Luke Hickman's Entertainment Blog

Feature and free passes for Dinner For Schmucks!

2010-07-18T10:54:00.002-06:00

Check out The Reel Place for my feature titled "Luke's Top Five Places To Host A 'Dinner For Schmucks'" and print off your passes for an advanced screening on July 28 in Sandy, Utah!

Inception and The Sorcerer's Apprentice reviewed!

2010-07-18T10:47:00.003-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for my reviews of Inception and The Sorcerer's Apprentice!

Free movie passes!

2010-07-08T16:31:00.002-06:00

Hey, Utah! Go to The Reel Place to get free passes to see Cyrus, the critically acclaimed comedy from Sundance 2010 starring John C. Reilly, Jonah Hill and Marisa Tomei.

Predators and Despicable Me reviews!

2010-07-08T16:27:00.003-06:00

Visit The Reel Place for reviews of Robert Rodriguez's Predators and Steve Carell's animated family flick Despicable Me!

Eclipse and The Last Airbender reviews!

2010-07-01T00:09:00.003-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for reviews of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender!

Knight And Day review!

2010-06-23T10:23:00.002-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for my review of the new Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz blockbuster romance/comedy/action flick Knight And Day!

Toy Story 3 review!

2010-06-18T09:46:00.002-06:00

My review for Toy Story 3 is now up at The Reel Place.

Also check back soon for passes to see an advanced screening of Cyrus in Salt Lake City!

The A-Team and The Karate Kid reviews!

2010-06-11T10:18:00.003-06:00

Reviews for The A-Team and The Karate Kid can now be found at The Reel Place. Check them out!

Get Him To The Greek and Marmaduke reviews!

2010-06-04T11:45:00.002-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for reviews of Get Him To The Greek and Marmaduke!

Robin Hood

2010-05-14T00:02:00.000-06:00

- Four stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content.
- Who’s going to like it: fans of Robin Hood, Russell Crowe, Ridley Scott and imaginative historical action flicks.

A fun and interesting reimagining prequel to the Robin Hood legend we already know.

Ever since the trailers for Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood first surfaced, everyone’s gripe has been the same. “Starring Russell Crowe and being directed by Ridley Scott, it looks more like Gladiator 2 than Robin Hood.” Know this: Robin Hood is far from being a Gladiator sequel and it is nothing like the Robin Hoods we’ve seen before.

Scott’s Robin Hood is highly complex. It begins in France as a huge number of English crusaders, under the direction of King Richard The Lionheart, raid a French castle. When King Richard is killed in battle, all of his men split for the coast, trying to beat the rush to catch a boat across the channel. While en route to the sea, accomplished archer Robin Longstride (Crowe) and his group of loyal friends - including Little John (Kevin Durand, LOST) and Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes, Band Of Brothers) – have a run in with French soldiers seeking to destroy the king and his army of crusaders. The results of this battle send Robin on a personal mission to Nottingham, but not without crossing paths with the king’s royal family and risking his life for the good of others.

Because the events that happen from this point forward are surprising and fun, I will refrain from getting into the plot any further.

This telling of the adventures of Robin Hood begins so very differently from those that we have seen in the past that it is a bit confusing. If you can remember that this is a reimagining of the characters and their tale, with an open mind accepting the changes made, then you will find it a fun new twist on the nearly thousand-year-old myth.

Although Robin Hood is rated PG-13, know that it is more violent, graphic and racy than most PG-13 movies.

Robin Hood is not, by any means, a perfect film. But it sure is fun. Cate Blanchett’s Maid Marion is more in harmony with the women of our times than of those in which the film is set. Several of the fighting sequences are corny. A few large chunks of dialogue are hammy. But the refreshing new ideas applied to the Robin Hood mythology mixed with the complex twists of the film’s plot make it worth watching.

While Robin Hood may not be winning the most critics over, it did win this one – and I wont be surprised if most audiences enjoy it the same.

Photo credit: Universal Pictures

Letters To Juliet

2010-05-14T00:01:00.000-06:00

- Three stars (out of five)
- Rated PG for brief rude behavior, some language and incidental smoking.
- Who’s going to like it: chicks.

A typical chick flick made likeable by genuine characters and little honest moments.

Supposedly, in Verona, Italy – the hometown of fiction Shakespearean characters Romeo and Juliet – there is a small tourist attraction that is believed to be the Capulet home. The wall below the Juliet’s balcony is a sanctuary for girls dealing with man-troubles. Suffering girls gather there, write down their emotions, problems and feelings and tape them to the wall for Juliet to read. Little do these grieving women know that city of Verona has hired a wise, aged group of well-experienced women, known as “Juliet’s Secretaries,” to collect the letters daily and respond to them individually.

Amanda Seyfried (Dear John) plays the lead character in this fairytale, an aspiring journalist named Sophie. Considering how busy both she and her fiancée (Gael Garcia Bernal, The Science Of Sleep) are just prior to the grand opening of his New York City Italian restaurant, they decide to take a pre-marriage honeymoon to Italy where he can also study the food and flavors.

In the middle of their food-filled travels, the two decide to split up for a few days in order to enjoy their own different sights – Sophie’s being the romantic and her fiancée’s being food related. When Sophie visits Juliet’s balcony, she learns of “Juliet’s Secretaries.” Taking advantage of a good opportunity to tell an untold story, Sophie spends her time with the Secretaries.

While collecting the letters one afternoon, Sophie discovers a loose rock in the balcony wall and removes it, revealing a 53-year-old letter written to Juliet. Feeling inspired, Sophie writes Juliet’s response letter, hoping that the writer is still alive. Just a few days later, the 68-year-old author of the letter (Vanessa Redgrave, Mission: Impossible) arrives in Verona on a mission to find her lost love from 53 years prior. Of course, she brings her strapping man-boy grandson who draws the attention of Sophie’s heart. Together, the three of them head out on a journey through Italy’s beautiful countryside to find the man she loved.

As unoriginal as Letters To Juliet may be, the charisma, charm and honesty of the characters makes it an enjoyable romantic comedy. The romance story is fun and playful, but the unforeseeable story about Redgrave and her “Romeo” is heartfelt. Because the twists of the story are obvious and cliché, the film takes itself lightly, even poking fun at its own faults and corny flaws.

I cannot think of a single female that would not enjoy Letters To Juliet. Guys on dates and those who don’t mind any occasional chick flick won’t hate it either. Letters To Juliet is sweet, kind and even pretty funny at times.

Photo credit: Summit Entertainment

Iron Man 2 review now online!

2010-05-06T18:17:00.002-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for my pre-release review of Iron Man 2!

New Reviews: Kick-Ass, Death At A Funeral and The Joneses!

2010-04-16T11:48:00.002-06:00

Head of to The Reel Place for reviews of movies opening today - Kick-Ass, Death At A Funeral and The Joneses!

New Review: Clash Of The Titans

2010-04-01T19:29:00.003-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for reviews of Clash Of The Titans!

New Review: The Last Song

2010-03-31T15:30:00.002-06:00

Check out The Reel Place for a review of Miley Cyrus' latest motion picture, Nicholas Sparks' The Last Song!

New Reviews: How To Train Your Dragon, Hot Tub Time Machine and Chloe

2010-03-26T11:00:00.002-06:00

Please go to The Reel Place for reviews of movies opening today How To Train Your Dragon, Hot Tub Time Machine and Chloe. Check them out!

New Reviews: Repo Men, The Bounty Hunter and Diary Of A Wimpy Kid

2010-03-18T21:40:00.004-06:00

Go to The Reel Place for reviews of movies opening today: Repo Men, The Bounty Hunter and Diary Of A Wimpy Kid. Check them out!

New reviews: Remember Me, She's Out Of My League and Green Zone

2010-03-12T10:58:00.005-07:00

Reviews for Remember Me, She's Out Of My League and Green Zone can now be found at The Reel Place. Check them out!

New Reviews: Alice In Wonderland, Brooklyn's Finest and The Ghost Writer

2010-03-05T13:09:00.003-07:00

Go to The Reel Place for reviews new films opening today, Alice In Wonderland, Brooklyn's Finest and The Ghost Writer!

