that takes its high school setting and uses it to appeal to your nostalgia. We watch Charlie go to his first party, get high for the first time, go on his first date, experience his first kiss. And it works so well because while it can’t help but take you back to the first time you yourself experienced all of those things, it’s more than that -- you just really want to tirelessly root for Charlie every single step of the way.


In fact, the characters – and how much we grow to love and care about those characters – is the heart and soul of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” Logan Lerman’s Charlie is incredibly awkward and innocent, but that’s part of what makes him such a sweet, endearing character right from the get-go. Lerman has this sort of face, his eyes in particular, that pull you in because they’re just so filled with emotion. Throughout the movie, I constantly found myself going “awww” out loud…a verbal slip I can only attribute to the fact that I was just so damn invested in the growing relationship between Charlie, Sam, and Patrick that I couldn’t help myself. I wanted – needed – these characters to be happy in the end.
As Charlie’s new best friends, Watson and Miller shine. Miller proves just how much range he has, making the huge jump from playing a murderous teenager in last year’s “We Need to Talk About Kevin” to the flamboyant, lovable, and hilarious Patrick. Playing his stepsister Sam, Emma Watson takes on her first big post-Potter role with maturity, proving she’s more than just the clever witch we all know her as. This is Watson like you’ve never seen her before; she radiates confidence and sex appeal (in one scene, we see her decked out in lingerie, playing Janet in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”), and she showcases a sort of loose, free-spirit vibe that makes it entirely evident why Charlie is so drawn to her.
Set in the early 90s, one of the most memorable aspects of the film is the wonderfully hip soundtrack, filled with tracks from artists such as The Smiths and Sonic Youth. In what is surely predestined to become the film’s most iconic scene, Patrick races his pick-up truck through a tunnel while Sam stands up on the truck bed, screaming with her arms in the air while David Bowie’s “Heroes” so fittingly plays in the background. And it’s that very scene that captures the true essence of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” It’s a film that’s tender, heartfelt, and even a little sad…but more than anything, it’ll make you feel infinite.
Rating: A

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'The Master'




Usually you sit through a movie, and by time the credits start to roll, you’ve made up your mind about what you just watched. Sure, you may need to let it marinate in your mind a bit before making any firm proclamations -- but you usually know, at the very least, whether you liked it or not. I’m not so sure The Master operates in such simple terms. As people shuffled out of the theater, I remained seated, with one thought running through my head: what did I just watch?
The Master acts as writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson’s most challenging and perplexing work to date. While many have pinned the film “the Scientology movie,” more than anything, it’s an in-depth character study. And in that aspect, The Master succeeds brilliantly. Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a disturbed WWII vet who, while in a drunken stupor, sneaks aboard a party yacht that belongs to a beguiling man named Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Bearing striking similarities to the Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, Dodd is the leader of a cult-like, faith-based organization called “The Cause.” Soon thereafter, Freddie becomes both Dodd’s right-hand man and guinea pig – forming a conundrum of a relationship that is just as fascinating to watch as the individual characters themselves.
As Freddie, Phoenix is nothing short of astounding. Freddie isn’t likable, not by a long shot; he’s crass, ill mannered, erratic and at times downright violent. Phoenix plays Freddie with a constant air of unpredictability and foreboding. When he was on screen, it’s nearly impossible to be fully at ease. More than that though, Phoenix brings these odd mannerisms and little idiosyncrasies to Freddie that make him not just a fully realized character, but a living, breathing portrait of a disturbed man. From his lopsided snarl to his slightly unhinged laugh, this performance is the true essence of what the best actor Academy Award is all about – and you can be sure that no one deserves that title this year more than Joaquin Phoenix.
Being the visual artist that he is, Anderson creates a distinct tone that is more telling of the film’s overall meaning than any one scene. This is a movie that operates best when you commit to it, take it all in and appreciate its many individual merits without the need to know what overall purpose it attempts to serve – the type of film that proves to be both rewarding, and at times even frustrating, with its deliberate disconnect. While it very well may be a bit too slow for some viewers (at 137 minutes long, it can’t help but drag), the vibrant cinematography, powerhouse performances by Hoffman and Phoenix, and Jonny Greenwood’s haunting score win out in the end. Even so, the question still remains: what is The Master really about? Like the devoted members of The Cause, are we, the viewers, searching for meaning where there is none? As for the followers of The Cause – almost certainly. As for us – only another viewing could tell for sure.
Rating: B+

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'Prometheus"



Where do I begin? I went into “Prometheus” fresh, with no knowledge of the universe director Ridley Scott created in 1979’s “Alien”, and as a result, no idea what to really expect from this sci-fi prequel-of-sorts. My lack of substantial expectations resulted in a fascinating movie-going experience, one in which I found myself simultaneously intrigued and horrified.
Filled with existential themes, “Prometheus” is set in 2093, where a group of explorers strive to discover the origin of human life on Earth. Most passionate about unlocking these answers are archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), a couple who discover a series of ancient cave drawings that lead them on mission funded by Weyland Industries to a distant galaxy where they believe they can meet their makers. Also aboard the Prometheus (the name of the ship) are mission director Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), captain Janek (Idris Elba) and android David (Michael Fassbender), among others.

While the crew is out exploring, taking their helmets off and messing with foreign objects and extraterrestrial life (does that seem like a good idea to you?), even before things turn sour, the feeling of impending doom is palpable. And things progress in what feels like the blink of an eye. At one moment a philosophical debate, and the next a gut-wrenching monster-horror movie, “Prometheus” is all over the place—which isn’t necessarily a negative thing. There are plot holes and moments that feel somewhat out of place, but if anything, I attribute it to the sheer ambition of an immensely talented filmmaker. The plot shift doesn’t come off as a way to derail the initial path the film embarked on; it comes off as an exercise in foreboding and warning, making sure the viewer is never in a complete state of peace. What happens when the answers you’ve been looking for aren’t the ones you wanted? They just bring more deep, impossible-to-answer questions, of course. Which in turn just gives us more to chew over while immersed in this chaotic story.


