Sept 4: The Lorax

"A 12-year-old boy searches for the one thing that will enable him to win the affection of the girl of his dreams. To find it he must discover the story of the Lorax, the grumpy yet charming creature who fights to protect his world."

Directed by: Chris Renaud & Kyle Balda, Rated: PG, 86 minutes

The Lorax is a disgusting little kid's movie that tries way too hard to tailor it's appeal to the young ones, pumping the film with 'catchy' songs, obnoxious characters, and little cute animals that try way too hard to be Despicable Me's minions. Any environmental friendly ideas the source material by Dr. Seuss tried to convey is practically completely absent in this adaptation, and it's a shame. The magic and imagination Seuss created in his books is insulted with this film and I'd rather be off playing roulette games online than watching this piece of crap. Heck, even Russian roulette has more appeal. 

Everything's better with some Walken. Even if it's the scariest 'game' in the history of mankind. 

The film follows pubescent Ted (voiced by Zac Effron) who wants to get up and personal with Audrey (Taylor Swift). The two kids live in Thneed-ville, a synthetic city made entirely of plastic and machine. The world around them lacks anything organic and a real, growing tree hasn't been seen in years. Of course Audrey tells Ted the only way to her heart is to find a tree so he embarks on a quest to find one. He follows the advice of his grammy (Betty White) and tracks down the Once-ler (Ed Helms), a hermit living right outside of town. The Once-ler tells Ted the story of his younger years, when trees were everywhere and animals inhabited the beautiful countryside. Unfortunately, the Once-ler found greed and chopped down all of the trees and led to the devastation everywhere. The Lorax (Danny DeVito), the protector of the forest who descends from heaven like Jesus, warns the Once-ler that his actions cannot be undone and that he's overall disappointed in the young man (because nothing tells kids to stop littering like a giant Cheeto with a mustache). 

Speaking of which, when is this creepy perv getting his own movie?

I like to believe that the filmmakers of The Lorax had honest intentions with the film, but the end result is lacking of any sign of such. The movie is over-the-top with nearly every aspect, including loud obnoxious songs and way too many 'cute' animals trying to earn a laugh. The story doesn't even try to tell much, as opposed to just jumping around here and there. It's moments of 'preachiness' come quick and hard, but in the end you just don't give a damn. Each song, full of dancing animals and pop-like tunes is irritating and is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to movies. Sure, the songs play a large part to the film, but that doesn't mean they aren't annoying. It seems that nothing can emulate a Disney flick and with Alvin and the Chipmunks and many other similar films out now, the singing just shows signs of coping out to what's "cool". 

For the billionth time, singing animals aren't funny. 

I am fully aware that this movie is a kid's movie and that the youngins are the target audience, but when you adapt such a beloved story like Seuss' The Lorax, you need to have something for everyone. Hell, most of the children this movie was aimed at probably have never even heard of the book, let alone Dr. Seuss. I knew that the film wasn't great going in but I still had my hopes. And unfortunately, everything bad I've heard about it is true. I struggled getting through this mess and would not recommend it at all. As I mentioned before, you'd have more time playing exciting TV games from Paddy Power. 2012 is turning into a year of very uninspiring animated movies and I hope that the toons of the fall and winter will save this year from being one of worst in recent memory. 

The Bad:

an animation style that looks cheap, similar to the dud, Hoodwinked

The Worse:

obnoxious characters that leave very little to like about and try too hard to be funny or cute

The Ugly:

songs that are written specifically to get themselves ingrained into your skull, without any creativity or imagination behind them

Overall: 2.8/10

Trailer:

July 4: Jeff, Who Lives at Home

"Dispatched from his basement room on an errand for his mother, slacker Jeff might discover his destiny (finally) when he spends the day with his brother as he tracks his possibly adulterous wife."

Directed by: Jay & Mark Duplass, Rated: R, 83 minutes

Honestly, I have never been the biggest fan of the Duplass brothers. I know there are a lot of people who find their movies (The Puffy Chair, Baghead, Cyrus) powerful and emotional, as they tend to hit home with a lot of the themes and situations that play out. However, I find their stuff to be very bloated with unnecessary subplots and too much focusing on the mundane, boring aspects of every day life. Sure, the later part is a nice attempt to make their films more realistic,  but the brothers tend to over exaggerate other aspects of their films (usually the endings), completely ruining any authenticity that was created. Jeff, Who Lives at Home is no exception from that notion, and while I did find it somewhat enjoyable, it really is a terribly flawed movie. 

But no matter how many times he looks like he smells funky, Jason Segel always looks huggable. 

