As Seen On TV

When I was in third grade, I would come home from school everyday, sit down on the living room floor with my homework and watch the Aladdin show. It's mostly forgotten now, but I loved that show as much as I loved the movie. I was also a dedicated fan to many shows based on movies such as The Little Mermaid and Timon and Pumba. (I do think it's kinda sad that I find myself watching Penguins of Madagascar after work nowadays.)

Movies being turned into TV shows and vice versa has been happening since television began. Usually, I don't mind. The kind of movies that get turned into TV shows are children's movies that I don't believe need to keep the "movie's original integrity in tact". Or something like that. Who knows what I think?

However, I recently read a blog that made me a bit nervous. There have been rumours that they will be taking one of my favourite television shows, Skins, and turning it into a full length movie.

Now, I'm not sure how they plan to pull this off. First of all, the show has had two different casts. The shows format is one cast will be one for two years, and then a whole new cast is brought in with a loose tie to the original characters. It was the creator's idea in order to keep the show "young". So an obvious issue would be which cast would be starring in the film? Or would they combine the two for the first time?

Another problem that arises is that each episode focusses on one character until the finale which brings them all together. What exactly would the movie be about? A day in the life of all the characters? Or is the audience going to be overwhelmed with everything that is going on in 10 main characters lives? It's too much for one movie.

I think that some things should be left as what they were intended to be. I still would love for Disney Channel to start rerunning the Aladdin show, however. I miss good Iago.

Pleasure Intertwined with Pain

I didn't really know what to write about today, but I can't skip a day. I have only begun, and I refuse to break my promise to myself to write every day this early on. So I decided to do a review of a movie that makes me laugh every time I watch it. It has a little bit of everything: action, dance sequences, Jesus... Why, yes, I am referring to the musical version of Reefer Madness.

Now to understand this brillant musical, you need to know a little background information on the original. Reefer Madness was a propaganda film from the mid-30's warning parents about the dangers of the "new drug menace" marajuana. It has since then become a cult classic and therefore spawned the musical version in the late-90's.

The musical was done exclusively for Showtime, but it became a classic in it's own right and was eventually released on DVD. I picked it up at Blockbuster on fateful night since I was a fan of the original. (What can I say? I love those kinds of things. Best one is definitely Marajuana from 1936, however.) I was laughing from the first minute until the end.

Reefer Madness is a fantastic movie due to two main reasons. It is extremely funny and makes all the right jokes about the naivity of the government at that time. However, it is also a good musical with catchy songs that are great even when standing alone. Romeo and Juliet has to be one of the best love songs from a musical... even if Jimmy and Mary don't realize that Romeo and Juliet never get together at the end.

[SPOILERS AHEAD] My favourite part of the movie is that Alan Cumming plays a wide range of characters. In the style of the original, he plays the lecturer who is telling the story of Jimmy and Mary to a small town. Throughout the movie, however, he also appears as a man at the party in the reefer den, Satan and Franklin D. Roosevelt. It's just a small touch that I love.

I recommend this movie to everyone. If you like musicals, comedies or movies that are just plain crazy... this movie has it. Plus, how can you go wrong when one of the songs is called Listen to Jesus Jimmy? I mean, seriously? It's boss.

Grab Some Popcorn

Dr. S and Dr. E would be proud of this entry. I started this blog because "young journalists should be savvy in all mediums ripe for journalistic writing" which includes blogging. I was told to start one on something that you enjoy talking about, so of course, I did movies. Now I'm actually going to be able to tie this into something I've been discussing in my communication courses at school.

Is the medium truly the message? For instance, say you wait to see a movie at home instead of going to the theater to see it. How you perceive this movie is going to be totally different, that part of the theory I agree with 100%. But does it really change the intended message or moral of the movie? I'm a bit iffy on that.

First, let's look at the differences you'd encounter at a theater as opposed to relaxing in your Laz-E Boy. The most obvious would be the 40 foot screen versus your 40 inch television. (Yeah, I know most people have giant wide screens these days, but stick with me.) Thanks, however, to DVD technology, movies are shown in their orignal widescreen format and the home viewer no longer misses parts of the background due to the sides being cut off.