Between the fantastic 3D and the astonishing visual effects, this is a film to behold. Even when the action is at a standstill, its visual spectacle and the magnificent set pieces are enough to mesmerize you alone. Then throw in Michael Fassbender’s beguiling, winning performance as robot David, with his chillingly monotone voice and vacant expressions, and there’s plenty to keep you engaged.
Beware -- “Prometheus” is not for the squeamish. There’s one scene in particular that made my usually tough stomach start to churn. When the intensity is kicked into high gear, I’d be surprised if anyone left the theater mentally unscathed. This is the kind of movie that’ll have a very specific effect on you---you may come out of it feeling like your mind was just blown, or you may find yourself incredibly disappointed by the direction it took. No matter what though, pretty strong reactions to this film come with the territory.
The movie asks a lot of questions that it can’t answer, and that may feel like a cop-out to some viewers. For this viewer though, those questions were the thought-provoking catalyst for a striking, genuinely WTF movie – and I mean that in the best way possible.
Rating: B+
 

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'What to Expect When You're Expecting'



“What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is the new star-studded ensemble comedy based on the best-selling self-help book of the same name. And by that I mean, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the book apart from the fact that they share the same central topic: pregnancy. The movie follows five different couples as they go through the trials and tribulations that come along with pregnancy: weight gain, surprises, bickering, complications, overactive hormones, and of course, the bread and butter of pregnancy jokes, morning sickness, gas, and lack of bladder control.
These fun side effects don’t afflict anyone more than Wendy (Elizabeth Banks), a pregnancy expert who is going through a far less pleasant experience than she expected. Her husband Gary’s (Ben Falcone) competitive father (Dennis Quaid) and perfect-looking wife (Brooklyn Decker) are expecting, too. The other couples include Jules (Cameron Diaz), a famous trainer, and her dance partner on a “Dancing With the Stars” type show, Evan (Glee’s Matthew Morrison); Holly (Jennifer Lopez) and Alex (Rodrigo Santoro), a couple looking to adopt; and Marco (Chace Crawford) and Rosie (Anna Kendrick), the requisite cute young couple who are in for a surprise.

Rounding out the supporting cast are Chris Rock, Rob Huebel, and Thomas Lennon as part of the group of fathers who teach Alex the ropes of fatherhood, and (thankfully) provide most of the few real laughs. It’s not that What to Expect isn’t amusing. It’s just not funny enough, interesting enough, or enlightening enough to make the slightest dent in the rom-com genre. It feels and plays out like a bunch of pieces of Play-Doh haphazardly clumped together. We’ve seen pregnancy comedies that were smart and hilarious – movies that, for the most part, held the subject to a higher standard than just an outlet for constant bodily functions jokes. Even the raunchy “Knocked Up” managed to balance the crude and the heart of the subject with care.

In the end, this simple and harmless flick proved to also be vacant and spineless. These ensemble comedies (Valentine’s Day, New Year’s Eve, etc) are getting old fast, simply because they don’t have anything to justify or back them up. More couples then necessary are squeezed into the picture (like Quaid and Decker) as a means to 1) add in an extra splash of star power, and 2) avoid having to spend any actually quality time with any of the couples – and that’s because none of them are memorable or substantial enough to hold their own. Then you have Chace Crawford and Anna Kendrick, who have next to no reason to be in the film other than to showcase those key moments of artificial movie flirtation – and the scenes, which feel like they were plucked from a different movie, work exactly as they were meant to; they make us smile and swoon, even while we acknowledge how misplaced they really are.
The movie of course ends with the women giving birth to the precious little babies, which will warm even the coldest of hearts – but that doesn’t change the fact that “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is exactly what you would expect…and that’s not an enthusiastic endorsement.
Rating: C

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

"The Hunger Games" and "Bridesmaids" Lead 2012 MTV Movie Awards Nominees


The MTV Movie Awards are like the Academy Awards for teen franchises and huge blockbusters.

Filled with many of Hollywood’s biggest stars, cheesy teleprompter jokes, sneak peaks, and categories like “Best Kiss” and “Best On-Screen Dirtbag,” it’s hard not to have a fun time paying unnecessary tribute to some of the year’s crowd favorites — which range from movies from as far back as last summer to some of this spring’s blockbuster powerhouses.

 Leading this year’s MTV Movie Awards are “Bridesmaids” and “The Hunger Games” with eight nominations each, followed by six nominations for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” and “21 Jump Street.” Surprisingly, “The Twilight Saga: Break Dawn – Part 1” only pulled in two nominations. Looks like there’s a new favorite franchise in town.

The 21st annual MTV Movie Awards will air live on June 3 at 9 a.m. on the east coast.

Check out the full list of nominees below, and be sure to vote for your favorite nominees at MTV.com.


Movie of the Year: 
“Bridesmaids”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“The Help”
“The Hunger Games”
“The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1”


Best Kiss: 
Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, “Crazy, Stupid, Love”
Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson, “The Hunger Games”
Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1”
Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum, “The Vow”

Best Female Performance: 
Emma Stone, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” Emma Watson, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” Jennifer Lawrence, “The Hunger Games”
Kristen Wigg, “Bridesmaids”
Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Best Male Performance: 
Channing Tatum, “The Vow”
Daniel Radcliffe, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, “50/50”
Josh Hutcherson, “The Hunger Games”
Ryan Gosling, “Drive”

Best Comedic Performance: 
Jonah Hill, “21 Jump Street”
Kristen Wigg, “Bridesmaids”
Melissa McCarthy, “Bridesmaids”
Oliver Cooper, “Project X”
Zach Galifianakis, “The Hangover Part II”

Best Music: 
“A Real Hero,” College f/Electric Youth (“Drive”)
“Impossible,” Figurine (“Like Crazy”)
“Pursuit of Happiness,” Kid Cudi (Steve Aoki remix) (“Project X”)
“Party Rock Anthem,” LMFAO (“21 Jump Street”)
“The Devil Is in the Details,” The Chemical Brothers (“Hanna”)