The film follows Jeff (Jason Segel), a basement dweller who emerges from his "cave" to help his mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon) by running to the store to get some wood glue. The way it is set up, you can assume Jeff doesn't leave the house too much and his Exodus into the real world proves to be a rather curious experience for him. Jeff is a man who feels there is meaning in everything and he takes it upon himself to find his "destiny" on his little errand run. After chasing after any notion of "Kevin", after a mysterious phone call leads him to believe there is meaning in the name, Jeff comes across his brother Pat (Ed Helms), who is just having a very bad day. The two see that Pat's wife, Linda (Judy Greer), is with another man, and the two find it as a reason to investigate, trying to figure out if Pat's wife is cheating on him. That's pretty much the basis for the film and Jeff's journey with his brother ends with a very melodramatic climax that feels completely unnecessary. You can't find your "destiny" in one day, and while Jeff's search at first is whimsical and cute, it becomes rather tedious and boring. Throw in an even more unnecessary romantic subplot for Sharon at her office, and Jeff, Who Lives at Home becomes an even bigger mess.

Cue dramatic rain. In an office. Just because they can.

One of the most surprising parts of Jeff, Who Lives at Home is Jason Segel's performance. For the most part, he's solid, even lingering a little out of his comedic comfort zone into a more dramatic role. While his acting is good, I only wished he had a stronger script to work with. Ed Helms adds a good presence as Pat, but there are only so many times he can play an oblivious man struggling with woman problems and hitting rock bottom before he "blooms" into a changed man. Susan Sarandon, although gorgeous as always, really adds absolutely nothing to the film but her name. Her subplot is incredibly out of place and the events that come out of her story add nothing to the film. The movie is called Jeff, Who Lives at Home, not, Jeff, Who Lives at Home with His Lonely Mother Who Just Wants to Find Love. 

I'd like to be home alone with her! Oh snap! Yes, I still find Susan Sarandon sexy. Deal with it. 

Jeff, Who Lives at Home is really nothing special and really has no point to it. The most noteworthy part of it is Jason Segel, and it's nice to see that he has what it takes to transition into more serious roles. I was really hoping that the movie would be a lot better than the final product and am sad to say it really doesn't deliver. The narrative is just too big of a mess that really tries to be something profound and life-changing. It's also worth mentioning that the cinematography is awful. It's as though the cameraman had no idea what he was doing, zooming in and out whenever he felt like it. Seriously, look for it, it's incredibly distracting. Skip Jeff, Who Lives at Home, or if you must see it, go in knowing that it's nothing worth leaving the basement for. 

The Good:

Jason Segel's performance, even though the script refuses to help his character be something more than a slacker/stoner destiny seeker

The Bad:

crappy camerawork that shakes and zooms like amateur footage you catch on the news after a disaster strikes

The Ugly:

Jay and Mark Duplass' continued effort to make worthwhile films based in reality that conclude in some of the sappiest, over-the-top ways

Overall: 5.8/10

Trailer:

Re-watch? No

Buy? Certainly not

Jan 20: The Hangover Part II

"Two years after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stu's wedding. Stu's plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry."

   A couple of years ago, I saw a movie called The Hangover. It was a great movie featuring three somewhat unknown actors who went on one hell of an adventure in a night in Vegas. It was not just hilarious, but original and very unexpected. Before the film even hit theaters, Warner Bros. green-lit a sequel. Not only does The Hangover Part II utterly and absolutely fail as a sequel, it fails as a film. Part II is exactly, and I mean exactly, the same movie as the first one. In the rehashing and recycling, I became very frustrated and I actually grew to hate the first Hangover as well. One film, to have the power to ruin itself and another film, is quite atrocious, and in the end, laughable. The fact that Warner Bros. had the balls to literally "re-release" the same movie they did two years ago, albeit a change in location, is disgusting, yet you almost want to give them a pat on the back for getting away with it. The film did not just succeed at the box office, it surpassed the first film's gross and became the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time. So with that, I politely tell you to f**k off, Warner Bros. as you manipulated the entire world. But hey, good for you right? WRONG. There may be millions of people out there who do not know any better and sure, you can take advantage of them. But there is only so much you can get away with. Movie viewers are getting smarter each and every day. With every new film we absorb into our consciousness, we grow wiser and become harder to impress. We catch on to cliches and rip-offs and we see that some things aren't as shiny gold as you would like them to be. We can sense when something is rushed, and when no care is given to the film's script or production value. And with The Hangover Part II, you may have made a ton of money, but we have all now seen what you tried to do. And if you think you can even ATTEMPT to make The Hangover Part III anywhere near the same as the first two, you will see it in the box office numbers and reviews. Go on, I dare you to try and rehash and feed us the same shit again. You guys will be the ones waking up in the middle of nowhere, hungover from excessive alcohol and drug use. But this isn't a movie and simply emptying your pockets won't give you the clues needed to figure out what happened. 

I will not be rating this film. I saw it when it was just called The Hangover.  

   Oh, and P.S. Will all of you studios stop casting Ken Jeong as the racist stereotyped "over-Asian". In fact, don't cast him at all. 

He's not f**king funny. At all. Not one bit. Stop it.