The plot:

The verdict: This movie is fun, pure and simple. It never takes itself too seriously, with worrying about how the zombie virus came from, or dealing with the existential dread that the world is ending. The characters in this movie are loners by nature, and do very well for themselves because of it (also, there are lessons on the value of proper cardio training when there’s the distinct possibility you’re going to be chased by flesh-eating ghouls at any moment).

The movie plays out like kind of like the video game “Dead Rising” (which was itself based on “Dawn of the Dead”), and I mean that in the best possible way, because “Dead Rising” rocked. Thematically, the film is reminiscent of “Shaun of the Dead,” but a much-more Americanized version of it (complete with “zombie apocalypses are no time to be stingy when it comes to ammunition” lessons). There’s not as much gore as you might expect, although my wife might disagree with that statement (she’s more of a “traveling pants” kinda gal, whereas I think that film would have been much better if the pants would have traveled of their own volition across the countryside, but I digress). All the actors in general, and Woody Harrelson in particular, seem to be having a great time, and it translates to the audience very nicely. I’m already waiting for the sequel, and if they’d like to make a really good video game from this film, I’d be down with that, too. Who doesn’t like zombies (in theory)?

Interesting Tidbits:

• The idea of “Zombieland” was intended to be a pilot for a television series, and was sold as a spec script for CBS (!) in 2005. The first third of the film was to be the first episode, and the remainder would have been the second episode. When CBS chose to pass on the idea (sure, Angela Lansbury can stumble across upwards of 200 corpses in “Murder She Wrote,” but zombies every week would be too much, I suppose). Sony TV picked up the idea as a two-hour made-for-TV film back-door pilot, but the idea would have been too big for that, so a full-fledged film was commissioned. The “Zombie Kill of the Week” was a leftover from the proposed television series. I’ve heard far worse ideas, and seen far worse shows on television; seriously, step away from the vampires, people.

• Not to give away the celebrity cameo, but the writers thought of using Patrick Swazye (which would have been a really unfortunate turn of event for the filmmakers), Mark Hamill and Jean Claude Van Damme (one of the lines would have been “Hey! WWJCVDD?”)

• Why does the amusement park at the end still have power? Well, the film is set out west (although it was actually filmed in Georgia), and Hoover Dam would provide power for that area for about three years without human intervention (Thanks, History Channel’s “Life After People”!)

The plot:

The verdict: This is one of those stories that, if it weren’t based in truth, it would fall apart because no one would buy these characters. It’s a good movie, but the marketing was pretty inaccurate. From the trailers and commercials (and even the poster), you would think this film is going to be a laugh-a-minute farce into the world of big business; it’s almost a character study of a fascinatingly flawed man, and if he’s behaving because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, or because he just can’t help himself. While there’s humor in it, it’s not as overstated as you might be expecting. That’s the key to enjoying this film – don’t go in expecting what you’re expecting, and you should have a fine time.

Interesting Tidbits:

• In 2000, the NPR program “This American Life” spent an hour speaking with Kurt Eichenwald, who wrote the book The Informant ( A True Story), which this movie is based upon. Listen to “The Fix Is In” here.

• Screenwriter Scott Z. Burns also wrote the screenplay for “The Bourne Ultimatum,” also staring Damon. These are two very, very different movies. Not an explosion or a shakey-cam shot to be had here.

The Plot:

The Verdict: The plot of the film is simple, and in no way groundbreaking. The film’s strength is in the WAY it’s being told. The fun thing about Quentin Tarantino films is that you can tell they were made by someone who loves movies; not cinema – movies. His voice is that of a fan who has, somehow, been allowed to live the dream of the perfect job, and “Inglourious Basterds” is a full-throated shout.

If you’re the squeamish type, this might not be the film for you. Visually, the film is very similar to “Kill Bill,” from the “chapter” titles to the sometimes over-the-top violence. There are, however, scenes that are primarily dialog that go on, that would, in a hands of a less-confident director, become tiresome. I never felt that in this film. Those scenes, from the first scene at a French dairy farm to a spy mission in a bar’s basement, play their dialog as if it was music, and the music builds to a crescendo that is at once anticipated and still shocking.  The final scene in the theater is brilliant, both visually and from a story-telling perspective.