Best On-Screen Transformation: 
Colin Farrell, “Horrible Bosses”
Elizabeth Banks, “The Hunger Games”
Johnny Depp, “21 Jump Street”
Michelle Williams, “My Week with Marilyn”
Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”

Best Gut-Wrenching Performance: 
Bryce Dallas Howard, “The Help”
Jonah Hill and Rob Riggle, “21 Jump Street”
Kristen Wigg, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy, Wendi McLendon-Covey, and Ellie Kemper, “Bridesmaids”
Ryan Gosling, “Drive”
Tom Cruise, “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”

Best Fight: 
Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill vs. Kid Gang, “21 Jump Street”
Daniel Radcliffe vs. Ralph Fiennes, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson vs. Alexander Ludwig, “The Hunger Games”
Tom Cruise vs. Michael Nyqvist, “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol”
Tom Hardy vs. Joel Edgerton, “Warrior”

Best Cast: 
“21 Jump Street”
“Bridesmaids”
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2”
“The Help”
“The Hunger Games”

Best On-Screen Dirtbag: 
Bryce Dallas Howard, “The Help”
Colin Farrell, “Horrible Bosses”
Jennifer Aniston, “Horrible Bosses”
Jon Hamm, “Bridesmaids”
Oliver Cooper, “Project X”


Breakthrough Performance: 
Elle Fanning, “Super 8”
Liam Hemsworth, “The Hunger Games”
Melissa McCarthy, “Bridesmaids”
Rooney Mara, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
Shailene Woodley, “The Descendants”

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'Bully'



I walked out of “Bully” with a heavy heart and a feeling of profound sadness. “Bully” doesn’t aim to be sensational. Nor does it aim to be an in-depth study of the bullying epidemic in America. There are no statistics or interviews from experts in the area; it’s just a simple documentary that follows five different families who have been affected by bullying. It opens with a little kid playing around in his backyard – moments later we find out that the little kid in the footage hung himself. His father, David Long, who is the subject of some of the film's most heart-wrenching moments, tells us about his son Tyler, and what drove him to do what he did. The look of utter pain in this man’s eyes is enough to create an ache in your chest. But this is only the beginning.
The main subject of the movie is a 12-year-old boy named Alex. He has trouble socializing and making friends. He considers it a good day when no one messes with him. In one scene, he’s talking to his mother about what the other kids, his “friends,” do to him at school. When his mom tells him that those kids aren’t his friends, he asks, “If you say that these people aren’t my friends, then what friends do I have?”

Other subjects of the film include Ja’meya, a 14-year-old girl who brought a gun on the school bus to scare off her tormentors, and 16-year-old Shelby, a lesbian living in the Bible Belt who became a social pariah the moment she came out.  
One of the most frustrating segments of the documentary involves an incompetent assistant principle at Alex’s school. After his parents view a video of the kids on the bus calling him names, stabbing him with pencils, and choking him, they go to her to try and find a solution, one where the safety of their son will be ensured. “I’ve ridden that bus,” says the woman. [Those kids] are “as good as gold.” Cue to the moment that the entire theater collectively groaned and mocked her ignorance.  
“Bully” only shows us the tip of the iceberg. With a problem as widespread as bullying, this could have been an opportunity to dig deeper into the problem, maybe get the other side’s perspective. Why do the bullies torture these kids the way they do? What is the best way to deal with the situation? Can we ever hope for change? Director Lee Hirsch opts for a hopefully ending, showing one of many “Stand for the Silent” anti-bullying rallies going on – and one can only hope that kids, parents, and school officials seeing this important film will be the catalyst for change we so desperately need.
Rating: B+

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'American Reunion'


Teens nowadays may be all about the Apatow movies (“Knocked Up,” “Superbad”), but back in my day we turned to Jim, Kevin, Oz, Finch and the Stifmeister for our dose of raunch and shocking sexcapades.

It's been nearly ten years since we last caught up with the gang, and that's in part what makes “American Reunion,” the 4th installment in the “American Pie” series, so much fun. Now adults in their early 30’s, everyone returns to East Great Falls for the class of ‘99 high-school reunion. We get a quick little catch-up on where life has taken each of the 5 guys: Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (a rather matronly looking Alyson Hannigan) are married and have a 2-year old son. Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is a househusband. Oz (Chris Klein) is a famous sports newscaster. Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) has been traveling the world. “Morning co-workers and cocksuckers!’ greets office-worker Stifler (Seann William Scott) – oh yes, the boys are back!

Brimming with nostalgia, “Reunion” was like a private joke the whole theater was in on. A character whips out his iPhone to show a YouTube video of Jim dancing half naked for Nadia in his bedroom. Jim’s dad (Eugene Levy, who is easily the funniest part of the movie) tries to have a father/son heart-to heart sex talk. And how could we forget Jim's infamous sock -- which makes a lovely little cameo during the traditional sex-gone-wrong opening.

The “American Pie” movies all follow a very similar pattern, with their signature type of humor – mainly the out-of-whack gross out/sexual happenings that cause us to be simultaneously cringing and cracking up. There may not be anything new here, but these guys still play off each other so well that it was more than believable that a bunch of full-grown men would get back to their outrageous old antics after all this time. Though at some points the attempt to create a commotion played up unnecessary subplots that the movie may have been better off without. Does anyone really buy a hot 18 year-old aggressively trying to lose her virginity to Jason Biggs?


Undeniably better than “American Wedding,” “American Reunion” hit home for me more than the second and revived my love of the one that started it all. Despite all of the shenanigans going on, the references to the 90’s, rekindling of old feelings with first loves, and the message that it feels like no time has passed when true friends reunite carried “American Reunion” a long and heartfelt way.

And the reminder of the alternative use of a flute wasn’t too bad, either.

Rating: B

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Why You Should Go See Titanic 3D


Of all the films to receive harsh backlash in the years following their success, “Titanic” has probably suffered it the most. After its 1997 release, “Titanic” went on to win 11 Academy Awards and hit the billion-dollar mark at the box office, which earned it the title of highest grossing movie of all time until James Cameron’s “Avatar” was released in 2009. It was the world’s favorite film. People saw it two, three, four times in theaters, just to re-experience the ultimate visual spectacle.