Shutter Island

2010-02-18T15:08:00.003-07:00

My review can now be found at The Reel Place. Check it out!

Skateland (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-26T11:03:00.006-07:00

Category: U.S. Dramatic Competition
Director: Anthony Burns
Screenwriters: Anthony Burns, Brandon Freeman, Heath Freeman
U.S.A., 2009, 98 min., color
Principle Cast: Shiloh Fernandez, Ashley Greene, Heath Freeman, Taylor Handley, AJ Buckley, Haley Ramm

I grew up in the '80s. Even though I was still very young in that decade, I have a certain affinity for things of the '80s. I wasn't raised listening to that era's music. I wasn't even old enough to recognize the style that movies were made then. It wasn't until the late '90s that I began to appreciate and love certain things that had the genuine '80s stamp on them. It was then, in my late teens, that I recognized the little influences these things had on me – a song that was attached to a childhood memory, a scene from a movie that will forever remind me of my youth.

Skateland is one of the best films in years to capture the essence of everything '80s. There have been others (like Adventureland and The Wedding Singer) that are chock full of '80s memorabilia, music and pop culture – but at their very core, they are still contemporary films. None of them are written, filmed and edited in the trademark style of the '80s. Until now.

Ritchie Wheeler (Shiloh Fernandez, The United States of Tara) is a 19-year-old who's hit a wall. He's become too comfortable at his job, in his home and in his relationships with friends and former lovers. But things are about to change. Ritchie has worked at the same rollerskating rink – called Skateland – since he was in high school, he's oblivious to his family and their problems, he takes his friends for granted and hasn't tried resolving the issues with his ex-girlfriend that he's obviously still interested in.

Just about the same time Ritchie's best friend Brent (writer/producer Heath Freeman) returns home from a motorcycle racing circuit, his world begins to change. With Skateland soon closing its doors, Ritchie begins to acknowledge the rift between his parents which ends up leading to divorce and has to learn where his loyalties lie with his friends, family and past lovers. Because Brent has the polar opposite mindset as Ritchie – Brent moves from girl to girl, he's put everything into living his dreams and has no problem moving along and adapting to reality – he's the perfect friend to help him accept and cope with that which he cannot control.

While viewing Skateland for the first time, you may feel that it is a film about nothing – meaning there's no solid plot and goal. But after giving it thought, you'll realize that it's a story about characters faced with dilemmas, caught up in the struggle to swim to the surface and to find out what they dream and desire. It's more than just your average “coming-of-age” drama. It's an homage to everything good from the '80s and the lost and forgotten style of screenwriting and filmmaking from that era. To put it simply, it's an '80s movie.

None of what's written in the script would work without the proper crew. Every little attention to '80s filmmaking – from long steady camera shots to unbelievable dream sequences – is regarded in highest detail. Considering how young most of the cast is, I'm in awe at how well they captured the essence of the '80s lifestyle. Because of the crew, Skateland literally looks like it was made in the '80s, and it's the cast that makes Skateland feel like it was made in the '80s.

Ritchie is a good kid – he just doesn't know what he wants and can't seem to get his feet on the ground. It's Shiloh's Fernandez's performance of Ritchie that makes you easily connect with him in this hard time. He's a strong young actor that I look forward to seeing more of. After seeing Heath Freeman play Brent, I can't possibly envision anyone else playing that role. He nails it, capturing that fun and wild charisma that we expect from that type of character. I'm sure that having a hand in writing the screenplay helped him immensely in bringing Brent to life. But when mentioning the performances that resonate in Skateland, it would be a crime to leave out Ashley Greene (Twilight).

Greene plays Brent's younger sister Michelle, one of Ritchie's very best friends. If Brent is the character that helps Ritchie to break free from the mundane routine of mediocrity and comfort, Michelle is the character who grounds him afterwards, helps him make a decision and go for it. Knowing her mostly from her contribution to the Twilight Saga, I didn't expect much from Greene. But after only a few scenes, I realized there's more to her than just a pretty face. Greene knocks it out of the park – especially in a wonderful scene that doesn't have a single line of dialogue. I cannot wait to see what she does next.

Just before the end credits roll, the text “In Memory of John Hughes” appears on the screen. No other film in recent years is worthy of being able to make that end statement. I cannot speak for him, but I'm sure Hughes would fully approve of Skateland. It's everything you may have forgotten that you loved about the '80s. When it comes out on home video, forget the Blu-ray/DVD bundle – I want the Blu-ray/VHS combo pack.

Four stars (out of five)

Skateland has been rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality, language, substance abuse and smoking – involving teens.

Check back soon for an audio interview with the filmmakers.

Buried (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-24T18:58:00.000-07:00

Category: Park City At Midnight
Director: Rodrigo Cortés
Screenwriter: Chris Sparling
Spain, 2010, 94 min., color
Principle Cast: Ryan Reynolds

Gimmick films usually drive me crazy. By that, I mean films that use a certain mold or idea the entire time just to sound edgy. For example, Enter The Void (another film I reviewed at Sundance) was shot entirely from the first-person point-of-view from one of it's characters. When he was killed 40 minutes into the film, the camera still followed his perspective as a spirit looking down, observing the world he just left. That went on for 156 minutes.

All 94 minutes of Buried takes place in a coffin-like box buried in the dirt. Not a single frame of film takes place outside that box. When I found out that it was a similar sort of gimmick film along those same lines, I worried – but I shouldn't have. You never get bored or tired of Buried and it actually ends up being one of the most tense films I've seen in a long time.

Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds, X-Men Origins: Wolverine) is a U.S. citizen driving semis for a contracted company in Iraq. The film opens in complete darkness as Paul wakes up in an already-buried box somewhere in the Iraqi desert after his convoy is attacked. The opening few minutes are very much like “buried alive” scenes from Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 2 – claustrophobic, uncomfortable and intense. After the initial freakout when realizing where he is, Paul discovers that it's just him, a lighter and a limited cell phone.

Even though it doesn't sound like it, I want to reiterate the fact that Buried isn't just another gimmicky ploy. It truly never gets old. Director Rodrigo Cortés films in such a way that you never get the tired of seeing the same thing. He tries unconventional camera shots and places the camera in impossible areas to keep it from getting stagnant. Cortés uniquely films Buried in a similar fashion to the way that Alfonso Cuarón filmed Children Of Men (think of the long takes and camera motions within the speeding car). It's innovation, refreshing and brilliant.

Hats off to Ryan Reynolds for being able to carry a movie entirely on his own. He now joins the ranks of Sam Rockwell for being a one-man band (see last year's Sundance sci-fi hit Moon, now on DVD and Blu-ray).

If Buried sounds appealing to you, then fear not – Lionsgate purchased the distribution rights last week. Rumor has it that Buried will open for nationwide distribution some time between August and October. For your sake, I hope that's true.

Four stars (out of five)

Welcome To The Rileys (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-24T18:53:00.003-07:00

Category: U.S. Dramatic Competition
Director: Jake Scott
Screenwriter: Ken Hixon
U.S.A., 2009, 110 min., color
Principle Cast: James Gandolfini, Kristen Stewart, Melissa Leo

Oh, if only the little Twi-hards (the nickname given to fans of Twilight) could see their beautiful little Bella now. They'd be speechless: little Bella as a 16-year-old runaway. Wearing nothing but strategically placed tape, see-through bras and minuscule thongs. Hygienically disgusting. Riddled with STDs. Throwing out the most vulgar and vile profanities more often than common words like “the” and “and.” Constantly offering any form of sexual act for the slightest amount of money. Dirty little Bella. If you're a fan of Twilight and can't stand to think of Bella in that manner, then stop reading now and go out of your way to never ever see Welcome To The Rileys.

Doug (James Gandolfini, The Sopranos) and Lois (Melissa Leo, Frozen River) Riley lost their 15-year-old daughter ten years ago. Either one of them might as well have died along with her, because their marriage is dead. There's no rift between them, they just shut off emotionally to one another after the accident. Doug mindlessly goes through the motions: work and poker with guys. Lois hasn't left the house since the accident.