At home you can easily be distracted since you can pause a movie, but isn't it really the same at the theater? It's actually even worse, if you leave to get some more popcorn or to go to the bathroom, you miss the movie instead of being able to pause it? Wouldn't it be better to have the message interrupted for a few minutes instead of missing vital dialogue?

Either way, if you cough over the extra four bucks to see a movie in the theater instead of waiting another three months to watch it at home, there will be advantages and disadvantages. Is the message changed? I don't really think so. You will get out of the movie what you wish to get out of it, and I think that's all that truly matters.

Don't Turn Out the Lights

Recently, alot of horror movie classics have been remade. It seems that people believe the new effects are going to improve the stories. I don't want new effects. I miss when blood was slightly pink instead of red. I miss monsters who had to sit through four hours of make up instead of wearing a green screen suit and being edited on the computer later.

I was able to deal with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I was never a huge fan of the original. I did quite enjoy the scene when they enter the room with all the bones everywhere. That was good and creepy. I was totally fine with The Hills Have Eyes. I hated the first one, and I hated the remake. I started to get a bit peeved when they did Halloween. Rob Zombie stayed true to the original, but it seems pointless then.

I, however, lost my cool when they remade Friday the 13th. I refused to go see, and then I find out from a friend that it's not even an actual remake. [SPOILERS AHEAD] The killer is Jason who, we all know, didn't show up until the second film. His mother, Mrs. Vorhees, was the killer in the first one.

If you're going to destroy a perfectly good movie, at least get your monster's legend right. Sheesh. Turns out the only things they kept was the setting (which is pretty much the same in all Jason movies) and a couple of the deaths. That's just proposterous! It just can't be the same without Kevin Bacon, bad lighting and big hair.

This, however... This is the final straw. Next summer, the Nightmare on Elm Street remake is to hit teathers. NOOOOO!!!! I love that movie so much. It is hands down my favourite horror film. (Not counting Hard Candy. It is tough to say is that truly horror, thriller, or just in a league of it's own.) Only Robert Englund can be Freddy Kruegar. I don't like this new guy. Apparently he played Rorschach in Watchmen. Big deal. That doesn't make you qualified to don the hat of horror's most recognizable (and incrediably scary) face.

[SPOILERS AHEAD] NOES just simply cannot be remade. There is nothing to improve on. The scene where Johnny Depp is pulled into his bed and then enough blood for at least 20 bodies comes spurting out is priceless. Most definitely best death scene in horror history. I can't wait to see how they ruin that.

I think that Hollywood needs to stop with the remakes again. Is there truly no more original ideas out there? Horror movies aren't that hard to write. That's why there were so many coming out during the 70's and 80's. They were quick to write and made enough to turn a profit and start work on the next one. (Or two or thirty.) If they are so desperate for the next big movie monster, instead of creating a new face for Freddy, try making up your own. We all fear something. Use it. And leave my Freddy alone.

The King of the 90's

We all sometimes wonder when watching a TV show or movie from our childhood "I wonder what happened to him?" Well, thanks to IMDb, I don't actually ask that, but I know how you feel. There were alot of talented actors in movies I love from the 90's and they just disappeared. Or make guest appearances on every Law and Order.

One actor in paticular that stands out for me is Devon Sawa. He made three awesome movies, and then he just started to fade... away...

Now he did make some movies after the three I'm referring to, (Hold yer horses. I'm going to talk about those soon enough.) but he could have been become a household name. He had the talent. Instead of starring in the next blockbuster, though, he's starring in B horror films.

Obviously, I'm alright with that. I do have my soft spot for cheesy horror movies, and I do love keeping a good thing to myself. (We all know how I feel when bands I love make it big and their songs are played on MTV while drunk orange girls get naked.) I'm just slightly confused.