In the 15 years that have passed since its original theatrical release, something has changed though. People have forgotten what it was about “Titanic” that made them spend precious time and money to see the movie multiple times. It’s not uncommon for someone to mention the movie in conversation only to be met with an eye-roll. Mind you, these are the same people that loved it when it first came out.

As one of the movies that I see being playing on TV nearly every single time I turn the television on, I think therein may lie the problem. People haven’t forgotten – at least they don’t think they have. “Titanic” is one of those movies that you feel like you remember every scene as if you just watched it yesterday: the “flying” scene, Jack drawing Rose, the sinking, old Rose throwing the Heart of the Ocean into the water. But if there is one film that is unfit for television, it’s “Titanic.” You may have watched part of it on TV last year while flipping channels, maybe you saw it in theaters so many times that you feel you need never see it again. Neither qualifies. Most people haven’t sat down and watched the movie, all 3 hours and 15 minutes of it, from beginning to end, in years – maybe since its 1997 release. It’s a big chunk of movie, so that’s not surprising. But the 3D re-release is a fleeting opportunity to see a film that is not only a pop culture phenomenon, but also one of the greatest disaster films ever made, on the big screen, the way it was meant to be seen, once again.


It’s hard to properly remember a movie when only watching random snippets at a time. You can watch those famous scenes on YouTube or TV a million times, and none of them will ever have the impact they do when watched all together, as one single entity. When going to see a movie in theaters, you’re committing to sit there and watch for a designated amount of time. With “Titanic,” you allow yourself to be reintroduced to the characters and the unforgettable love story. In recent years the romance aspect has been boiled down to little more than its iconic scenes. However when watched from the very beginning, it’s so evident what made Jack a character that girls all around the world fell in love with, and what made this a love story that won over everyone’s hearts. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jack with this soft, lighthearted quality that you rarely see in his current work. When they’re first getting to know each other you see the flirtatious chemistry budding. When Jack decides to give Rose the piece of wood to lay on when submerged in the freezing water at the end, you see the resolution in his eyes, that he has made the decision to save her instead of himself.

I’m not saying you should go see Titanic 3D because of the added dimension – I would be saying all of this even if it were being released without the 3D. Maybe it’s an incentive for fans to see it presented in a way they haven’t seen before. The 3D is certainly impressive, and completely in line with what we’ve come to expect from Cameron’s masterful use of the technology. It’s what I like to call “classy” 3D; it’s subtle and noninvasive, yet used to give the film some extra depth and oomph – as if “Titanic” needs anything extra to make it stand out.


“Titanic” gets a lot of heat for its amateur screenplay and less-than-stellar dialogue (written by Cameron), yet even so, “Titanic” is not a victim of its shortcomings; rather, it’s the product of a visionary filmmaker, one who defied the odds and managed to accomplish one of the most spectacular feats in filmmaking. While watching the sinking on the big screen again, all I could think to myself was, “this is why we go to the movies.” James Horner’s classic score combined with the images of the water gushing into the elevators, breaking open the windows, and people being thrown from the sinking ship in its final moments above water are unparalleled. Regardless of what kind of movies you like, it’s simply impossible to watch the final hour of “Titanic” and feel anything but your heart beating rapidly in your chest as goose bumps invade your arms.

Yet these memories seem to evade people. I can only tell people so many times that you truly don’t remember the grandeur and impact of “Titanic.” The emotion. The groundbreaking special effects (which still hold up incredibly well, even by today’s standards). You may think you remember, but I strongly suggest you take one final exhilarating sail aboard the Titanic before it’s too late.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'Mirror Mirror'


With fairy tales as beloved as Snow White, you need to bring something fresh and new to the table to make an impression. And with another Snow White movie coming out this summer, “Snow White and the Huntsman,” this challenge becomes even fiercer. I just wish “Mirror Mirror” got the memo.

That’s not to say that the effort isn’t visible on screen -- filled with pastel-colored, ethereal imagery, “Mirror Mirror” looks like the perfect counter-film to the serious, dark spin displayed in “Huntsman.” However despite the film’s best efforts, the action, humor, and dialogue feel stilted, never fully bringing the magic, laughs, or intrigue that enchanted everyone so in Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Lily Collins is undeniably lovely as Snow White -- though she relies on her pouty-lipped, doe-eyed delicate princess act a bit too much. For a movie that straight-up spells out its goal to us (“I’ve read so many stories where the prince saves the princess, it’s time we change that ending!) she really is lacking the vivacious spirit to match her sentiments.

Surprisingly, the dwarfs were the most entertaining part of the movie. With the original names changed to Wolf, Napoleon, Half Pint, Grub, Grimm, Butcher and Chuckles, they may all be stock characters, but does it really matter? Unlike much else in movie, these munchkins were one of the comedic elements that charmed from beginning to end.

It’s not so much that the script is childish – I’m all for the thieving dwarves and the flirty sword fights -- it’s more that so much of it was laughably bad, minus the laughs. Price Alcott (Armie Hammer) under a puppy love spell where he frantically licks the queen’s (Julia Roberts) face and squeals and pants. The queen getting a facial treatment that involves bird poop and worms. You catch my drift.


Purposefully goofy with a hint of camp, this version of Snow White is dripping with randomness and lost potential. At first it was a bit difficult to single out what exactly was causing the film to have such an underwhelming current running through it. The stunning look and extravagant costumes carry it a long way, perhaps even enough to temporarily mask the real narrative issues at hand. When it comes down to it, “Mirror Mirror” feels like a TV movie; amusing enough, but the kind of movie that still leaves you craving a great deal more.

Rating: C

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

"Fifty Shades of Grey" on the Big Screen


Who would have thought that “Twilight” fan-fiction could ever amount to anything? “Fifty Shades of Grey,” the new “it” book that’s becoming the talk of the town, has done just that. What makes this feat so noteworthy isn’t the fact that it was originally available online for free when entitled “Master of the Universe;” what makes this a big deal is the fact that it’s an erotica novel – and a particularly kinky one at that.