While on a business trip to New Orleans, Doug escapes the company of his coworkers by hiding in a strip club, where he meets Kristen Stewart's character – known by many names, but mostly called Mallory – a runaway teen from Florida who has resorted to stripping and prostitution for income. Based on a resemblance to his dead daughter, Doug forces himself into her life, filling in the void where is daughter used to be. When Doug tells Lois he's not coming home, Lois begins awakening, wanting to feel emotion again.

Welcome To The Rileys isn't awful, but it's not great either. Just like Stewart's character, it quickly and unexplainably shifts it's mood. As you watch it, you know exactly what message and themes the filmmaker is trying to convey, which causes you to feel like you're being hit over the head with the “Do You Get It?” mallet. Everything is over-explained, which takes you out of the movie and makes you feel as distant from the film as Doug and Lois are in the beginning of the film – you have no emotional connection with it. Great performances and great ideas, when poorly executed, do not a good movie make.

Two stars (out of five)

Splice (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-23T18:49:00.001-07:00

Category: Park City At Midnight
Director: Vincenzo Natali
Screenwriters: Vincenzo Natali, Antoinette Terry Bryant, Doug Taylor
France/Canada, 2009, 100 min., color
Principle Cast: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, Delphine Chaneac, David Hewlitt

There's nothing wrong with a good monster movie – that is, unless it claims to be a monster movie when in reality it's nothing like one at all. Such is the case with Splice, a self-proclaimed monster movie.

Adrien Brody (The Pianist) and Sarah Polley (Dawn Of The Dead) star as two gene-splicing scientists who secretly undergo an illegal experiment mixing the genes of several animals with those of a human being. The result of them “playing god” creates a humanoid monster with several animalistic qualities. After becoming emotionally attached to their creation, which the call Dren (that's “nerd” backwards), they are forced to cover their tracks and safely put it in hiding.

The first half of Splice is a hilariously campy over-the-top horror movie. Just before beginning the experiment, the line “What's the worst that could happen?” is uttered. Brilliant! But before long, it starts taking itself way too serious. And once sex – including with the “monster” – enters the equation, things quickly go downhill – downhill to the point where I'd deem it not worth paying to see.

Every time I pick a movie from the Redbox, I look at all of the cheesy direct-to-DVD titles I've never heard of. Even though some feature well-known actors, they're awful. (Have you ever rented one of the many Val Kilmer unknowns clogging the Redbox?) What a waste of time. I'm certain that Splice will end up being one of those titles. In a bored stupor, you may chose to browse through the unknowns in the Redbox. When you see Splice in there, check it out. It's not a bad time-filler for just a buck – but don't expect to be truly entertained.

One star (out of five)

Please Give (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-23T18:44:00.001-07:00

Category: Premieres
Director/Screenwriter: Nicole Holofcener
U.S.A., 2009, 90 min., color
Principal Cast: Catherine Keener, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Sarah Steele, Ann Guilbert

Upon initially reading the following statement, you might want to call me sexist – but I'm not, so don't jump to conclusions because afterwards I'll explain what I mean: the genre known as “women films” is awful. (I'm suspecting that they're known as “women films” because they're movies about women dealing with women's problems and are written and directed by women). The example I'll use is Nancy Meyers' latest film It's Complicated – the story of a divorced middle-aged woman who sparks an affair with her cheating ex-husband. In the film, women are shown as being weak. They are indecisive. When they have no control over their lives – even though they believe they do. The enemies of these older women are not the cheating husbands who abandoned them and their families, but the younger women that these men left them for. I find these films dishonest and mildly offensive in their portrayal and generalization of the sexes.

Because Please Give is film written and directed by a woman (Nicole Holofcener, Friends With Money) and it deals with women and women-specific problems, it technically falls into the “women films” genre – except it's unlike any other. The main difference between Please Give and almost every other film in that genre is it's genuine honesty. You believe every character and decision that he or she makes. For all you know, this could be based on true personal experiences of actual people you might know. It all feels natural, never forced. And those are the little things that make Please Give an extraordinary film.

Please Give stars Catherine Keener (Into The Wild) and Oliver Platt (2012) as an upper-class couple of antiques dealers who purchase furniture from the children of dead elderly people for a low cost, then sell those items for a marked up price in their store. They and their fifteen-year-old daughter (Sarah Steele, Spanglish) live in a fancy New York apartment next door to a grouchy 91-year-old lady on the verge of dying. Knowing that her death is eminent, they purchase her apartment and allow her to live there until she dies with the plans of expanding their apartment once she goes. Please Give tells the story of the cold, selfish and disconnected couple coming to terms with their blind selfishness as they become emotionally entangled with their neighbors granddaughters (Amanda Peet, Saving Silverman and Rebecca Hall, Vicky Christina Barcelona).

Although the tone of Please Give sounds dark and grim, the film never once feels that way. It is a perfect balance of everything good; it's filled thought-provoking moral ideas and light-weight comedy held together by a wonderfully written and believable script. Out of the 19 films I saw at Sundance this year, Please Give is easily one of the best.

Four and a half stars (out of five)

Waiting For Superman (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

Category: U.S. Documentary Competition
Director: Davis Guggenheim
Screenwriters: Davis Guggenheim, Billy Kimball
U.S.A., 2009, 95 min., color

There are two types of documentaries: those that cause you to become emotionally wrapped and invested in it, making an impression on you, and those that you forget soon after seeing them. Waiting For Superman is one of those that will never leave you.

Whether you know it or not, there's a major problem with the current U.S. education system. Tons of money is pumped into it, yet nothing gets better. Our nation is extremely low in the worldwide rankings of education status. Waiting For Superman takes a bold look at the reasons why nothing is improving, provides a few alternative answers that have proven to work, then yanks the carpet of hope right out from under you and tells you why those ideas will never come to pass and why the system is forever damned.

The way that Waiting For Superman dives into the dark underbelly of the education system can be compared to way Michael Moore's Sicko explored alternative health care solutions – only less arrogant, less biased, less skewed and without the silly, nonsensical and pointless interjections by its creator.

A key element that makes Waiting For Superman a successful documentary is how intimate it gets with a handful of kids who, at very young ages, love school and the idea of learning, but will most likely never amount to much because of their social and economical upbringing – despite the best efforts of their parents. The climactic scenes involving the future of these children are so strong that you'll tense up exactly like you would if it was an suspense flick.

Hands down, Waiting For Superman is in my top ten list of Best Documentaries.

Five stars (out of five)

Hesher (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-22T18:27:00.001-07:00

U.S. Dramatic Competition
Director: Spencer Susser
Screenwriters: Spencer Susser, David Michôd, based on a story by Brian Charles Frank
U.S.A., 2010, 100 min., color
Principle Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Natalie Portman, Rainn Wilson, Devin Brochu, Piper Laurie, John Carroll Lynch

Who says hilarious dark comedies filled with crude comments and dialogue can't have strong morals and a whole lot of heart?

Something bad has happened and it's upset the balance between Paul Forney (Rainn Wilson, The Office) and his 13-year-old son TJ (Devin Brochu, Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past). Paul is over medicated, sleeping all day long, and isn't coherent enough to take care of TJ – for that reason they live with and are taken care of by his elderly mother. TJ copes with the untold event by rebelling against everyone and everything.

After breaking a window in an unfinished housing tract, TJ meets an anarchist Hessian (a term used in the '80s and '90s to describe a grungy fan of heavy metal music) who calls himself Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, (500) Days Of Summer)). Without an invite, Hesher moves into the Forney household, introducing his own brand of chaos to stir things up within the problematic family.

What separates Hesher from every other film is its ability to be make you laugh-out-loud, then immediately dive into heavy emotional scenes seamlessly – and every single time it does, it works perfectly.

Another plus is the cast. Gordon-Levitt's crude-mouthed Hesher is easily one of the most funny and original characters I've seen in the last year. He's one actor – much like John Cusack – who is fully capable of making you believe and enjoy everything he does. Serving not only as a supporting role, but a producer as well, is Natalie Portman (Garden State). As always, she owns her character and is always fun to watch on screen. And smalltime child actor Brochu is a great casting choice as the central character.

If you're unable to see Hesher during the festival run, don't fret. It's been picked up for a nationwide release.

