Karla

Paul Bernardo is probably one of the cruelest serial killers that ever existed. There is a relentless hate for this movie's portrayal of his victims. Yes, it is a greatly disturbing film, and my first comment to yuppie mothers people who are attacking this film from every angle is "Read the back of the box, morons." That being said, I would also like to say that I was completely disturbed by this film, yet I kept needing to see the rest of it. It will hook you in, believe me.

The movie initially had a lot of trouble getting produced, for obvious reasons, and it's also pretty well known that the director, Joel Bender, was a Grade A whack-job who still has a restraining order against him with the production executives at Quantum Entertainment, as well as many of the actors.
Karla is based on the real life killers Paul Bernardo (Misha Collins) and Karla Homolka (Laura Prepon). As most serial killer/rapist movies go, its alright. In most respects, this is a "modest" film, with only some very brief shots of a naked breast and no other frontal nudity. Even the major violence occurs in a rather Hitchcockian manner...recognized, but off-camera (although there are several scenes in which Karla is struck by Paul, but they are on par with a typical TV western). The majority of the story is told from the self-serving point of view of Karla herself. We are given no insight into what it must have been in their pasts that would lead them to commit such horrible acts.
I was VERY impressed by both Prepon and Collins. Now, I've only seen her as Donna in 'That 70's Show', but Prepon IS Karla Homolka, and although no Oscars were won for this film, she has undoubtedly impressed many critics who may have never suspected she had this talent within her. And I've only seen Collins in 24, Nip/Tuck, and (of course) Supernatural, but by the time the film reached the first perversion, he turns out to be a VERY good actor, although I would argue that Prepon gives a better performance.
Now, the film is narrated from real-life transcripts that Karla gave her psychiatrist, and many see that as a reason to distrust the movie. But the movie does NOT omit ANY of the evil deeds she committed. However, a LOT of the things Paul did are omitted in this brief 81 minutes movie - which is why I consider this a 'toned-down' version of the gruesome events.
I did not enjoy watching this movie because of its highly disturbing nature, but I felt drawn to keep watching each part of it to the end. And this movie will make you realize things about yourself. I realized that no matter how many times you tell yourself, there is always an evil, dark, dirty, nasty, awful person inside each and every human being. I like to consider myself a good, clean person, for the most part, but it was so disturbing and wrong that I HAD to watch more.
All in all, I think I'd give this a Mehh+ for being engaging and for great acting, but it was just too weird for me to see again.

The Hangover

Most great comedies are based on fundamental truths -- we find a deal of humour in the illumination of our own human tragedy. Office Space is funny, for example, because we've all worked that type of job, put up with that type of boss, and suffered that type of monotonous everyday boredom.
Todd Phillips' new movie, The Hangover, is as aptly titled as anything else released this year: it's about a Vegas bachelor party gone horribly awry, in which the groom inexplicably disappears, no one can remember a damned thing, and Mike Tyson wants his tiger back.
Yes, we've all had those nights, though perhaps not to such extremes (that's where the exaggeration of comedy serves us). The Hangover is funny because it takes this cultural ritual -- an American tradition; something almost all of us can relate to -- and finds genuine humour in the pain of its aftermath.
I concede that bachelor party movies are not in short supply; the genre (if it is, indeed, a genre) should have probably both begun and ended with the Tom Hanks flick almost three decades ago. But The Hangover wisely studies the day after rather than the day itself; this is funnier because the plot works backwards, without tacky flashbacks, and much of the evening in question is left to our imagination.
While it would be misleading to claim this is a brilliant film (in either regard – as comedy or character study), it's an assured picture that finds its footing immediately and achieves a surprising level of sustenance throughout its running time. And frankly, let's be honest, this is a breath of fresh air: it's one of the best R-rated comedies of the decade, and certainly the most uproarious since Superbad was released two years ago. Most R-rated comedies produced today are defiant; the R-rating has become a hindrance to film studios' sensibilities – everything is PG-13, saving the shameless Unrated schpeel for the DVD cut. The occasional theatrically-released R-rated comedy, as such, is infrequently modest; the ads stress the rating to remind us what we've been missing. For every legitimate offer, such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall, we're treated to movies like College that attempt to lure us into theaters based on the promise of raunchy decadence. The problem is that it's all so coldly calculated; these films are not funny because a majority of the time they are simply lazy and dishonest.
The simplest reason for The Hangover's success in being genuinely funny is the fact that it achieves a rare balance of character and vulgarity. We laugh at the characters' misfortunes because we like them, we empathize with them, and they are distinctly actualized. Are they stereotypical? To a certain degree, sure: we have the repressed pussy-whipped guy who obeys his girlfriend's every command (Ed Helms); the weird John Belushi-esquire figure who speaks in non sequiturs and naïve absurdities (Zach Galifianakis); and the womanizer whose confidence renders him automatic leader of the group (Bradley Cooper). It's a testament to the strengths of these actors that they make their characters endearing and believable, even in the face of total lunacy.
Helms has been an underrated highlight of the American Office for the past several years, never quite earning the praise he deserves. His character on the show is played with pitch-perfect perversity: he's not overtly creepy (like the program's other weirdo, Creed), but rather subtly unnerving. Helms invests a great deal of nuance into what is ostensibly a throwaway, supporting goofball; this movie, if nothing else, will justly reveal his talents.
Cooper uses his looks to his advantage: it's funny to watch handsome people exploit their securities. Cooper essentially turns your typical Leading Man figure into a bumbling idiot, self-absorbed and clueless. It's effective, he's got great chemistry with the other guys, and it's fun to watch such an immoral and ruthless character take center stage in a mainstream comedy.
Galifianakis, a cult comedian who I've admired for years, has been struggling quite a while. Not many people other than myself and Sean Penn saw his 2001 comedy Out Cold, probably because it wasn't all that great; but he was easily the most amusing aspect of the picture. He once described himself as being gifted by the opposite of the Midas touch, with more than a few canceled TV shows to his credit (including Comedy Central's unheralded Dog Bites Man), but it seems his persistence has finally paid off: he has discovered, at last, a movie of strong enough quality to reflect his talents. Galifianakis has a fair share of the film's funniest dialogue; as far as fat funny guys go, many of them (such as Chris Farley) made the ill-fated mistake of playing dumb in a sharp fashion: hurtful quips and silly one-liners, all self-aware. Galifianakis plays his character straight and the laughs are subsequently heartier; when he embraces his brother-in-law while nude, the act seems innocently awkward rather than deliberately awkward, and that's what makes it so funny. He's described in The Hangover, by another character, as a child with a beard. Imagine how funny it is when he names a Caucasian baby Carlos, without any shred of condescension or knowing humour.
The Hangover is surely destined to become the sleeper comedy hit of 2009, and, more likely, a cult flick in the years to come. It's more deserving of such acknowledgment than many recent successes, and while we may live in an era saturated with unnecessary sequels, I actually left The Hangover hoping to see these guys again. And that's a rare feeling these days.
All in all, I give this fim a WIN for being incredibly funny without being too dumb...very entertaining!

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

A few moments stand out: the countdown to takeoff at Air and Space Museum(until spoilsport Larry stops it)is exciting. Oh, I wanted to see all those planes and rockets in action! The moving photos and paintings were good (if stolen from Rowling) - why were two of the Art Institute of Chicago's works (Nighthawks and American Gothic) at the 'wrong' museum? Effective when Larry and Amelia pop into one b/w 1945 photo, only to be followed by the Bad Guys. Plus - Amy Adams, cute as a bug and sassy, was PERFECT as Amelia Earhart. She is the best thing in the film! Negatives: this film was poorly written, even for a sequel. People kept whispering several times "But why/how..." only to have an on-screen character EXPLAIN x,y,or z. To me, that is lazy film-making. Whole scenes, too many really, simply NOT FUNNY. The theater was quiet for too much of the film.

Not a classic - just a money-making bit of summer fluff.

PS - I got distracted a bit with the game "How many actors from "The Office" can I spot in this film?"

All in all, I give this film a Mehh for being mildly entertaining, but not one of the best films I've seen. The first one was much better...

Up

If there's a list of great computer animation movies of all time, Pixar would dominate most of the top positions. Great story, great voice talent, great timing, great for all ages. It'd be hard to pick just one above another and perhaps another viewing of Up may be in order to figure out where I'd place it among so much stellar work.

Up is by far the most emotional human drama of any Pixar movies thus far, very heavy, so much so if you're looking for pure fun with some jaw-dropping chase and/or thematic scenes and no downer moments, Up may not be for you. It's the only time I can remember being in ANY animated movie where there was sniffles and watery eyes within the first 10 minutes of the movie. There's an undercurrent of life after losing a loved one in this movie, which I don't feel gives anything away. It's pretty heavy subject matter, Pixar handles it, like they do everything they touch, incredibly well, but it doesn't make it any less sad to have the material threaded throughout much of the movie you're reminded of it, but I suppose it's up to one's own interpretation of loss and how to place it in your life that perhaps will have an emotional effect on you.

Story is what makes a great movie great. Without story, you don't really have anything, maybe some effects, some action, maybe some cute or clever sight gags, maybe some laughs, hopefully some emotion, where Pixar shines above all others in animation and over a good 99% of the movies out there is they can intertwine it all and do it seemingly effortless, which is an incredible feat. To do this in a few movies is one thing, but Pixar has pretty much nailed this now for their entire career of making movies, that's just simply unprecedented.

Up is a great movie either way you slice it. It's nice when a movie hits on all cylinders and elicits such a range and emotional reaction people who don't know each other in a packed room all gasp, laugh, cry, and applaud together. Great movies however can do that and Up is truly a great movie.

All in all, I give this movie a WIN+ for simply being one of the best animated features I have ever seen.