The story is about recent virginal college grad Anastasia Steele, who begins a BDSM relationship with 27-year old billionaire Christian Grey. (I know, could those be more stereotypical romance novel names?) Erotica has been around forever, but “50 Shades” marks the slow de-stigmatization of the genre – after all, word of mouth is what took it from viral hit to a published New York Times bestseller.

While the book is certainly one heck of a quick read, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was well written. The heroine has a bit of an annoying tendency to constantly bite her lip, think “oh my!” and refer to her “inner goddess” (which is really just the sex addict part of her brain). In fact, she may be the only character more annoying than the (un)popular Bella Swan.

After an intense bidding war between some major Hollywood studios, Universal Pictures and Focus Features bought the film rights to the trilogy for an estimated $5 million. With the momentum this story is currently receiving from the press, it’s definitely in their best interest to get straight to work on the script and try and crank this one out as quickly as possible before the buzz fizzles out.

So now that the film is a sure thing, who should be cast in the lead roles? Ana describes herself as "a pale, brown-haired girl with blue eyes too big for her face." Whoever plays her needs to have a balance between shy and awkward – and sexy and uninhibited. Someone quite a bit like Rooney Mara of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” fame.

Fans will probably be a bit pickier when it comes to the casting of Christian Grey, who is described as nothing short of gorgeous with his “unruly dark-copper-colored hair” and piecing grey eyes. As the domineering master of sexual prowess, whoever plays him is going to have quite a bit to live up to. Michael Fassbender is who first comes to mind, but he’s too old. However, the strong jawline and perfectly chiseled features of the likes of Henry Cavill (he’s playing Superman in the new reboot) or “Gossip Girl’s” Chace Crawford could very well do the trick.

It’s not entirely surprising that the studios were tripping over each other to get their hands on this one. Whenever a book starts to show a large and distinct fan base, it usually seems like a no-brainer. Though this is far from the typically popular book franchise that sends teens into delirium.

“Fifty Shades” has so much sex and so little story, it’ll be tough to make it into more than a 2-hour sex romp – and even tougher to make it with anything but an NC-17 rating. And regardless of the rating, will women even go to the theaters to see it? It’s one thing to hide behind the anonymity provided by discrete e-readers; it’s quite another to see the titillating story in theaters.

Past box office numbers do little to clear this up. A few “sexy” movies come to mind -- “Shame,” “9 ½ Weeks,” “Unfaithful,” “Secretary” -- none of which really made a killing at the box office, to say the least. Though if “Fifty Shades of Grey” does as well as Universal is expecting, then you can bet it’ll be the beginning of a beautiful friendship between erotica and mainstream film.

Also consider this: Is it possible that men will flock to the theaters, even to something that’s constantly being referred to as “mommy porn” by the media? It definitely has its share of sex to keep them happy – whips and chains included.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

War of the Two Snow Whites


What is it with Hollywood and releasing two very similar movies within close proximity to each other? “The Prestige” and “The Illusionist.” “No Strings Attached” and “Friends With Benefits.” “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life.” “Deep Impact” and “Armageddon.” The list goes on and on.

It’s been a trend I’ve noticed for a while now, but few instances are as bizarrely coincidental as the war of the two Snow Whites. I heard about both movies about a year ago, when they were differentiated only by “the one with Julia Roberts” and “the one with Kristen Stewart.” But now that the full-length trailers have been released for both Relativity’s “Mirror Mirror” and Universal’s “Snow White and the Huntsman,” it’s interesting to watch the two side-by-side and wonder how this happened – and what the box office repercussions of this peculiar timing will be.

For an avid moviegoer it’s not that outrageous an idea to go see both films, assuming both trailers draw you in. However, for the average moviegoer, it’s usually a “this or that” sort of a deal. It all comes down to: which looks better? In the case of the two Snow Whites, they look like completely different movies. I’m going to let my heavy bias show when I say that “Huntsman” (starring Charlize Theron, Kristen Stewart, and Chris Hemsworth) looks like a medieval epic, and potentially one of the best movies of summer…while “Mirror” (starring Julia Roberts, Lily Collins, and Armie Hammer) looks startlingly obnoxious (“Snow way!” may be one of the most irritating lines I’ve heard in a trailer in a long, long time.)



Believe it or not, a 3rd Snow White movie is also in the works. Yes, you read that right. Disney’s “Snow and the Seven” is slated for 2013. So why is the idea of a live-action Snow White movie so alluring all of a sudden? Look no further than Tim Burton’s 2010 “Alice in Wonderland,” which grossed over a billion dollars worldwide. And after that kind of mind-blowing success, of course all the studios want a piece of the action. Closely after the release of “Alice,” the fairy-tale stories started popping up in rapid succession: “Red Riding Hood,” “Beastly,” and “Tangled,” along with the TV shows “Once Upon a Time” and “Grimm.” It doesn’t just end there: next year you can look forward to “Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters,” and “Maleficent,” which will star Angelina Jolie in the title role in a re-telling of Sleeping Beauty from the villain’s perspective.

When looking at all this in such blunt terms, it can’t help but perpetuate the whole “is there an original idea left in Hollywood?” question. With so many sequels, remakes, adaptations and spin-offs, it’s easy to see where that comes from. And in defense of Hollywood, it’s easy to see why they do it. These movies already have a built-in appeal. People know the stories, and they like to see them brought to the big screen. Also, there’s the added bonus of the studios not needing to buy the rights to the story – which, as it turns out, is also the negative, because, well, then stuff like this happens.



Is there room for both Snow Whites? I think so. In this case, both movies are appealing to totally different audiences. “Mirror Mirror” is marketing itself as a family-friendly comedy-adventure, whereas “Huntsman,” which looks dark, violent, and action-packed, is aiming for a more mature demographic. What may keep both from achieving the heightened level of success they crave is the fact that they took such drastically different approaches, which will discourage demographic overlapping.