Four stars (out of five)

happythankyoumoreplease (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-22T18:23:00.000-07:00

Category: U.S. Dramatic Competition
Director/Screenwriter: Josh Radnor
U.S.A., 2009, 100 min., color
Principle Cast: Malin Akerman, Josh Radnor, Kate Mara, Zoe Kazan, Pablo Schreiber, Tony Hale

Sam Wexler (Josh Radnor, How I Met Your Mother) is trying to create the perfect life for himself, but no matter how hard he tries nor what he does, it's the things that he doesn't do that prevent him from obtaining his goal. happythankyoumoreplease tells the story of Sam and his new romantic interest (Kate Mara, Entourage) side by side by side with two other couples. It doesn't take long to notice similarities between the couples in the trails they all go through.

There are four main problems with happythankyoumoreplease: one, the mirroring occurrences between the couples creates a predictable repetitive pattern that tells what the next couple is going to go through before we see it happen.

The second lies within the written dialogue itself. More often than not, the jokes – several of them being reoccurring ones – don't work. Instead of hearing the sound of laughter in the audience, they're followed up by an uncomfortable awkward silence – like when someone tells a bad joke at a party.

The third lies in self casting. Just as he fails to do in How I Met Your Mother, Josh Radnor is not a leading man. Not that I personally know him or anything, but Radnor appears to have the same persona as his characters – a rambling typical stupid male. That type of character gets annoying after a 22-minute episode of television, let alone a 100-minute movie.

The fourth is an unnecessary side-character that raises huge moral questions that are almost completely ignored by every other character. In the intro to the movie, while racing to an interview he's already late for, Sam finds a lost child. Trying to make it to the interview as quick as possible, Sam decides to bring the child and return him to his home later. But for some odd and unbelievable reason, Sam keeps the kid for several days. Freaky, right? As if Sam's act isn't creepy enough, none of the other characters seem to care at all. They may freak out each time they find he's still with the child, but quickly drop it and move on. Nobody seems to care.

With those problems aside, it's the rest of the cast that makes the film worth watching. When Sam first sees Mara's character – Mississippi – walking down the sidewalk of a busy New York City street, time slows down, his heart skips a beat and he forgets the important business interview he's headed to. When I met Mara at a penthouse interview in Park City, Utah during the film festival, I had the exact same real life experience that fiction Sam had. She's gorgeous. And not only is Mara easy on the eyes, but she's also got a fantastic screen presence and a mesmerizing charm. I'm just waiting for her to have a breakthrough in major motion pictures.

The other two couples are made up of Zoe Kazan (Revolutionary Road) and Pablo Schreiber (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia: A Very Sunny Christmas), and Malin Akerman (Couples Retreat) and Tony Hale (Arrested Development). Kazan and Schreiber's young characters hit a stumbling block in their relationship as Kazan's has an unplanned pregnancy and Schrieber's has an itch to take a job thousands of miles away. Hale plays an awkward attorney trying to get a date with Akerman's character, a colleague from work. As nerdy and dejected as he is, his persistent attitude wont allow him to give up on her – and her damaged heart will not allow her to be loved.

All in all, happythankyoumoreplease is not as great as it could be. A step above most typical romantic comedies, but not nearly as great as the truly good ones, it's a movie that I'd recommend only to those who truly enjoy the genre.

Two stars (out of five)

Get Low (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

Category: Premieres
Director: Aaron Schneider
Screenwriters: Chris Provenzano, C. Gaby Mitchell
U.S.A., 2009, 100 min., color
Principal Cast: Robert Duvall, Bill Murray, Sissy Spacek, Lucas Black

Set in small-town Tennessee in the 1930s, Get Low tells the story of Felix – an ornery old cuss hermit who hasn't left his property in nearly 40 years and whose only friend is stubborn mule. The local townsfolk fear him, judging him solely on the tarnishing rumors and stories that have spread about him.

When Felix catches the news that a fellow elderly neighbor passed away, he hires the local funeral parlor to throw himself a “funeral party” even though he isn't dead, where all of the townsfolk who have heard a story about him can gather together, dance and eat, and collectively retell his supposed life stories.

I fear referring to Get Low as being a “heartfelt,” “fell-good” or “uplifting” film because that entails that it's all happy, things work out just fine in the end and that it's going to be corny or sappy – because it's none of those things. Felix's story does not fall within the boundaries of those ideas. It's dark, lonely and sad. But the way the film is told, it doesn't fell that way. It's a wonderfully crafted powerfully emotional tale that is never churched up. Although it dabbles in dark themes, it's not a dark film. It's purely satisfying.

As you would expect, Duvall gives another amazing performance. Adding to the experience is a perfect supporting cast. Bill Murray plays the snide, cunning and greedy funeral parlor owner who's willing to do anything for Felix's business/money. And, like usual, he delivers perfectly well-timed jokes – definitely one of the things that keeps Get Low from being a “downer.” Playing his hired hand working off commission is young rising actor Lucas Black (Friday Night Lights, Legion). Now in his mid-twenties, Black is showing that he can carry large roles in films. His character in Get Low is the catalyst between all of the characters. If is weren't for him, the story would never unfold. He brings it all together. And with a role that important, Black stepped up and showed that he's ready for the big time.

Already picked up for distribution, expect to see Get Low hit theaters sometime towards the end of 2010.

Three and a half stars (out of five)

Enter The Void (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-22T18:11:00.000-07:00

Category: Spotlight
Director/screenwriter: Gaspar Noé
France, 2009, 156 min., color
Principle cast: Nathaniel Brown, Paz De La Huerta

I've never seen a Gaspar Noé film, but from what I understand and what I can conclude from watching Enter The Void, each of them is a brutal attack on the senses of the audience. A lot of people will say, “At least he's trying,” or “You've got to respect him for his experimental techniques.” I say: No. He's not trying – not trying to entertain, not trying to win the audience over. The only thing he's trying to do is boost his ego, distance himself from everyone else and bombard you with his sick, twisted and disturbing mommy, sister and parenting issues.

After a long barrage of quick flashing neon title cards set to techno rave music, you quickly gather that the entire film Enter The Void is shot in the first-person perspective of lead character Oscar. Oscar and his sister Linda live in Tokyo, Japan. Oscar uses and deals heavy psychedelic drugs, Linda is a trashy stripper. On the way to visit his sister at work one night (I know – going to visit his naked sis is pretty gross, right?), Oscar has an altercation with police that ends up with him being shot and killed. The film continues to follow Oscar's perspective as his spirit/soul follows his sister, staying with her just like he always promised he would.

Despite not being much to explain, all of this takes more than 30 minutes to get to in the film. We're mostly stuck watching Oscar carry on pointless rambling conversations with his druggie friends, check out his barely dressed sister and hallucinate screensaver-like trips. Everything about Enter The Void is overindulgent.

Once Oscar dies, the film loses all sense of direction and purpose. Not kidding, there are easily 30 plus minutes of the film dedicated to Oscar watching people – including his own sister – have sex. And I'm not talking just sex, we're talking all caps SEX. Enter The Void captures shots that are reserved solely for porno films – shots that leave you certain that the actors you just saw were truly in the act of having sex. I don't care what your film is about or the message you're trying to share, there's a point where it's completely unnecessary and perverted. Enter The Void crosses that line, then sits down to have a filthy picnic on the other side. It makes sex gross. Thanks Noé.

To avoid ranting, let me conclude with a list of things that Enter The Void does that earns it zero stars: showing an aborting, showing multiple close-ups of an aborted fetus, showing a character entering the mind of the man having sex with his sister, showing a grown man obsessing over his mother and her naked body (multiple times, including an adult desire to breast feed off his mother's teat), showing gratuitous graphic sex and a repetitive act of obscene violence, never ending, boring, constant flashing lights (so much so that the film should warn audiences suffering from epilepsy), showing what sex looks like from the inside of the female body, etc.

The point is: don't ever ever ever see Enter The Void. Seriously. Never.

