just got to reading some rotten tomatoes reviews. thoughts:

1. the fact that this movie is rated lower than wall-e is shameful. a crime against humanity. etc.

2. of the 12 reviewers who gave it the rotten rating, 9 are from new york. i realize that more reviewers probably live in new york, but 75%? plus, in the top crtics section, the only negative reviews were from the wall street journal, new york magazine, and the new yorker. i have a message for all of new york: GET OVER YOURSELVES. i literally will never trust anything you ever review again. and as for you new yorker: i liked your obama fist jab cover, but now you’re dead to me.

if people ranked movie trailers, this might be the best one i’ve ever seen.

i am going to review it, sort of.

i’m not going to go into any sort of detail about why i liked this movie, but i just wanted to get on the record saying that THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR, AND I THINK I MIGHT JUST QUIT ACTION/SUPERHERO MOVIES FOR THE REST OF THE SUMMER, MAYBE FOR LIFE.

these are the only reasons i can imagine people would say they didn’t like this movie:
1. you are trying to seem like you haven’t been swayed by the death of heath ledger.
2. you want to be “different.” (you probably dress ironically, in some way)
3. you have no soul.
4. you have no taste.
5. you want to be punched in the stomach and the mouth.

really, those are the only things i can think of.

taking into account the giant line we had to wait in to get into the movie (45 minutes before start time) and the fact that every showing was sold out tonight, i predict that dark knight EASILY manhandles spider-man 3 at the top box office opening weekend ranking.

i’d also like to mock the idiots who came to opening night of the biggest movie of the year 5 minutes before it starts. and then they get all indignant about having to sit in the first row. obviously you had the foresight to buy the tickets in advance, but not enough to show up 15-30 (or 45) min early? way to be.

anyway, go see dark knight. easily and unequivocally a 5-star film.

going to the 8:30 showing since the 7pm was sold out ON TUESDAY. do you think 7:30 is early enough to get there? i just don’t know.

i won’t review this because it probably won’t affect whether you see it or not. unless it’s terrible, then maybe i’ll say so. i leave you with this amazing image, courtesy of sean.

i’m exhausted after mounting a spirited defense of hancock, but i just need to acknowledge on this blog the fact that i saw hellboy 2. what everyone else has said is pretty much correct: it’s got a solid plot with beautiful visuals, although i think del toro indulges himself a little too much in his aesthetic talents. selma blair (michigan alumna!) can be pretty awful at times, and i totally called how the bad guy would be defeated.

some notes about myself and the previews:
1. i really dislike punching (but yay for swords).
2. i don’t find big monsters scary or interesting, but god help me if earth is ever attacked by small but numerous creepy crawlies. i’m not even scared of individual spiders and bugs, but when they attack en masse … gross. kind of reminds me of the red ant scene of indiana jones, which was by far the scariest.
3. is it just me, but is death race (below) the exact same movie as running man, but with cars? and for the record, i think running man is one of the governator’s best movies to date.

4. between death race and babylon a.d. (below), there are a lot of movies preaching “it’s kill, or be killed.” this looks terrible.

5. lastly, michelle yeoh needs to stop playing female ninja warriors in american movies (babylon and the mummy 3). girl, you’re better than that.

never have i been so angry at the aggregation of film critics as i was after watching hancock. only 37% fresh on rotten tomatoes? what? this movie was MUCH better than that suggests, and maybe this is where i really begin to lose credibility as an amateur reviewer entirely, but i dare say i might have really liked this movie.

it’s impossible for me to defend it w/ out spoiling stuff, but after much thought about why it’s been so poorly received, i’m convinced there is a certain type of person who will enjoy hancock. i am one of those people.

warning: if you read further, you may be mildly spoiled, but most likely not.

you will probably like hancock if:
1. you have a well-developed ability to suspend disbelief.
2. you don’t need an obvious villain to enjoy a superhero movie.
3. you liked unbreakable. more so, you liked unbreakable better than sixth sense. (one guy compares hancock to the misunderstood starship troopers. point taken, but i see more similarities to m. night’s follow-up.)
4. you like buffy or angel (the shows), and you especially liked the epic love story between the two (the characters).
5. you really like epic love stories, in general.
6. you have ever used concepts from chemistry or physics to analogize a plot point in a movie.
7. you like graphic novels, specifically, neil gaiman’s “sandman” series or alan moore’s “watchmen.”

don’t get me wrong, this movie is FAR from perfect. critics are correct to say it’s split into two parts — almost different movies — and if it was better executed, the two halves would be more effectively reconciled. sometimes the scenes dragged, and perhaps most bothersome is how the film has a partial message that irritated my femi-nazi leanings.

but i still recommend this movie, especially if you said yes to any of the criteria above. jimmy made a good point when he noticed among all the negative reviews that there is little consensus on what part of the movie was bad. some liked the beginning; some liked the end. some loved will smith’s character; others found him obnoxious. the discrepancies go on, but it’s clear this isn’t your typical 37% movie.

final rating? 4 out of 5 stars, but i might be giving it a .5 boost just to compensate for all the haters out there.

fresh from the foggy shores of san francisco, i return with stories of fourth of july antics and anthropomorphic animal statues. but first, a photo of me looking wistfully and patriotically at the golden gate bridge. i love america!

honestly, i’m too tired (read: redeye flight) to blog much more, but i felt as if i should get the good ol’ nubby fingers ready for my ironic take on a typical family vacay. i’m off to finish “atonement,” which i bought at the worst-ever airport bookstore. book’s pretty good, although i’m always embarrassed to carry around a novel that has the characters from the movie on the cover, but apparently that’s the only thing air passengers want to buy and read.

also sad is the fact this is the first time i’ll be using the “books” tag on this blog. yikes. gotta read more.

reviews and recaps in 10 words or fewer.

wanted
recap: jolie crushes mcevoy. bullets curve. mcevoy becomes badass, crushes everyone.

review: gratuitously violent, but surprisingly funny. less dialogue, please.

4 stars.

questions for those who saw the movie: why are all assassins the same height? who would have thought mcevoy had a HOT BODY? a young edward norton? a mystical loom, really? who casted common as an assassin? why must there always be a nude angelina shot? (disclosure: i have not seen a mighty heart. too soon?)

wall-e
recap: battlestar meets brave new world meets terminator, but for kids.

review: lovely love story. way too many fat people.

4 stars.

questions: why does eve remind me of japanese anime? did anyone else think “cast away?” why is that peter gabriel song so damn catchy?

i will probably get pilloried for giving these two movies the same star ratings (out of five), but after being visually and aurally assaulted during wanted, it was hard to focus on wall-e’s slower pace. maybe i’d think differently if i saw the robot movie first, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

if you’re wondering, i did a two-for-one double feature tonight–and, no, i didn’t find anyone to see wanted with me. i went alone. everyone else’s loss.