What “Alice” had going for it was that kids, parents, teens and adults all wanted to go see it. You couldn’t pay most of my friends to go see “Mirror Mirror,” and I highly doubt that the violence-packed “Snow White and the Huntsman” is going to be a family affair…though the huge fanbases for “Twilight’s” Kristen Stewart and “Thor’s” Chris Hemsworth certainly give “Snow White and the Huntsman” the edge. Even so, with “Mirror” up first (March 30th) and “Huntsman” galloping into theaters this summer (June 1st) only time will tell which raven-haired beauty will be officially deemed “the fairest of them all.”

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Movie Review: 'The Hunger Games'


Before you write-off “The Hunger Games” as bubblegum tween trash – think again. Based off of the first book in Suzanne Collins’s hugely popular trilogy, “The Hunger Games” has the potential to be the next big hit that attracts everyone – girls, boys, and adults alike. It’s a unique occurrence when a movie like this is able to break through being called “good for the fans” and emerge as just good, in general. And “The Hunger Games” is more than just good. Is it a perfect movie? No. The ending is rushed and the camerawork can’t help but feel a bit obvious as it rattles and shakes in an attempt to show us the violence without actually showing us (it is a PG-13 movie, after all). But when you enlist talent such as Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland, along with Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence as the lead, one thing is for certain: you’re aiming for quality, not for just “good-enough.”

In the future, modern civilization and what we know as North America has been destroyed, leaving in its place the nation of Panem, which is separated into 12 districts and is ruled by a corrupt, totalitarian government called the Capitol. The members of the Capitol treat the citizens of Panem like puppets that exist for their entertainment. After an uprising that happened years ago, the Capitol created something to ensure that the citizens never rebel again: The Hunger Games -- where one male and one female tribute between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen at random to fight to the death on live TV, with only one able to emerge as the victor. When Katniss Everdeen’s (Lawrence) feeble little sister Prim (Willow Shields) is chosen as one of the tributes, Katniss heroically volunteers to take her place in the kill-or-be-killed battle. Let the games begin!

You would think that once the Games kick off that it would be non-stop, mind-blowing action until the last frame, but the first half is surprisingly more engaging than the second half; It introduces us to the world of Panem, and more impressively, nails each of the small supporting characters that were so memorable in the book. Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci steal every scene they’re in as Effie Trinket and eccentric TV host Caesar Flickerman, respectively. They may not have a heap of screen time, but the energetic creepiness that they exude does exactly what it does in the book: it makes you temporarily forget (and then remember again) that these characters are essentially villains, no matter how much they smile or how garish and candy-colored their appearances are. Haymitch, a former winner of the games, is funny and volatile in the hands of Woody Harrelson.


But if there's one thing that makes this movie soar, it's Jennifer Lawrence’s incredibly captivating performance as Katniss Everdeen. Lawrence’s Katniss is a heroine worth rooting for (finally!); she has real gumption, strength and a certain fire that shines behind that stoic façade that draws us to her. And she certainly looks at home with her dark hair in Katniss’ signature braid and a bow slung over her shoulder.

When the characters finally enter the arena, it’s tension-filled, but also oddly calm. Think “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One.” There is so much at stake, yet there are still those moments that linger without much action to back it up. Though to counter this, the scenes that do bring the chaos bring it at us full-throttle -- especially one involving the powerful hallucinogen effect brought on by a swarm of bee-type creatures called “Tracker-Jackers.”

With a book as popular as “The Hunger Games,” it’s always going to be a near impossible task to satisfy everyone. Die-hard fans may bemoan the slightly less-pronounced romance between Katniss and Peeta (played with quite charisma by Josh Hutcherson), and will nitpick the necessary changes until their dying days. But all in all, the source-material is spectacularly brought to life in this wonderful and faithful adaptation that is awash with chill-inducing moments and a determination to never sacrifice the emotion of the situation. The odds of you loving "The Hunger Games" will be ever in your favor.

Rating: A-

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Bully vs. the MPAA


On March 30th, Lee Hirsh’s documentary on the bullying epidemic in America will be released in theaters. Though whether or not the key demographic that most needs to see the film will be able to is yet to be determined.

With an upsurge in bullying-related suicides in the past few years, it was just a matter of time before a documentary was made on the subject. “Bully,” which is being released by The Weinstein Company, is about how bullying affected the lives of five families. A month ago, the film ran into a problem: it was given an R rating by the MPAA and the rating was upheld on appeal -- meaning no one under the age of 17 will be allowed to go see the film without a parent or guardian present, and that Weinstein’s plan to screen the film for high school students is crushed.

After hearing this news, Michigan high-school student Katy Butler, a victim of bullying herself, started an online petition to have the rating lowered – a petition that has now received wide-spread attention, garnering over 300,000 signatures, and support from nearly 30 members of Congress as well as the likes of Justin Bieber, Johnny Depp and Ellen DeGeneres.

This is something that any filmmaker who wants their movie to have a wide release in theaters has to go through, so why is everyone getting all riled up over this one instance? Because this act is, so to speak, the one that broke the camel's back. The MPAA has a history of playing God in the motion picture industry: either you make the often nonsensical cuts necessary to avoid an R or NC-17 rating, or your film will greatly suffer at the box office. It’s as simple as that. They say that they’re not a censorship organization, but of course, their existence in the first place ends up attributing to just that.

The MPAA is made up of a small group of parents who screen the films and then assign the ratings based on the content. There is no real set of guidelines as to what is and is not permissible for each rating. What one movie can get away with while securing a PG-13 rating, another is slapped with an R for showing the same thing. In the case of “Bully,” the reason it is so “deserving” of an R rating: language. Six uses of the F-word, to be exact.

That’s 5 times more than is allowed for a PG-13 rating. It’s also 36 times less than the amount of F-bombs used in 2005 war documentary “Gunner Palace,” which was given a PG-13 rating on appeal. How’s that for putting things in perspective?


While the situation appears to be as simple as the MPAA getting off their high horse and lowering the rating from an R to a PG-13, to them that action would mean much more: it would mean admitting to an imperfect system, one that doesn’t have a clear, logical set of guidelines.

It would mean forever being viewed as a group that makes exceptions. And that scares the hell out of them. Even with proof that previous members have done so in the past.