Zero stars (out of five)

7 Days (Sundance 2010)

2010-01-22T18:05:00.000-07:00

Category: Park City At Midnight
Director: Daniel Grou (aka Podz)
Screenwriter: Patrick Senecal
Canada, 2009, 115 min., color, French with Engish subtitles
Principle cast: Rémy Girard, Claude Legault, Fanny Mallette, Martin Dubreuil, Rose-Marie Coallier

At first glance, 7 Days seems like nothing more than a gruesome Saw or Hostel knockoff, dabbling in that genre now known as “torture porn.” But after seeing it, I can say that 7 Days is far better than anything either of those franchises tries to be. 7 Days is a truly great film that has a purpose and a message to deliver.

7 Days answers the question “What would you do if your young daughter was raped and killed?” the same way that any father would immediately answer: “I'd kill the man who did it.” Lead character Bruno Hamel takes it step farther – he's going to torture the hell out of him first. And not just a little genital mutilation here and a beating there. No. Bruno Hamel is a surgeon. And he's definitely going to throw some experimental operations into the mix.

I know, I know. It sounds brutal and disgusting. But remember – I said there's more to it than that. But I'm not going to spoil it for you. You're just going to have to take my word for it. I'll call it Hard Candy meets Law Abiding Citizen.

The odd thing about 7 Days is that everyone I talked to after the screening said the same thing: they all wanted to watch Bruno beat the hell out of and torture his daughter's killer. Being a father, of course that was my response. But everyone else? People who don't have children? They were all rooting for the rogue antihero. I didn't expect a mass response like that.

Warning: It's brutal. On the up side: It's worth it. I'll say it again - trust me.

Three and a half stars (out of five)

Extraordinary Measures

2010-01-22T17:57:00.000-07:00

- One and a half stars (out of five)
- Rated PG for thematic material, language and a mild suggestive moment.
- Who's going to like it: fans of sappy, heart-warming, feel-good movies.

A made-for-TV movie on the big screen

I'm pretty sure this is dialogue happened when the CBS executives behind Extraordinary Measures were putting the movie together:

Producer #1 - “I think we have a pretty good made-for-television movie here.”

Producer #2 - “I agree. We've got Brendan Fraser cast as a lead after all!”

Producer #1 - “I know! It's great! Who do you think we could get to play the supporting role?”

Producer #2 - “Not sure. Hey! I dare you to ask Harrison Ford!”

Producer #1 - “You're on!”

And when Harrison Ford actually accepted the role, they were forced to put it on the big screen. The end result is a poorly crafted movie fit only for television.

Although the film is based on a true-story – a story that is pretty incredible and powerful – the way it is told and made takes the heart and emotion right out of it.

Extraordinary Measures tells the story of a father (Fraser) willing to do whatever it takes to find a cure for a form of autism known as Pompe Disease, a disease that two of his three children have. As both sick children get closer to the age of mortality, their symptoms worsen, so their father takes a lea of faith, quits his job and searches for a miracle at the hands of a little-known doctor (Ford). The majority of the movie is spent showing you how they financially put his untested theoretical research into practice to the point where they could start a clinical trial.

Just like most feel-good movies, after only seeing a few minutes of the movie, you know exactly where Extraordinary Measures is going to end. The typical clichés in character and plot are all there, making it a gruelingly long and painful experience. Instead of unraveling in a heart-felt manner, from the movie's opening sequence, it's overly manipulative.

If you are in the mood for a sad-yet-hopeful movie about trials involving families and disease, I suggest you rent My Sister's Keeper – although it's got some corny moments, it's a far more emotion and powerful movie without all of the unnecessary manipulation.

Photo credit: CBS Films

The Book Of Eli

2010-01-15T20:30:00.000-07:00

- Three stars (out of five)
- Rated R for some brutal violence and language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Denzel playing powerful roles, post-apocalyptic travelogues and Spike Lee's films

A post-apocalyptic gangster thriller one step up from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

The face of the earth was completely obliterated by nuclear was over 30 years ago. Denzel Washington plays Eli (but for some reason we don't find that out until the end of the movie, despite his name being revealed in the movie's title), a “traveler” following promptings of God to head out West through the ruined, desert wastelands of the United States, protecting the last copy of the bible in existence.

Eli's comes across a roadblock when he enters a gang-run shanty town while seeking clean water and supplies. Carnegie (Gary Oldman, The Dark Knight), the gang's leader, has grand dreams of reestablishing civilization. Being one of the last “old ones,” Carnegie has nostalgic memories of world prior to the war. Remembering how much power it had over people and nations back then, he constantly has thugs on the hunt for a copy of the bible, knowing that it will help him be powerful in the eyes of his people. When he finds out that a “traveler” passing through his town has a copy of it, Carnegie is willing to do whatever it takes to get that book.

When Solara (Mila Kunis, That '70s Show), a beautiful young woman, befriends Eli and helps him escape town, she is forced to run from Carnegie and and join Eli as he carries out his unknown divine mission of heading West. Together Eli and Solara go on a journey not all that different from the one Viggo Mortensen goes on in The Road – there are crumbling cities, shopping carts and cannibals – only Eli and Solara know who is following them.

The Book Of Eli begins very strong, establishing and submerging you in this gritty new world similar to, but not as bleak and hopeless, as that in The Road. You quickly get involved with and wrapped up in the world. But after leaving Carnegie's town, it gradually falls apart like a Spike Lee “joint,” getting too wrapped-up in its own unnecessarily self-indulgent story. At the end of the movie, there are about four too many twists and three endings. Had the story to The Book Of Eli been an elaborate and complicated one, then the given ending(s) would have been fitting. But it's not. It's shallow and simple; therefore, the twists at the end don't work.

If you think that The Book Of Eli looks like a great film, then see it. It's good, not great. You already know that it's going to fall apart in the end, but that doesn't make the rest of it worthless. You'll have fun with the first three-quarters of it. But if you've thought all along that it doesn't look too great, then don't see it – it's not great. But if you end up bored one night months from now and The Book Of Eli is playing at the dollar theater or you see it in a Redbox, check it out. It's not that bad.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Lovely Bones

2010-01-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

- Four stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of intense murder mysteries and fantasy done in the Peter Jackson style

A film that works really well – but not according to fans of the book

There are few things more disturbing than the abduction, rape and killing of children. Because the premise of The Lovely Bones revolves around these issues, mostly focusing on the creepy individual committing these atrocities, a lot of people are turned off by the idea of it. My own wife has expressed how much she does not want to see it basely solely on the subject matter, despite her affinity for director Peter Jackson. But there's one thing that everyone should know about The Lovely Bones before deciding whether or not to see it: although the film's story revolves around these disturbing elements, it is carried out and executed in the most tasteful and delicate manner. Had it not, it would not have received a PG-13 rating. For those who wont see it because of the plot, I guarantee you it's not as hard to watch as you may think.

Just as the trailers have shown, teenager Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan, Atonement) is the narrator to her own story. After being murdered (which is never even shown in the film) by a disturbed neighbor, Susie begins a fantastic journey through the afterlife in the beautiful “in-between” prior to going to heaven. This “in-between” is a place for restless souls who have unresolved business on earth – in Susie's case, her killer's identity is still unknown and he's still on the prowl.

The complaint that I've heard the most from fans of the book upon which the film is based is that it doesn't do the book justice. Instead of focusing on Susie and the “in-between,” it tells the story of her loving father (Mark Wahlberg, The Departed) obsessing over catching her killer, as well as that of the paranoid psychotic (Stanley Tucci, Julie & Julia) trying to keep his secret in the dark. Not having read the book, I can't guarantee that these things are completely distracting to those already familiar with the story – it's just what I've heard.

But not knowing the book, I can tell you that The Lovely Bones is an extremely well-crafted and well-acted film. Peter Jackson perfectly tells in a PG-13 manner what should be an R-rated story. The 1970s world that he creates feels purely natural and never forced. His “in-between” is beautifully bittersweet. Ronan's performance of Susie captures the excitement, innocence and rebellious nature of teenage life, then turns it on its head as she matures to an adult in her afterlife. Playing the mentally sick killer, Tucci gives the best performance of his career. He is so creepy that every time he's on screen, you want him to get off immediately. I can't remember the last time I saw a character that moved me in that same way. And as parents torn apart by the unknown whereabouts of their daughter, Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz (The Mummy) bring to life the polar opposite reaction that two parents might go through: he is obsessed with finding the killer before he can move along and stop grieving; she can't block it. Everything reminds her of her loss. There is no escaping the harsh reality that one of her children is gone. As a parent, the film will make you will connect with one of them, learn how you might react in this same heart-wrenching experience.

Although most critics are divided in their opinions of The Lovely Bones, I'm standing by mine that it's one of the best film of 2009 (as it was released in LA and NY in December to be eligible for the upcoming Oscars). Not only is it a brilliantly made production, but it's powerful and moving.

Photo credit: Dreamworks SKG

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-14T20:21:00.005-07:00

- Three and a half stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for violent images, some sensuality, language and smoking.
- Who's going to like it: fans of odd Terry Gilliam films and anyone who wants to see Heath Ledger's final performance

Being Heath Ledger's last, Parnassus is a film that people will see and love

What would you do if one of your primary actors suddenly died during principal photography of a film you wrote and were directing? Terry Gilliam (Monty Python, 12 Monkeys) has had a handful of unforeseeable problems directing in the past, so when Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) died in the middle of shooting The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, Gilliam was faced with this question. What did he do? He submerged himself in his story and found a way to make it work – the most perfect and suitable way. But we have to discuss the story before the explanation.

Thousands of years ago, Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer, Up) made a deal with the devil over the fate of the souls of mankind. Parnassus was granted with immortality in an attempt to do God's work in saving mankind. In return, Parnassus has to turn over any children he conceives to the devil on their 16th birthday. With only days left before his only daughter's 16th birthday, Parnassus makes another deal with the devil in an attempt to save her. The “first to five” deal they make forces Parnassus to try to save five before the devil can destroy five. Being set in modern day London, Parnassus has a hard task in front of him.

Doctor Parnassus has an odd tool that he uses to save souls. On the outside it appears as a cheap-looking fake metallic paper mirror with a slit down the middle. In reality, that slit – when passed through – becomes a portal into the mind of Doctor Parnassus, known as the imaginarium. The world on the other side initially appears as a magical place, conformed from the fantasy of the mind of the person in the imaginarium. But shortly after entering, the person within is faced with a moral decision. Make the correct decision and your soul is saved; make the incorrect decision and you're destroyed by the devil.

After Doctor Parnassus and the devil make their side bet, the devil throws a wildcard into the game – Heath Ledger's character Tony. When Parnassus and company first find Tony, he's lifelessly swinging from a noose above the River Thames. After resuscitating him, Tony The Amnesiac has no choice but to join them, assisting Parnassus with the side bet until he regains his memory.

When Ledger died, they'd completed the filming of everything outside the imaginarium, leaving the green screen-created fantasy work of the imaginarium until the end. Gilliam's brilliant way to finish the film without Ledger was to shoot the remaining scenes with other actors in his role. Johnny Depp (Pirates Of The Caribbean), Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes) and Colin Farrell (Phone Booth) each play Tony the three different times he enters the imaginarium, dressed-up, made-up and mimicking Ledger's portrayal of the character. When Tony asks why he doesn't look the same in the imaginarium, Parnassus gives him an answer that fits perfectly in the story – an answer that I won’t tell you for the sake of not ruining a major plot point. The reasoning works so well that you'd think it was originally written that way.

As I'm sure you've gathered, The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is an extremely odd film, but I promise you that after seeing it and putting more thought into it, you'll agree that it is a perfectly brilliant final film from Ledger as well as Terry Gilliam's best work since 12 Monkeys. Being in such limited release, if Doctor Parnassus appeals to you, see it as soon as you can.

Photo credit: Sony Pictures Classics

Youth In Revolt

2010-01-14T20:16:00.003-07:00

- Three stars (out of five)
- Rated R for sexual content, language and drug use.
- Who's going to like it: rebellious teens, fans of Michael Cera (past, present or future), coming-of-age and losing-virginity comedies

An entertaining, funny and completely forgettable “good for the moment” comedy

Nick Twisp (Michael Cera, Superbad) is a wanker surrounded by a world of wankers. His idiot father (Steve Buscemi, Fargo) is remarried to a twenty-something bimbo trophy wife. His mother has a trashy truck-driving live-in boyfriend (Zach Galifianakis, The Hangover) that's addicted to painkillers. When he, his mother and her boyfriend vacation to a rented trailer in a wooded trailer park, Nick not only meets Sheeni, the love of his life that he'd like to lose his virginity to, but also a hundred more wankers. Her parents, brothers and neighbors are all wankers too.

Getting in the way of Nick being able to lose his virginity to Sheeni are all of these wankers and the fact that she wants a wanker boyfriend. So Nick does the drastic. He creates an alter-ego – much like Tyler Durden in Fight Club – to her liking. Nick's alter ego, Francois Dillinger, is a powerful, vulgar, French tool that is willing to do whatever it takes to get whatever he wants. In an attempt to get the girl, Nick and Francois end up in a lot of trouble with both of his parents, Sheeni's parents, her friends, her school and the Berkley Police Department.

While Youth In Revolt is actually very funny, I can't see it standing the test of time. It'll definitely draw a lot of laughs, but end up forgotten in the long run. If you enjoy and can handle mass amounts of adult humor along the vein of American Pie and Sex Drive, then you'll definitely find Youth In Revolt worth watching. If not, you've been warned.

Photo credit: The Weinstein Company

Leap Year

2010-01-14T20:08:00.003-07:00

- One star (out of five)
- Rated PG for sensuality and language.
- Who's going to like it: the same people who like every romantic comedy

Clichéd romantic comedy at its worst

Being a big fan of Amy Adams (Enchanted), I always thought she could do no wrong. Although I despised every other aspect of the movie, in Night At The Museum 2, she seemed to be the only member of the cast who showed up to have a good time. You can always expect her to be her best – even in a bad movie. But after seeing Leap Year, all I could feel was complete embarrassment for her.

Anna (Adams) has been waiting for her longtime boyfriend Jeremy (Adam Scott, Step Brothers) to propose – but he just wont do it. After receiving words of wisdom from her father, Anna decides to go out on a limb and follow Jeremy to Ireland where an old tradition gives a woman the chance to propose to a man on February 29, hence the title leap year.

Without much originality, Anna just can't seem to make it to Dublin on her own, so she hires a good-looking taxi-driving bar-tending innkeeper (Matthew Goode, Watchmen) to help her get to Dublin before that once-every-four-years deadline – but, of course, he only becomes an attractive obstacle in her way. Their journey consists of one absurd obstacle after another. The laziness of the screenplay is overly evident through the countless rom-com clichés, making Leap Year a sloppy mash-up of every chick flick you've ever seen.

The problem with Leap Year is not in the cast or filmmaking, it's in the writing. Adams is still charming and fun to watch on the screen. The Irish locations chosen for filming are absolutely beautiful. It's simply the story and writing that will cause Leap Year to be one of the worst films of the new year. Instead of making and releasing this movie now, the studio should have held onto the idea, had it rewritten and released it in 2012 – an actual leap year!

If you men out there are looking for a good romantic comedy to take you're significant others to on Valentine's Day, don't even consider Leap Year. I'll be surprised if it even lasts that long in theaters.

Photo credit: Universal Pictures

Sherlock Holmes

2009-12-24T23:48:00.002-07:00

- Three and a half stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey Jr. and fun, action-packed mysteries.

Guy Ritchie directing a fun Hollywood movie, not a Guy Ritchie movie

I've been excited for Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes for a long time. I've liked Ritchie since Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels, loved him after Snatch, but lost faith in him with Swept Away and was let down by Revolver. But after Rocknrolla, I fell right back in love with him. His classic British gangster heist films are absolutely brilliant.

Once he went back to his roots with Rocknrolla, I had the utmost faith that he could do no wrong with Sherlock Holmes. But once I was sitting in the theater watching it, only minutes into the movie, I started to worry. Sherlock Holmes hits the ground running. The opening scenes feel like they might have been the final sequences to a previous movie, as if this movie was the second chapter in a trilogy and the opening scene was a refresher as to how the first movie ended – just like Robert Zemeckis did with the Back To The Future movies.