Bottom line, if you like Tarantino’s films, this is the best one since the “Kill Bill, Part One.”

Interesting Tidbits:

• Why the misspelling in the title? Tarantino said he’d never tell. “You do an artistic flourish like that,” he said, “and to explain it would just take the piss out of it and invalidate the whole stroke in the first place.”

• His performance in this film is good enough that I officially forgive Brad Pitt for his part in the film “Babel.” If you knew how much I hated that piece of overwrought Oscar-bait, you could fully appreciate that level of praise.

• This isn’t a documentary – don’t write a history paper based on this film. You’ll know what I mean when you see it….

The Plot:

This is a tricky movie review, because I get the feeling that men and women could see this movie and come away with completely different things because of their point of view. In my opinion, Summer is just a tad selfish or evil. She’s either blissfully oblivious about the destruction she leaves in her wake (selfish), or just doesn’t care (evil). A different point of view, of course, is that Summer warns Tom that she’s not looking to fall in love, and more to the point, doesn’t believe that such a thing exists. It’s a fair warning.

The Verdict: Good movie; not sure if it’s a good first date movie. Strike that: it would be a horrible first-date movie. If you’re secure in your relationship, however, it can provide a lot of interesting discussion points on the way home. If you’re not secure in your relationship, however, it can provide a lot of interesting discussion points on the way home. Certain scenes of this movie work very well, with the “Expectation vs. Realty” split screen and Tom’s different takes (depending on his mood) of Summer’s various attributes springing to mind.

Interesting tidbits:
• Male lead Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays one of the head bad guys in the really, really awful “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.” So, if you can only see one Joseph Gordon-Levitt movie this year (for some reason), make it this one, not that one.

• Zooey Deschanel shows approximately 915% more personality in this film than she did in M. Night Shyamalan’s really, really awful “The Happening.” That’s just an estimate, but I stand behind it.

• So, in summary, both stars have been in really, really awful films. This one’s pretty good, though.

The Plot:

In the film, a huge ship comes to a hover about a mile above Johannesburg, South Africa in the 1980s, and just hangs there. When we go up to investigate, we find a malnourished group of more than one million insectoid aliens, looking for help. Twenty years later, the aliens have been put up in slums, and the situation is tense on both sides. When the decision is made to evict and relocate the aliens to another camp, the project’s manager, Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), runs afoul of an alien experiment and has to make some hard decisions.

The Verdict: “District 9” is a very rare animal — an intelligent, well-told summer science-fiction film. The effects are there (the aliens are all VERY well done seamless CGI), but the story is solid, and hangs together on Copley’s performance; audiences will be embarrassed, disgusted and encouraged by his character’s actions during the course of the film. It’s an amazing piece of work.

Interesting Tidbits:
• The film was made for $30 million, which is a lot of money to most of us, but by Hollywood standards, this was a shoestring budget for a sci-fi flick. “Julie & Julia,” for instance, had a budget of $40 million.
• The film made $37 million in its opening weekend. Not a bad ROI.
• This is the first real acting role for the film’s main human, Sharlto Copley, who’s worked mostly behind the scenes in other films.

I’ve got to stop watching movies based on Hasbro properties.

By the way, fans of Christopher Eccleston, of which I am one, will probably want to load up a Doctor Who DVD to get the bad taste out of your mouth. And, as a person proud of being from Scottish decent, I object to being the nationality of the bad guy – apparently Cobra rises because of a clan feud 400 or so years ago. (And how does someone just know the Celtic word for “Eject” off the top of her head? Is there even a Gaelic word for “eject?”)

Oh, and a note to the film’s producers – ice floats. No matter how much you bust it up, ice still floats. Just sayin’ you probably shouldn’t base a major plot point on an underwater ice avalanche.