We’re talking about an organization that constantly contradicts itself – one that shuns sex and nudity, but lets films with violence have far more wiggle room. Let’s take the upcoming movie “The Hunger Games,” for instance: it’s about 24 teens fighting to the death. Surely there will some blood and violence, no matter how clever the camerawork is. PG-13 rating. Then “Bully” comes along, and because it makes use of the F-word six times, it is immediately deemed inappropriate for teenagers. Really?

Let me ask you something -- what 13 year olds hasn’t heard the F-word before? What difference does it make if the word is said one or six times? It’s not like we’d be exposing children to this deadly, life-altering word that will scar them forever. I think kids need to be freaked out. They need a wake-up call, to show that the things they do and the words they inflict upon others have consequences. Kids who are exposed to the film won’t come out traumatized by the use of the F-word. Hopes are, they’ll come out deeply affected and enlightened on a problem that exists around them on a day-to-day basis, one that many turn a blind eye to.


In the likely case that the MPAA doesn’t budge, The Weinstein Company has a few options, though none are very desirable. They could cut out some of the scenes in question or bleep out the profanity. But that would diminish the overall impact, something Weinstein and Hirsch refuse to do. Kelby Johnson, one of the bullied teens featured in the film, put it best when he said, “Our reality is not censored.”

The more probable option would be for The Weinstein Company to release the film without a rating – though that brings along its own set of problems. By not accepting the MPAA’s ruling and releasing “Bully” without a rating, the film may be treated in some theaters as an NC-17 movie -- which would make it impossible for teens to see the film in those theaters, guardian or not.

I can’t tell you if “Bully” is going to be a great movie. It may end up being overly emotionally manipulative. It may end up being the best documentary in years. What I do know is that “Bully” digs deep into a horrific and ongoing problem. If there is even a chance that this documentary can make a difference, then the MPAA should find their humanity and admit that people seeing this film is more important than a few curse words.

Everyone loves an underdog story…I just fear that the bullies may emerge victorious in the ongoing war between The Weinstein Company and the MPAA.

To sign the petition, click here

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

21 Jump Street Interview


In the new big screen adaptation of the popular ‘80s TV show "21 Jump Street," heartthrob Channing Tatum and funny-man Jonah Hill play inept cops who go undercover as high school students to investigate a drug ring. Ice Cube plays Captain Dickson, the man in charge of the undercover cops in this hilarious action-comedy, which hits theaters on March 16th. I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with all three of them about everything from their high school experiences to embarrassing baby photos.

Channing, you appeared in the comedy "She’s the Man" and this is your second comedy. How does it feel to get into a comedy after doing a long string of action movies and dramas?

Channing Tatum: Man, it was pretty crazy. I couldn’t believe Jonah was calling me for it. I thought he had the wrong number or something.

Jonah Hill: Turns out I did.

C: Yeah. He was actually calling…

J: I felt too awkward so…

C: Who were you trying to call?

J: I was trying to call Whoopi Goldberg

C: Oh, sure, sure.

J: Cuz I thought she’d make the perfect counterpart but then I was too embarrassed so I just kept going and now here we are.

C: Common mistake. Pretty embarrassing.

Ice Cube: When I heard he was doing the movie, I was like, ‘Damn, Jonah, you greedy motherfucker. You trying to steal all the scenes and all the laughs’… [All laugh]

C: But yeah, he just promised me I would be funny and if I wasn’t, I was gonna choke him the fuck out.

J: Yeah he was gonna hurt me.

[To Channing] How often are you asked to dance with someone?

C: All the time. Please don’t do it.

What was it like to host SNL?

C: Nuts, man. I’ve never been through something quite that crazy. You just feel like you’re running downhill and like you’re about to fall, and then it’s over. And you’re just like, ‘Thank God I didn’t fall on my face.’ That’s it, you know. And you can only pray that everyone else felt the same way.

Did Jonah give you any advice?

C: ‘Don’t suck.’

J: Did I give you any advice?

C: I don’t know if you gave me any advice. You told me what to expect. Oh, you told me to have fun.

J: That’s good advice. [Laughs] I’m a wise man.

J: I just kind of broke down how the show works because there’s no kind of advice you can give, just more like ‘here’s what to be prepared for’ because it’s a gnarly work schedule. It’s not like it’s normal.

Craziest thing you guys did to cheat for a test in high school?

C: Sex with a teacher. I’m just kidding, I don’t know.

J: My friend, she’s a really good friend of mine, she has really huge breasts, and she would distract this one teacher with her huge breasts, and then my other friend would go on the computer and change our grades.

I: Damn. That’s pretty elaborate…I didn’t take it serious enough to cheat, like that. I was like, man, fuck it. I didn’t read the book last night.

J: If we put half as much effort into studying as we did into cheating, we probably would have gotten straight A’s anyway. That’s what I always kept thinking. [All laugh] I’m going through a lot of trouble, like hours spent to not learn, when I could be spending hours learning.


This movie looks like it was so much fun to film. What scene was the hardest to get through without laughing?

C: Anything with Rob Riggle in it. Like I don’t know what it is about him but he’s maybe the funniest person that I’ve ever been in a scene with. You’ll never see me in a frame with Rob cuz I just couldn’t keep my shit together.

Like the scene with the tongues?

J: That was improvised…I was like, put your hand in my mouth. I told him, it’s fun, touch my tongue…in the trailer, I’m laughing. They used an actual clip of me laughing…cuz we’re on drugs so it’s okay but I’m supposed to be having a straight face but Rob is too funny, I can’t. Actually the one they used in the movie I’m laughing.

C: You had two different dudes’ hands in your mouth now that I think about it.

J: Yeah I like dudes’ hands in my mouth…I should write a movie where good stuff happens to me, instead of bad stuff. [Laughs]

How is the movie similar to your high school experience, if there are any?

C: Nah. Nothing really.

I: Come on, man. The Eminem thing. Don’t lie.

J- I didn’t lie. Yeah I unfortunately had the Eminem bleached hair and the ball chain thing.