Although the opening sequence is quite good, it was the scene that followed that had me worried. The second sequence tries to quickly establish the characters, but doesn't quite show them for who they are in the rest of the movie. That individual scene actually feels out of place, perhaps falling victim to too much editing. That's my guess. But after that, the rest of the movie is a fun, smooth sailing rollercoaster-of-a-ride.

Coming off of a huge streak of fun films, Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) plays Sherlock Holmes – a imaginative realization of the character as I never pictured him being. Sherlock is arrogant, needy and possibly a little crazy. He and his sidekick partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law, Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow) have a friendship like that of a bickering, married-too-long couple. The strictly heterosexual chemistry that exists between them is priceless. They have too many memorably awesome scenes together to mention just one.

The story of Sherlock Holmes is not a very complicated one, but the blend of science versus mythology is a fun one. Holmes and Watson are following a trail of black magic and dark arts to capture the evil Lord Blackwood and put an end to his world-changing plan. Along the way, getting caught up in the mix is Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, The Notebook) – a world renowned black widow thief.

After seeing Sherlock Holmes, there are two specific scenes that will come to mind whenever someone mentions the movie – two unforgettably cool action scenes. Not only will they be remembered for the unique special effects used, but for how fun, tense and playful they are. When you see the film, you'll know exactly which two scenes I'm referring to.

Hands down, if you haven't yet seen Avatar, Sherlock Holmes is the best movie to see this holiday weekend. It's fun, action-packed and very entertaining – sure to be a big success followed up with a sequel.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Road

2009-12-18T14:26:00.010-07:00

- Five stars (out of five)
- Rated R for some violence, disturbing images and language.
- Who's going to like it: fathers and sons, fans of outstanding filmmaking and the Cormac McCarthy novel from which it's adapted

One of the best films of the year, possibly of all time

I'm not a fan of books. I usually don't read them. I don't consider it a fun way to pass my time. But sometimes I'll see a film that I enjoy so much that I'll rush out, grab the novel and fly through it. The Road was one of those films. The second I got out of the press screening, I picked up Cormac McCarthy's novel (by the same title) and read it in two days. The last time I did this was with another McCarthy adapted film, No Country For Old Men. Much like No Country, The Road is what I consider a “perfect adaptation” – adding and removing nothing at all, reorganizing and compacting the structure of the story to make it work in the film-medium. Just like it's novel and adaptation, the film version of The Road is absolutely perfect.

The Road is set along the eastern coast of the post apocalyptic United States. There's never a reason given for what caused “the end of the world,” but hints point their fingers towards a nuclear holocaust, a global warming disaster or catastrophe caused by the over-pollution of Earth. Whatever the cause may be, the world is dying; it is rapidly growing colder and colder. The sky is overcast and gray with icy clouds and falling ash. The nights are so pitch black that it's impossible to see enough to travel. Raging roaming fires have burned the world's population of already-dead trees; those trees still standing are so unstable that slightest trembles can bring an entire forest to the ground. Animals, vegetation and all plant life are dead. Food is scarce. The majority of mankind is dead. The remaining humans fall into two categories: traveling scavengers on foot who collect useful items (blankets, weapons and combustible fuel) while in search of food, and barbaric cannibalistic gangs who hunt the scavengers. The world is bleak.

Viggo Mortensen (Lord Of The Rings) plays the nameless father of a, too, nameless boy; they fall into the scavenger category. The Road simply follows The Man and The Boy on their journey south – hoping to find warmer weather – dodging the cannibals and in search of food. There has never been a stronger fiction tale exemplifying a father's love towards his son than that in The Road.

As dark and depressing as The Road may be, there is a certain hope that comes from it – making this hard-to-watch film well-worth sitting through. Although The Boy was born after the world-ending event and never knew life as we now know it, because of his father's stories and teachings, The Boy holds a forgotten humanity that doesn't exist outside the bond of him and his father. The Man is simply trying to teach The Boy how to “carry the fire” within and survive on his own for the day when The Man will no longer be with him – making The Boy the last remaining piece of humanity.

The filmmaking, directing and adaptation would be nothing without an excellent cast. Mortensen gives his best performance to date, truly conveying to you what it would be like to be a father in this scenario – often times without saying a word. Child actor Kodi Smit-McPhee brings a non-existent innocence the dead world, fully making you understand what his awful young life would be like. Even the bit characters by Charlize Theron (Monster), Robert Duvall (The Godfather), Guy Pearce (Memento) and Garret Dillahunt (The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford) stand out as noteworthy performances. Every aspect of the film fits perfectly together with the rest, making it absolutely flawless.

Considering how busy theaters will be over the next few weeks, it will be a perfect time to get out and see a little film like The Road – a film worthy of investing yourself in emotionally. I give you my word that you'll leave the theaters dwelling on the things you've just seen for days. The Road is an impressionable film that will never leave you.

Photo credit: Dimension Films

Up In The Air

2009-12-18T14:18:00.005-07:00

- Four and a half stars (out of five)
- Rated R for language and some sexual content.
- Who's going to like it: fans of great filmmaking and Jason Reitman's down-to-earth style of directing and storytelling

The witty humor of Thank You For Smoking with the heart of Juno

“Times are tough.”

“In this economy...”

Phrases you hear more often than not right now.

Everyone has an opinion on the current financial state of United States' economy. There is no denying that things are bad. Everyone has been or knows someone who has been personally affected by the recession. If a film comes out with a main character whose job is to fire people, you wouldn't think the American public would want to see it. Not in “these times.”

But you should. And I hope you do. That is my job. And here is why you should: Up In The Air is about more than just the firings; it's about living, learning from and enjoying life.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) spends more time each year in the air flying from city to city for his job than he does in his own apartment. He's become so accustomed to this lifestyle that the things any common person would see as impersonal – waiting in airports, going through security, flying solo and staying in hotels – are warming and welcome tasks and places to him. That is how numb and cold he has become due to his job and the lifestyle that comes with it.

But Ryan is about to become a victim of the poor economy that has kept him employed. This lifestyle that he enjoys is being taken from him. The company he works for is creating a new system of pulling off their corporate firings: it will all be done over the Internet through a video conferencing on both sides – making it an even colder experience for those being fired than it was before. Ryan's last hoorah is giving a training while traveling to the twenty-something new girl, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick, Twilight), that created the impersonal computerized system that will ground him indefinitely.

In the midst of their travels, Ryan has rendezvouses with a fellow frequent flyer, Alex Gonan (Vera Farmiga, The Departed) – a woman whose cold personality only rivals that of Ryan. She refers to herself as being just like Ryan, “only with a vagina” – a perfect string-less counterpart.

Little Natalie is the catalyst in this “warming-of-the-grinch's-heart” tale. Her youthfulness, naiveté and lack-of-experience makes both Ryan and Alex reflect on themselves, analyzing their current situations.

The flight that Up In The Air takes you on is an unpredictable, yet enjoyable one. Whenever Ryan and Natalie reach their destinations and begin firing employees – complete strangers – director Jason Reitman shows montages of the reactions – breakdowns – of the employees that are “let go.” As if each of those reactions isn't intimately uncomfortable enough, knowing that Reitman chose to shoot those scenes with actual recently laid off people – all but two not being actors – brings those scenes straight to the heart. The balance between those powerful moments and the comedic ones is perfectly well-paced and edited. The result is straight-forward, coming-of-(middle)-age tale.

Just like The Road (also opening this weekend), Up In The Air is one of this year's best films. It's got a great story, plenty of laughs and a big old heart – definitely not one to miss.

Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Did You Hear About The Morgans?

2009-12-18T14:13:00.005-07:00

- Zero stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for some sexual references and momentary violence.
- Who's going to like it: nobody – and if you do, don't admit it – we'll all laugh at you

Did you hear about The Morgans? It's terrible.

Opening this weekend, there are three films that fall into the “Do Not Miss” category (The Road, Up In The Air and Avatar). On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Did You Hear About The Morgans? – an awful and awfully dull romantic comedy worthy of the “Definitely Miss” column.

A bickering, separated and soon-to-be divorcing couple just so happens to go on a date when it's painfully obvious that the woman (Sarah Jessica Parker) wants nothing to do with the man (Hugh Grant). After a pointless and awkward dinner, for some reason the prominent couple decides to walk the many blocks of New York City streets home instead of take the limousines right in front of them. Along the way, they witness the murder of a random man and see the face of the (supposedly) professional killer who did it.