From 1998 to 2000, Sawa made three films that I absolutely love and watch countless times. One of them being SLC Punk (which I blogged about several days ago) as Sean. How could anyone forget those glorious bright green liberty spikes? His performance was hilarious yet heartbreaking. I seriously believe he made that movie.

Then he began the trend of the horror films. He starred in another cult classic called Idle Hands. Idle Hands is a little bit thriller, a little bit zombedy and a little bit typical slacker movie. It never fails to make me laugh, and I'm pretty sure it helped fuel my love for zombies.

Lastly, probably his most popular film, Final Destination. He had some success with this film that spawned three sequels (two that are equally as good and one that should have stayed on the cutting room floor). It is such a unique concept that definitely creeped me out as a nine year old who was already afraid of flying. It has also led to me and my sister having many debates of what we'd do in that situation.

Okay, granted, none of these films were brillant. They rely on either cheap thrills or lowest common denominator humour. I love them none-the-less. And it definitely doesn't take away from Sawa's talent. He was, and still is, a great actor. I guess the B horror movie genre is extremely lucky to have him. And I guess I get to keep him to myself.

Summer Is Near

I have been told from my friends that my movie reviews are, and I quote, "peepants worthy". For that, I thank you. That made my day. I've also been told by a friend that (500) Days of Summer was awful. I demanded an explanation. (She's working on it.) So, for my part, I shall review my favourite movie for today's entry. This is dedicated to you KJ and Kel.

Yes, I said favourite. I know it only came out last year, but I was literally blown away from the first five minutes of this movie. I went to see it three times in the theater, and it wasn't even showing in my town. I figured since I saw the ads that I would enjoy it. I am a huge Zooey Deschanel fan (If this is news to you, where have you been?) and it looked sweet and quirky. (Just how I like my indie/romance/comedies.)

First of all, I loved that it was shot out of chronilogical order. I don't think the movie would have had the same charm with the story being told in order. We, along with Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) have to see the memories the way he remembers them... not as they truly were. As the movie goes on, we keep seeing these same circumstances, however, and we notice the small changes. [SPOILERS AHEAD] How the reason he was hugging Summer (Zooey Deschanel) wasn't because they were simply showing affection, but because Summer was crying.

Once again, I'm going to gush about Chloe Grace Moretz who is brillant as Tom's little sister, Rachel. Tom goes to his younger sister for advice as much as he talks to his friends (Geoffrey Arend and Matthew Gray Gubler). She is his voice of reason, and is the only one who can tell Tom that Summer wasn't the one and to look differently at his memories of her. I really would have loved that they included her interview in the Documentary of Love. It was cut out, and if you own/rent the DVD, I highly suggest you watch that for her view on love.

[SPOILERS AHEAD] There are just so many random things that I love about this movie from the consistent blue colour scheme (Marc Webb explained that it was to bring out the blue of Deschanel's eyes) to the dance sequence after Tom and Summer sleep together the first time to Paul's (Gubler) one line during the Documentary of Love. It literally makes me tear up every time.

For once, a realistic love film that shows that the girl of your dreams might not be what you really need.

Sex and Violence

I was discussing the entry I posted about movies that always make me cry with my sister, Nica. She agreed with them all, and we even started tearing up discussing how we would always watch Ever After together on days my father wasn't feeling well. To paraphrase a character from one of the other movies that always makes me cry, sometimes we would need a good cry.

She said, though, "Why didn't you include SLC Punk? That movie always makes you cry." That is very true. I was thinking about it, and I realized that all the movies I wrote about were ones that did have happy endings despite the sadness. SLC Punk doesn't have a happy ending. Not even a bittersweet one. In fact, it's a very open ended ending... much like real life.

I have always loved this movie since the first time I saw it. I can admit that it's not actually fantastic. They got so caught up making sure it was different than most movies with it's storytelling. Sure, it gives our narrator Stevo (Matthew Lillard), alot of character. He gets off track telling stories. He'll go off on tanjents and we find ourselves watching a 10 minute scene that doesn't have much to do with the main plotline.

But at least it's an interesting tanjent. Alot of the critisism concerning the film is that it takes the ideas from other films such as Trainspotting, but it does not come through as well. Sure, this movie does get lost in itself. I get lost in that world too, though. This may sound cliche, but I know what it feels like to be the kid who's just wandering around and after going to shows and hanging around all day has lost it's fun, you think "What do I do with my life?"

I think that SLC Punk isn't a movie everyone should see. I don't think it's a classic, but it will always have it's cult following. It's a good movie with a can do attitude, it's fair share of mistakes, but all the fun that an independent movie should.

I'm going to Disney World!

I, like many children across the world, grew up with Disney movies. I was so obsessed with Aladdin while growing up that I had every toy and accessory related to it. I even had the Jasmine costume which I wore constantly. What can I say? I was three years old and it was my first real obsession. Hello early signs of OCD.

Now that I'm older, I still like the Disney classics. I watch Aladdin all the time, and it's not just because I watch it with my little cousins. I would of my own free will as well. However, being older, I have noticed something about Disney films - the old and the new. A running theme of sorts.

There is always either a. a missing parent or parents or b. the parent(s) are unloving or oblivious to what the main character wants or needs. Concerning this first observation, the fear of losing a parent is one of the most common fears in children. Loss of a parent is the biggest stress causing factor in young children today. (Crase, Darrell & Crase, Dixie R.) Also, we all know from experience how important it is to feel accepted by your parents.

Is Disney trying to scare little kids? I don't really think so. As a child, I never really took notice that Aladdin had no family. Adults were still a mystery to me and if I didn't seem my gram often, I'd think that my parents materalized out of thin air. (Because babies were bought at the baby store, duh.) I wasn't all hung up over the fact that the sultan didn't seem to take into consideration that Jasmine didn't want to get married. I like to think I was mature enough to realize that people would disagree on points, but I'm sure it was more so I just wanted the plot to move along so I could get to the songs.

I think that this running theme is just a way of connecting children to these film's. They feel for Simba because his father died when he was young and therefore grew up without father figure. They feel for Pinocchio who has no family and has never known one until Geppetto adopts him. I firmly believe that the best movie characters are the ones who are realistic and that the audience can relate to. If you cannot relate to a character, how can you buy into the world the film maker is creating?

The Pills Had Me Spun

Back in eighth and ninth grade, Coco and I used to have intense movie marathons. We'd walk to Movie Gallery, rent a bunch of movies with a lose theme in mind, stay up all night and watch them all. The theme could be anything, but because we aren't too creative, it was usually more like 6 Degrees of [Insert Actor Here].

One night we were going to get I Heart Huckabees, so we picked up another Jason Schwartzman film that neither of us had heard of called Spun. By the time we got to it, Coco had fallen asleep. I figured "Looks pretty boring. Drug dealers, I know the drill. I'll watch it without her. She's not missing much."

She missed quite a bit. She has since then watched Spun, loved it and bought a crappy VHS tape of it from Wal-Mart that's edited. [SPOILERS AHEAD] Lucky her. She didn't have to see John Leguizamo with nothing on besides a sock on his penis. I hope for her sake they blurred his whole body out.

The movie has been critically acclaimed as a realistic portrayal of a drug addict's lifestyle. That may be very well true, but it has been done much more tastifully in such movies as Weirdsville.

The movie seems to try to gross out the viewer at every turn. The characters are all grungy. Cookie (Mena Suvari) has rotted teeth, Frisbee (Patrick Fugit) has acne that is constantly popping throughout the film... The list goes on.

If a film maker feels the need to appall the audience to make it memorable, then he obviously does not know what he's doing. It is possible to have people continue discussing your movie without playing the gross out card. That's what reality television is for.

Can you pass me a tissue?

I'm an overly emotional person. It doesn't really take too much to make me cry, so it goes without saying that there is a multitude of movies that can make me weep every viewing. Today, I'm just going to take about some of my favourite moving movies. Whether they make me cry because they're depressing, inspirational or because I'm laughing so hard, here are my favourite movies that bring tears to my eyes.