[To Jonah] When you were at the Oscars and Billy Crystal started singing a song about you, your first thought in your head was what?

J- I was just thinking, I can’t believe I’m nominated for an Oscar. A couple of people asked me about it, I guess he was making fun of me or something. But I was just, like, excited to be there. I was just happy to be there with my mom, that Billy Crystal even knew my name…It’s super surreal.

[To Ice Cube] During your scenes as the captain and with funny guys like Channing and Jonah, was there any part of the movie where you couldn’t keep a straight face?

I: Nah

C: We couldn’t crack him, man. He’s like so serious.

I: …It was cool, and the thing is the hardest part of working on these comedies is not laughing, and that’s where the work is. It’s like oh shit, hold your water, cuz you know this dude is gonna come with some adlib you’re not ready for or you’re gonna have a take on it that you’re not expecting. You know pretty much coming off the cuff, every scene he’s gonna give you something different, you know, so you just gotta be ready…all the laughter comes after the take. Everybody puts laughs in their pocket.


[To Jonah] Were those real baby pictures of you in the movie?

J: Unfortunately. [All laugh]

What gave you the idea to use them in the movie?

J: Cuz my friends made fun of me about them for so many years, like every time someone would come over my house.
Were they on display?

J: Yeah.

C- Oh man, they’re lit like the Smithsonian. They’re like the Lourve in his house.

J- They’re like Chagall’s and Warhol’s. And so I was like, ‘you know what? I’ve had to suffer and I’m going to get you guys back and make you look like weirdos for taking these pictures.’ My parents haven’t seen the movie yet so I’m actually kind of excited for them to see it. My mom doesn’t get why they’re funny. That’s what’s crazy. [Channing and Ice laugh] She’s like, ‘why are they funny?’ and I’m like, ‘you’re so weird.’

Would your friends mess with them like they did in the movie?

J- They didn’t draw on them cuz my mom would’ve chopped their hands off but my friends all have pictures next to them, like us drunk, and making faces like some of this stuff. [More laughter]

As producers, how important was it to keep it R-rated? Because right now there are too many PG-13 movies out that are just not funny.

J: Well, you know, I think it’s all dependent on the movie. You know, not all movies have to be R, not all movies have to be PG-13. I think it depends on the story you’re trying to tell. With this movie we wanted to make “Bad Boys” meets a John Hughes movie and for that you need an R rating. So I just put that in my contract and contractually if you wanted me involved it had be to be R-rated…But then there’s a movie idea I just came up with recently that is better as a PG-13 movie. You don’t [always] need to make it an R rated film.

How brutal was it training to be a cop?

J: It was brutal, man. I really put myself through the ringer.
[J and C laugh]

C: I didn’t do shit.

J: I was supposed to be the inept cop, so like…

C: I think that was the point. We didn’t want to go through and look all like, you know, flawless.

Jonah, “21 Jump Street” has always been on your list of films that were getting ready. How does it feel to finally have this movie released?

J: It’s really weird because for five years, from 23 to 28 years old, I’ve been working on this movie. And it’s bizarre because every interview I’ve done since it got announced five years ago, everyone asks me about “21 Jump Street.” And it’s bizarre that after this they won’t ask me that anymore. It’s weird because I always had this thing that I knew I was doing…and now that it’s done it’s a very weird, bittersweet feeling. I was glad that I loved the movie so much, that I didn’t waste five years of my life on a bad movie.


What was it like playing roles within roles, like being high school students and police officers…and Peter Pan? [Laughs]

J: [Laughs] I was Doug, Schmidt, and Peter Pan. Daniel Day Lewis couldn’t do that. [All laugh] I was three characters in one day – do you realize the layers of that? I lost myself. Ask your readers if they understand the dedication that takes. [More laughs]

C: Green tights are hard to pull off.

J: Well I’ll say this, a lot of this stuff comes from preparing for “Superbad,” because I was a guy in his 20’s pretending he was 17, and this film, we’re guys in our 20’s pretending to be 17. So a lot of it was based on that.

[To Channing] What was it like for you to play a guy playing another guy?

C: Uh…I don’t think Jenko even understood that he was playing another guy. I don’t think he’s even that smart. [Laughs] I don’t think he got the joke.

How would you like to see the story progress in the sequel if it gets made?

J: We can’t talk about it.

C: It’s top secret.

I: I would like to see the story progress with me getting more money.

[All laugh]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Crazier Fan Base: Twilight or Hunger Games?




Twihards, rejoice:
Summit Entertainment has announced that the “Breaking Dawn: Part 2” teaser trailer will play before Lionsgate’s highly anticipated “The Hunger Games,” which hits theaters on March 23rd. In accordance with what has been done with the past “Twilight” trailers, a teaser of the teaser will hit the Internet early on March 20th to get the Twihards’ heart palpitations going and their butts into “The Hunger Games” midnight screenings so they can get the first taste of the end of their beloved franchise.

“The Hunger Games,” which recently broke the record previously held by “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” for first-day advanced ticket sales, is quickly on it’s way to achieving what can only be referred to as “Twilight-status fanaticism,” which begs the question: which fan base is more fervent?

While Team Edward and Team Jacob have been at it for years already, don’t be surprised if you start seeing Team Peeta and Team Gale shirts everywhere you turn – even with a less pronounced love triangle at its core. What can I say? Fans just love to show where their allegiance lies.

Having attended one of the “Hunger Games” mall tours (see below), I can tell you firsthand: those fans mean business. Whenever the host asked for volunteers from the audience, they were shrieks of: “I VOLUNTEER! I volunteer as tribute!” When Taylor Swift’s “Hunger Games” theme song, “Safe & Sound,” came on, the entire audience raised their three middle fingers in the air, the farewell salute from District 12, and swayed back and forth.

Chances are fans of “The Hunger Games” are more violent, seeing as the premise is centered around a massive fight to the death on live TV. Though Twilight fans are driven purely by hormones, and one should never underestimate pre-teen girls in heat.

The jury’s still out. But one thing is for certain: Shrieks will be heard around the world when both hardcore fanbases collide come the midnight screenings on March 22nd.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS