Recent theatrical viewings

[BoyScoutKevin]

"Winnie the Pooh" w/ narration by John Cleese and voices by Jim Cummings.

I have enjoyed the adventures of Winnie the Pooh on the big screen and the TV screen for over half of my life. Now it is time for another generation to enjoy the adventures of Pooh.

Though, I must admit, during all that time, I have never read any of Milne's original stories.

You'd be surprised at how much goes into making an animated film, even one as simple as this. The credits at the end seemed to run as long as the film itself, but if you see it, stay to the end of the credits. There's a nice twist at the end of the credits.

The animators also seem to have taken a leaf from Pixar, listing the babies born to the people who worked on this film, while they were working on the film. Just as Pixar does as the end of each film.

And remember "No stuffed animals were harmed during the making of this film."

[Rev. Powell]

WINNIE THE POOH: Pooh and friends search for Eeyore's missing tail and try to evade the deadly Baksun while the bear desperately searches for a pot of honey.  Clever mix of several A.A. Milne stories, with charming animation and certain sequences that are written like Abbot and Costello routines. John Cleese's intrusive narration and even the storybook itself play major roles in the plot.  Refreshingly innocent; this feels more like golden age Disney than anything they've done in years.  4.5/5.

[Flick James]

WINNIE THE POOH: Pooh and friends search for Eeyore's missing tail and try to evade the deadly Baksun while the bear desperately searches for a pot of honey.  Clever mix of several A.A. Milne stories, with charming animation and certain sequences that are written like Abbot and Costello routines. John Cleese's intrusive narration and even the storybook itself play major roles in the plot.  Refreshingly innocent; this feels more like golden age Disney than anything they've done in years.  4.5/5.

With a 3 1/2 year old, I guarantee this will be seen at some point. We took Miles to see Cars 2 and he is not quite ready to sit all the way through a movie at the theatre quite yet, but he's getting there. We'll probably have to wait for DVD.

[Rev. Powell]

WINNIE THE POOH: Pooh and friends search for Eeyore's missing tail and try to evade the deadly Baksun while the bear desperately searches for a pot of honey.  Clever mix of several A.A. Milne stories, with charming animation and certain sequences that are written like Abbot and Costello routines. John Cleese's intrusive narration and even the storybook itself play major roles in the plot.  Refreshingly innocent; this feels more like golden age Disney than anything they've done in years.  4.5/5.

With a 3 1/2 year old, I guarantee this will be seen at some point. We took Miles to see Cars 2 and he is not quite ready to sit all the way through a movie at the theatre quite yet, but he's getting there. We'll probably have to wait for DVD.

Don't know if this makes a difference but it's only 70 minutes, probably less if you don't stay for the credits (and maybe get there late and skip the previews and the opening cartoon which isn't that good).  It seems like a good first movie for kids.

[Flick James]

WINNIE THE POOH: Pooh and friends search for Eeyore's missing tail and try to evade the deadly Baksun while the bear desperately searches for a pot of honey.  Clever mix of several A.A. Milne stories, with charming animation and certain sequences that are written like Abbot and Costello routines. John Cleese's intrusive narration and even the storybook itself play major roles in the plot.  Refreshingly innocent; this feels more like golden age Disney than anything they've done in years.  4.5/5.

With a 3 1/2 year old, I guarantee this will be seen at some point. We took Miles to see Cars 2 and he is not quite ready to sit all the way through a movie at the theatre quite yet, but he's getting there. We'll probably have to wait for DVD.

Miles made it through about 45 minutes of Cars 2 before he started getting antsy.

Don't know if this makes a difference but it's only 70 minutes, probably less if you don't stay for the credits (and maybe get there late and skip the previews and the opening cartoon which isn't that good).  It seems like a good first movie for kids.

[Rev. Powell]

A BETTER LIFE: An illegal Mexican immigrant in LA hopes to buy a truck to run his own business while dodging immigration and trying to keep his son in school and away from Chicano gangs.  Well-acted; at times a bit too obvious and too virtuous, but a valuable peek at a culture that doesn't make it on-screen very often.  3/5.

[Vik]

Green Lantern
Average. I liked the visuals, but nothing special.

[Pilgermann]

The Change-Up (2011) - Some funny things here and there I guess, but it's just a generic film with a tired concept wrapped up in vulgarity as an excuse for entertainment.  Pretty dumb overall, and I got kinda bored and restless by the end, it just goes on too long.  Don't watch it.  A generous rating of 4/10.

[MrMari]

Captain America 

Fun movie. Avengers better live up to the hype. Of course, stay for the teaser after the credits.

Also saw the trailer for the Spider Man remake? WTF?

[MrMari]

BRIDESMAIDS (2011):

Excellent film! I was really worried going into this, thinking that it would be some really boring by-the-numbers chick flick that would sap 2hrs from my life like Sex & The City did about three years back. Not the case at all, as I was pleasantly surprised by a hilarious and heartfelt film that kept my attention fully. I wasn't familiar with any of the main actresses but they all did a stellar job. The best comedy film I have seen in a very, very, very looooong time and my best film of the year so far. I highly recommend this film, even to guys and I'm glad to see it has received many positive reviews.

5/5

Yeah man, I just watched this one again as its now hit the local 3$ theater. Laughed my ass off again!

[Rev. Powell]

SUPER 8: Young teenagers accidentally discover an air force cover-up while filming a homemade zombie movie.  With its kid protagonists and misunderstood aliens, it positions itself like a lost Steven Spielberg sci-fi romp from the early 1980s, and delivers solid nostalgia. 3.5/5.

[JaseSF]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): A genetically enhanced ape named Caesar, the accidental result of experimental drug research designed to find a cure for Alzheimer's Disease, is adopted by lead scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) and his father Charles (John Lithgow) who happens to be suffering from Alzheimer's himself. Caesar however begins to outgrow the enclosed area in which he lives and as he moves more out into the world discovers a lot of harsh truths about human beings and the way we treat apes in captivity. Eventually Caesar is himself confined as he becomes seen as a threat to the safety of others but soon begins to organize his fellow apes for a potential revolt.

This surprised me. It was much better than I expected it would be largely because the acting in the film was so solid with Franco and Lithgow both giving fine, even at times moving performances and Andy Serkis stealing the whole movie with his performance as Caesar despite the fact all the apes are created by CGI. I have to say this is some of the best CGI I've seen in a film and it was well put to use here for the most part. But it's the acting and the realistic emotions put on display that make this a winner. Also there were lots of little nods to fans of the original film and in many ways this movie acts as a reverse sort of take on that one. This prequel doesn't quite jibe with the original films in terms of continuity but it's still a darn good movie. ***1/2 out of ***** stars.

30 Minutes or Less (2011): a pizza delivery boy named Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) has a bomb strapped to him by two crazed ape-mask wearing country hicks named Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson) determined to use him to rob a bank for them in order to use said money to pay an hitman to take out Dwayne's hardened Vietman Vet father in order for Dwayne to finally inherit the old codger's vast lottery winnings. Nick goes to his old childhood friend Chet (Aziz Ansari), an high school teacher, for help and the two unlikely bank robbers soon set out on a wild and crazy adventure trying to outwit Dwayne & Travis, the hitman and pretty much everybody else they encounter all while trying to insure Nick doesn't get blown up.

This was funny. It was really a quite good comedy. It's another movie that surprised me by being much better than I anticipated. There's also a lot of adventure and action in this one with several nods to classic action film classics. I also liked that the characters looked and acted very much like real people. The only thing that kind of falters is one does have to wonder just where Dwayne and Travis get their hands on so much weaponery and the unbelievable incompetence of cops and guards in this one. Still it's best not to examine such stuff so closely and just enjoy. *** out of ***** stars.

[BoyScoutKevin]

"Fright" the 2011 remake of the 1985 classic vampire film. How did they compare?

The character of Charley Brewster was better in the 1985 film.
The character of Jerry . . . in 2011 not better than the earlier film, but a different take on the character. Almost a blue collar vampire. Call this a tie.
The character of Peter Vincent was better in the 1985 film.
The character of Amy was better in the 1985 film.
The character of Evil Ed was better in the 1985 film.
The opening scene was better in the 1985 film.
The setting was better in the 1985 film, where you had the atypical vampire in a typical American suburbia, while in the 2011 film, you had the atypical vampire in the atypical city of Las Vegas. Thus the contrast worked better in 1985.
The violence was better in 1985, because there was less of it, so when it happened the affect was there. The violence in the 2011 film was so over the top and so much of it, that the affect of it was lost.
The sex was better in 1985, because there was more of it. While we are probably less homophobic in 2011 than in 1985, it was the 1985 film that expressed the homoeroticism that can occur in vampirism.
The commercials were better in 1985,  because there were fewer of 'em, if any. In 2011 you had commercials for Budweiser, Century 21, Chili's, Google, the Hard Rock Casino, Volkswagen, etc.
The ending scene was better in 1985, because it was tighter and did not drag out so much.
The music. That was the one thing that 2011 did better than 1985. The music did a better job setting the mood in 2011 than in 1985.
Conclusion: 2011. Like a lot of remakes, not a bad film, but like alot of remakes a needless remake. There was no need to remake what I felt, along with "Lair of the White Worm," was the best vampire film from the '80's.

Next time: the remake of "Conan the Barbarian," though from having seen the trailer, it'll probably suck worser than the remake of "Fright Night."

[Jim H]

The Conan remake is not really a remake, it's another take on a literary character.  The new movie is closer to the book Conan, though still not quite there.  And it is a far inferior film to the Arnold one.  Also, the 3D is pointless and damages some of the pretty decent looking vista shots.  Feels like a Nispel film - some well put together sequences, bland characters, competent violence, blah story and random romance.  Mamoa, I think is his name, is a good Conan, probably the biggest surprise of the film.  He talks more and has more of the humor and bloodlust of the literary character.  The main girl is played pretty badly, actually, the worst performance in the film.  Ron Perlman gives good support in a thankless role as Corin, Conan's father.

It's worth a watch on a slow day, but not a good film.  Call it a 5/10.

[Pilgermann]

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2010/2011) - Watched this last night and it really wasn't very good.  While it's handsome looking and has a much more fleshed-out story than the original TV-film, it wasn't that creepy or exciting.  The opening scene is pretty freaky and got my hopes up but I dunno, I just didn't care for this.  5/10