01. Big Fish - I know I mentioned this in a previous post. I stand by my statement that it is Tim Burton's finest. I went to see this in theaters back when the Gateway was still open with some friends for my birthday in sixth grade. I bawled my eyes out then. I still do every time I watch this movie. It has the most bittersweet ending of any movie I have ever watched. [SPOILERS AHEAD] I'm never sure to be crying because I'm sad because Edward (Albert Finney) is dying or because I'm so happy that all of his friends are showing up at the river. It's so beautifully shot that you believe that it is a fairy tale that you yourself have heard countless times as a child. Overall, an exceptional movie.

02. Garden State - I remember when I first made Coco watch this with me. Since it was written, directed and starred Zach Braff, she expected it to be funny like Scrubs. She yelled at me once it was over and we were both weeping uncontrollably since I "lied" to her. I never said anything about the fact that it was funny. Then again, I never told her it was sad. [SPOILERS AHEAD] Every time Andrew (Braff) tells Albert (Denis O'Hare) "Good luck exploring the infite abyss." and Albert replies "Hey, you too.", I start to tear up. By the time Andrew, Sam (Natalie Portman) and Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) are standing up on the van, screaming their lungs out into the pit, I'm crying as heavily as the rain is falling down around them.

03. Ever After - Yes, I'm a sucker for movies that involve story telling. This was one of, if not, me and my sister's favourite movies as children. We watched it repeatedly and could recite it word for word. (If I were to watch it right now, I probably still could.) The movie is the "real" story of Cinderella. A descendent of Danielle De Barbarac (Drew Barrymore) who was considered to be Cinderalla, is putting the Grimm Brothers in their place after they got the story wrong in their fairy tale collection. There was no fairy godmother, but rather, a quirky Leonardo da Vinci to offer guidance. One of the step sisters was actually quite nice to her. Oh, and sorry, but there were no singing mice. [SPOILERS AHEAD. Well, at least if you don't know the overall idea of the Cinderall story.] I cry from the scene where Danielle is humilated by Prince Henry (Dougray Scott) for lying to him about who she is pretty much until the end when those tears turn into tears of joy. (Because, of course Cinderella marries her Prince Charming.)

Well, those are just my top three favourite movies. Sure, I need to watch them with a box of tissues within reach. Sure, my nose may be a bit stuffed afterward. I think, though, that this is what makes them great. If a movie is able to move someone so much, I think it's done it's job.

"The river made me feel stuck."

My gram went to see every Elvis movie in the theater. You're probably wondering why I would start this entry off like this. Well, for one reason, I could then tell you about the awesome set of dishes she'd get. For a week, they'd hand out one piece of a set every time you went to see a movie. She still has them too.

That's not why, though. I started it off that way to prove a point. My gram is a huge Elvis fan. She has all his records, all his movies, she even has the Elvis Barbie doll. (Fangirl-ness runs in the family, apparently.) Anymore, though, people aren't as, shall we say, dedicated to actors.

Sure, we still all have our favourite actors, but does everyone go out of their way to see every movie they've been in? Not really. All these tweens that are in love with Robert Pattinson probably haven't bothered to rent Little Ashes.

Now call me old-fashioned... Or call me obsessive. Both would be correct. I have been renting every movie with one paticular actor in it since I first saw him. He is my favourite actor, and without bias, probably one of the best actors of our generation.

His name is Lou Taylor Pucci. You might not know that name, but I can guarantee you know the face. He starred in a little music video called Jesus of Surburbia. It's a shame that's probably all he'll be remembered for when he should be known for his fantastic work in movies such as The Go-Getter and Thumbsucker.

Thumbsucker was his first lead role, and it was the first movie I ever saw Pucci in. I was immediately in love. He puts everything into every character he plays. He always had long hair until Jesus of Surburbia. When they said they would give him a wig, he refused. He cut his hair short, dyed it black and spiked it as they wanted for Saint Jimmy. He is completely dedicated when it comes to the look and personality of the character he is playing.

I may sound like I'm gushing, and I am. I've been a huge fan of Pucci's since 2005, and I honestly do watch every movie he's been in even if I'm not interested. I sat through Fast Food Nation just because he had a bit role as some crazed vegan dude who wanted to free cows. Yeah, I'm not joking. It was so ridiculous, and to top it all off, the named him Paco. Seriously?

If you haven't seen a movie of his, you definitely must. First on my list would be The Go-Getter. It's such a great film with a unique concept, a great soundtrack (M. Ward and The Replacements) and fantastic cast besides Pucci to boot. (Zooey Deschanel and Jenna Malone co-star.)

So Bad It's Good

You know the phrase that something was "so bad that is was good"? I am a firm believer that movies can be so horrible that it makes them great. My love for cheesy films stems from a steady diet of Mystery Science Theater 3000 as a kid. It was, and still is to this day, my favourite television show. What's not to love about a bunch of guys riffing bad movies? It's fantastic.

However, in his book A Year at the Movies, Kevin Murphey (voice of Tom Servo and writer for MST3K) says that he doesn't like bad movies. He's never seen a movie that was so bad, he liked it. Granted, this man has made his living for over 20 years watching countless awful movies over and over again just to write a few funny jokes. For that, I am thankful, but I can see where he is coming from.

I still love bad movies though. I can watch them without the riffs, without the laughs. Why? Well, first off, I eventually adopted the ways of the MST3K crew and started riffing movies on my own. I now even riff television shows, commercials, music videos... It seems I can't watch anything without making jokes.

But there is something else. Why do I love bad movies so much? Obviously, I am a huge fan of independently made films. Big budgets, great computer graphics, well know Hollywood actors... I don't believe you need that to make a substationally good movie. I've become very cynical toward most movies these days. I don't give them a chance if their budget is like $8230948 million with a cornicopia of a big cast.

There is just something about anyone who wants to make a movie picking up a hand held camera, gathering a bunch of friends with different talents and making a movie together. You wouldn't have half of the classic horror movies out there if it wasn't for this DYI ethic. Do you know who we have to thank for that? Edward D. Wood Jr. Hands down, worst director, writer, producer and actor of all time. His film Plan 9 from Outer Space has been voted The Worst Movie of All Time thirty years in a row and rightfully so. The sets are made of cardboard, the actors don't know their lines (or refuse to say them), the acting is stilted, the writing is horrible.

Yet, this movie is a classic. Many directors cite Wood as influence including Tim Burton who immortalized Wood in the film Ed Wood starring Johnny Depp as the title character. (Great movie, by the way. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. It's Burton's second best - right after Big Fish.) It was his motivation to go out there and do what he loved to do. It's definitely inspirational.

So the next time you're at the movie store (or browsing Netflix) don't just overlook a film because you haven't heard of it. Give it a chance. Maybe it'll totally suck, or maybe you'll actually find a great movie that didn't get the credit it was due because Tom Cruise wasn't playing the lead. Or just maybe, it'll be so bad that it's good.

Be Yourself

Typecasting has been an issue in Hollywood since Day 1. Actors play one role, and then they are stuck playing that same idea of a character in every other movie they're in. Sure, that might seem to get boring, but think about it. It worked, didn't it? The Marx Brothers literally played the same characters in every one of their movies, and they will be remembered forever.

It has recently come to my attention while reading a review in EW on Youth in Revolt (that I have yet to see still, but it is on my list) that Michael Cera is being typecasted. Wow, you're just realizing that? Yes, he always plays the lovable nerd. Can we fault him for that? In a society where to be an "attractive" man you need to have washboard abs, a glowing tan and be 7 feet tall, Cera wasn't going to get any conventional roles in Hollywood.

This ideal man (the same goes for women) is not what the average person looks like. Cera is the average joe. The guy who sits next to you in math class. The clerk at the grocery store you shop at. He makes movies believable - something that mainstream movies have been missing for awhile.

Cera would have thrived if he continued to just stick with independently made films. For years, indie productions have been more realistic than Hollywood movies beccause the actors weren't built like Greek gods. They were characters that the audience could relate to, in all aspects.

