There are some directors that invoke immediate responses from movie-goers, good and bad.  Quentin Tarantino is one of those directors.  Over the years, people have tried to reconcile the director with the bad actor, as well as try to determine what the underlying genius is that others talk about.  One thing that all can agree on is that he LOVES movies; I doubt that there is a bigger fan of cinema among directors today (or past) that idolize the craft the way he does.  It is this love that generates a number of the genre-driven pieces we have seen from him.

All of his movies have certain mileposts:

• A strong female character or a female character wronged – the exception is Reservoir Dogs, which had no women.
• Some homage to the 70s – music, look of the film, actors, story
• VIOLENCE – lots and lots of bloodshed; the kind that would make Freddy go “That may be over the top”.  I am convinced that if Tarantino did not have directing as a career then he would be America’s biggest mass murder – so much rage for such a small man.

Watching his movies requires some planning.  The experience is always heightened by going when all of his extreme fans are going.  It creates a buzz in the air and allows you to get in the mood for a rollercoaster ride.

Basterds, as a movie, reminds of an improv game played at SAK Comedy Lab called Narrative Collage.  In this game, the focus shifts from character to character as each story is told until all of the stories intertwine.  In Basterds, we have three main characters to focus on:

• Shoshanna – the wronged female character
• Aldo – Brad Pitt’s commando leader
• Hans Landa – the villain and ultimately the glue that holds this movie together.

There are many other characters, but they serve one of these three stories.  What unfolds is not so much a movie, but an episodic show.  Most episodes stand without support, while others do nothing but lengthen the time (2 1/2 hours).  Some quibble at the “revisionist” history, which shows that they miss the point.  This is a movie about what ifs.  Who cares if it is not historically accurate?  Additionally, there is the usual dark humor scattered throughout the dialog, creating laughter at horrific sights.

So what didn’t I like?

• Accents – if you can’t do an accent, then don’t do it.  Pitt’s was awful, even as an exaggeration
• Lulls – the middle is too slow – cut some dialog, add some action – we did not need Mike Meyers as a British General…
• Use the Basterds – if you title the movie after them, then have them doing stuff longer than 30 minutes; most of their scenes were in the trailers…

My advice:  Go see it on the big screen if you are a fan; otherwise catch it via cheaper alternatives while you “have a glass of that delicious milk…”

There are some genres that audiences will flock to, regardless of how many movies Hollywood makes.  For me, one of those genres is the mobster/gangster movie.  Throw in Johnny Depp and it is a good bet I will check it out.

Public Enemies is based on John Dillinger’s adult life.  When it starts, we see him at the peak of his bank-robbing days.  What follows is a fairly decent movie that tracks his tragic fall.  The movie has a gritty look and you feel rooted in reality.  The only downside is that the pacing was a bit slow at times.  The casting was good and the story delivered on its promises.

My advice:  Check it out one afternoon during a matinee – it is not the typical summer action flick…

Lisa wrote a good review of this movie back in May (check it out), and I agree with a lot of the points she has.

Overall, I liked this movie and had fun watching it.  Adrien Brody was brooding and emo as ever, but it was Mark Ruffalo’s performance I enjoyed the most.  For once, he was not the “nice guy next door”.  He and Bang Bang made the movie fun amidst some heavier storylines.

My advice:  Check it out when it hits DVD – which should be soon…

The notion of what is funny on film has changed over the decades from the time of Chaplin to today.  Back then, ol’ Charlie would just find the absurdity of life in small things.  As movies moved into talking pictures, verbal gags began to overtake the physical, but the true masters still found a balance (i.e Abbott and Costello or The Three Stooges).  The 60s and 70s saw movies entering into the world of double entendres and sex – and we never looked back.

So what happens when the kids raised on the comedies of the 70s and 80s grow up?  They continue the trends in the movies we see in the late 90s and 2000s.  The American Pie series helped our raunch needs, but a new comedy trend was on the rise.  Those of us who were kids in the 80s were now adults and we wanted a mixture of the raunch with adult humor.  We also wanted some dark humor.  Ben Stiller led the charge and opened the doors for a steady stream of dependable comedies.  Behind the scenes was Jud Apatow.

Apatow, much like Joss Whedon, struggled to find broad audiences for his material on TV, but he made some great cult classics.  With his films, he has taken an aspect of life and looked at the details and absurdity of it.  He doesn’t try to be raunchy; rather he lets the material stand with no apology.

So, opening day for Funny People had me meeting Heather, Lisa, David, and Ben at the AMC Altamonte for an afternoon matinee.  The trailers were decent, as were our seats.

Funny People is about a comic (Adam Sandler) who has a terminal illness looking for a way to survive and an up-and-coming comic (Seth Rogen) who ends up taking care of Sandler.  Yet the story was even more complex.  Apatow chooses to also explore lost love and professional jealousies, and does so without cheating any of the subplots.

What really works is the amount of attention to making this as real as possible.  By using footage of Adam Sandler’s early years and some of Leslie Mann’s first commercial gigs, the audience is able to have an instant connection with the characters.  What could have been improved is the pacing of the second half – it was significantly slower than the first half.

My advice:  good afternoon movie, full price if you have already seen Harry Potter……

Ryan Reynolds has been doing a great job of moving away from his crazier “Van Wilder” days into more leading man roles befitting his age and range.  Last year, he jumped in the romantic comedy waters with Definitely, Maybe; he does it again here with Sandra Bullock, an actress that does many of them with few home-run successes.

The plot revolves around a professional woman who needs a husband so that she can stay in the country.  Enter Reynolds, her executive assistant.  As a way to get to know him, she accompanies him to Alaska to meet the family and hijinx ensue.  The movie is cotton-candy fluff wrapped around predictability.

What saves this movie is the casting.  Craig T. Nelson playing the gruff father character he mastered while doing the show Coach; Mary Steenburgen as the mother trying to hold things together; and Betty White as the grandmother who almost steals the show.  I say almost because Oscar Nunez from The Office is the true show-stealer, hands down.

My advice:  dollar theater or matinee; full-price date movie if you need one – otherwise, DVD is fine…