However, Cera made a little movie called Superbad, and the rest if history. He had become a household name. Then, after being a critic's darling for a year or so, they go and chastize him for playing the same character over and over again. As I said, yes this is true. They think it's a bad thing, though. I say nay.

Why? Because each movie is completely different. For awhile, Hollywood was stuck in a rut. Every movie that was coming out was either a sequel, a super hero movie, a remake or a remake of a super hero movie sequel. While all the movies Cera has starred in aren't paticularly rememberable (How about Year One?), they are unique. Who cares if you can take Evan from Superbad, put him next to Nick from Youth in Revolot and the character reads the same? The movies are still just as good. People still pay good money to see them.

It seems that anymore actors are basically playing extensions of themselves. The big names will continue playing the sterotypical hunks and Cera and other members of his crew (Jonah Hill, Cristopher Mintz-Plasse, etc.) will continue to play the nerds. I guess it's true that high school never ends, but I'm proud to be in my clique. Nerd chic is back in.

Bloody Brillant

I went to see Kick-Ass tonight with my parents. You might think that I'm insane going to see a movie that the boards are calling one of the most violent and obscene movies this year, to which I would reply, you are correct. They loved it, however, even if my mom closed her eyes during alot of the action sequences.

When I say this movie is bloody brillant, I mean seriously. It's bloody and it's brillant. The concept is very cute. I mean, why can't every day people put on some spandex pants and fight crime? That's the question Dave asks, and hence the birth of the super hero Kick Ass.

Granted he's the title character, but I absolutely fell in love with Chloe Grace Moretz as the lovable yet deadly Hit Girl. Her father, Big Daddy, has spent the last six odd years basically training her to be a killing machine. Once Kick Ass has made it socially acceptable for super heroes to clean the New York streets, he unleashes her on the drug hounds who he swore to get his revenge.

While reading a review with Moretz in Entertainment Weekly (my movie review Bible), she talked about how her parents would kill her if they heard her using this language. She is one foul mouthed purple haired little girl, but she is totally my idol now.

Overall, this movie was hilarious and was alot of fun. The deaths, while gory and not for the faint of heart, were different and I was on the edge of my seat. (Figuratively, of course, because Movies 14 has nice coushy seats that I melt into. It's basically heaven.) Another movie that is definitely worth shelling out the eight dollars to go see. My faith in modern film making has been restored.

Young at Heart

I love watching children's films. They make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I would say young again, but I still am a kid. I mean, I would chose to watch Disney films over the latest raunchy comedy. (Then again, I watch those too.)

However, this is why I was extremely stoked to go see How to Train Your Dragon. I figured I'd just be waiting to rent it on DVD, but I was invited by my younger sister and her posse to go to the theaters to see it on Friday evening.

Now, I know I've knocked the 3-D craze in the past (New readers who haven't followed me on other sites: now you know.) I still hold steady to my opinion that it's sad they need to release every film in 3-D to get people to go to the theater. Usually the technology is not used to it's full extent and it still seems as cheesy as Friday the 13th 3 in 3-D. (Which I actually love. The scene where Jason crushes some guy's head and his eyeball shoots out... Classic.)

However, if you go to see Dragon, it MUST BE in 3-D. Instead of things randomly flying to you, the film makers used the 3-D to make the entire film so realistic. The characters may have been computer generated, yet they just seemed so real. I automatically fell in love with the dragon, Toothless. His big green eyes and protective nature toward Hiccup... just darling.

It was visually stunning, and I just cannot put it in words. The flying scenes were absolutely beautiful, and I felt like I was literally flying there with Hiccup on Toothless's back. Matt, my sister's boyfriend, was constantly reaching out pretending to be touching the clouds as Toothless was soaring.

All visual aspects aside, the film was spectacular without the technology. It was absolutely brillant and unique. It is the perfect children's movie. An alienated boy finds his true calling in life, friends and the acceptance of his father he so badly craved his whole life.


If you get the chance, you must MUST MUST go see this in theaters.