The NYC police department decides to send the couple into the Witness Relocation Program for their protection. Of course, for some never-given reason they have to enter the program together for one week, and afterwards can be separated to two different locations. As a lame quirk, these city slickers are sent to small town Cody, Wyoming where their romantic spark is reignited amidst the “hicks” around them.

The only thing more offensive than how stupid The Morgans is is how stupid the filmmakers think the audience is. Not only is it chock full of the typical romantic comedy clichés, but the foreshadowing of future events is so painfully obvious that it's insulting.

I'm a fan of Hugh Grant – but not in this movie. You have to forgive him for being the only one trying to make the best of a horrible script. Every single sentence that leaves his mouth is a one-liner, most of which fail to draw laughs. But Sarah Jessica Parker is unforgivable for this performance. I've seen better performances in community theatre productions than the one she gives here.

The best word to describe Did You Hear About The Morgans? is “painful.” Everything about it hurts. There is nothing salvageable or entertaining it. Do not waste your time or money.

Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

Avatar

2009-12-17T16:22:00.008-07:00

- Four stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking.
- Who's going to like it: everyone! including fans of big, beautiful and fun action flicks

It's Avatariffic!

For years now – without having seen a single frame of footage – fanboys across the globe have been drooling blindly over Avatar – writer/director James Cameron's first feature film since 1997's Titanic. When the film's teaser trailer finally made it's way online earlier this year and the geeks were freaking out, I watched it asked, “That's what all the hype is about?” The teaser was so unimpressive that I deemed it early on as “Jar-Jar Binks: The Movie,” failing to live up to it's expectations much like George Lucas' Star Wars prequels. But I made a mistake. I judged the Avatar book by it's cover – and I was wrong.

Much like early reviews are claiming – as well as a South Park episode titled “Dances With Smurfs” – the story of Avatar is far from being original. Yes, it's almost the exact same story as Dances With Wolves – only set on an alien planet called Pandora and aliens taking the place of the Native Americans – but it's the stylistic journey that Avatar takes you on that will make it stand out.

Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation) plays the lead character in Avatar, Jake Sully – a human soldier left paraplegic from battle wounds that's recruited to fill in for his deceased twin brother in the special Avatar project on the rain forest planet of Pandora. Because their DNA is identical, Jake can plug his mind into and control his dead brother's artificially created Na'vi body – nearly identical to those of the Pandora's native people (who are a spiritual and primitive people much like the Native Americans in Dances With Wolves). Jake especially enjoys plugging into his new body – or “avatar” – because he once again has the ability to use functional legs.

Jake's mission on Pandora is to gain the trust of the Na'vi people and convince them to relocate their tribe so that the corporation he's working for can excavate the largest amount of an extremely profitable precious metal found below their home – a substance poorly titled “unobtainium.” Upon completing his mission, the corporation will cover the expensive cost to have Jake's spine corrected, giving him the ability to once again walk with his natural legs.

Much like Dances With Wolves, just as you would imagine and as shown in the trailer, once Jake becomes part of the Na'vi people, he begins to question which side has the most just cause and which side is worthy of working for – of course, under the heavy influence of a young, attractive Na'vi woman (Zoe Saldana, Star Trek).

For possibly the first time ever, Avatar uses a new technology of special effects that makes it often impossible to tell what on the screen is real and what is fake. Approximately 60% of Avatar is computer generated – most of the time fully computer generated: the characters, animals, plants, ships, the sky, the rain, the weapons, the explosions. Any time you see one of the ten-feet-tall Na'vi, they are computer generation images of motion captured actors – meaning that an actor stood in front of the camera and acted that scene out while a computer regenerated the actor's complete performance in a computerized Na'vi body. And to make it more personal, instead of having each character look original and unique, each Na'vi character's face is generated to look just like the actor's who gave the performance, simply enhancing it to an alien-like form (unlike the unnecessary and wasted motion capture effects used in Polar Express, Beowulf and Disney's A Christmas Carol in which the actor's performances were motion captured and regenerated to look identical the actor, unaltered). Jake Sully's avatar looks just like Sam Worthington. Neytiri, his Na'vi romantic interest, looks just like Zoe Saldana. And so on. Even though you wouldn't think it, the special effects never become distracting.

The world of Pandora (that I used to call “Jar-Jar Binks Land”) is another strong point in the way of special effects; it is so rich in detail and beauty that it becomes more of a character to the story than a backdrop for the actors to be seen in front of. It creates a bold contrast between the simple, beautiful life of the Na'vi and the busy, destructive and mechanized human world.

Yes, Avatar contains a small “green” message. The humans are looking for unobtainium because Earth is almost dead due to mankind's wastefulness. But said message is so minute in comparison to the big picture of the film. It's not preachy in that small message. And because of the amount of fun to be had in the rest of the film, it's easily forgivable.

Before seeing it, the last thing I expected from Avatar was to have a “good time.” It didn't look entertaining to me. But I was wrong. And I'm glad I was wrong. Avatar is one of the most fun movies of the year. I put it up there with Star Trek (and I'm hoping Sherlock Holmes plays off the exact same fun way). You're guaranteed to have fun with Avatar. It takes you on a great journey – one that I don't suspect will be easily forgotten or disliked.

I have been asked by many eager moviegoers how the film plays out in 3D, if it's worth it. I'll say this: if you like the new form of 3D – known as Real D – then you'll like it. It's not used as a gimmick. They never throw anything in your face in an attempt to get you to duck or move. It's used as a visual enhancement, giving depth to what you're watching – never making anything come out towards you. Is it worth the extra couple bucks? If you're willing to pay it. As for me, I'd be just fine with it in the standard 2D – but remember, that's me saying it and I haven't seen it in 2D. It might make a world of difference, but I can't say at this time.

To put it simply, Avatar is one of the most fun films of the year. Does it deserve the supposed “Oscar buzz” that's it's getting? No. But it's a whole lot of fun – a film that I will definitely see at least one more time in theaters - because Avatar is a film definitely meant to be seen on the big screen.

Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

The Princess And The Frog

2009-12-11T00:02:00.000-07:00

- Four stars (out of five)
- Rated G
- Who's going to like it: fans of Disney's classic, hand-drawn Princess films

Disney animation is back on top

I wasn't one of those kids that grew up on Disney movies – and because I didn't have any sisters, I especially didn't grow up enjoying the “princess” ones. Aladdin was the exception - probably because it is so funny, vibrant and the male character has just as much on-screen time as the princess does. To my delight, The Princess And The Frog, Disney's first hand-drawn animated movie since Home On The Range in 2004, is in the exact same format as Aladdin – so it was easy for me to fall in love with it.

The Princess And The Frog tells the story of Tiana – a young black woman who grew up in a poor part of New Orleans during the Jazz Era. Every since she was a child, Tiana grew up with fantastic dreams of owning and running a fancy and lively restaurant with her father. Now a young adult, Tiana has lost her father and there's nothing she wants more than to realize their dream in his memory. Everything is thrown askew when the arrogant partier Prince Naveen visits from the Mediterranean. After being transformed into a frog by the villainous “shadowman” Dr. Facilier, Prince Naveen seeks the fabled kiss that will undo his hideous, amphibious transformation.

What separates The Princess And The Frog from the typical fairytale frog-kissing stories of the past is what happens after the two lock lips – Tiana, much like her kissing buddy, is turned into a frog. Together the two insect-eating hoppers travel into the dangerous Bayou to seek help from a creole witch-lady and to find refuge from Facilier's shadow army.

Earlier this week, I sat down with The Princess And The Frog animators Randy Haycock (Supervising Animator of Prince Naveen) and Bruce Smith (Supervising Animator of Dr. Facilier) to talk about their latest film. Here's what they had to say:

Randy Haycock: We are very proud of the film. It's the best thing we've done in a long time and I'm as proud about this film as anything I have worked on in many years – probably [since] the Lion King era. We're reaching those kind of heights again in terms of the entertainment value and the appeal of the characters and what the film leaves you with. ... The people aren't seeing “the same old same old.” … There was a time when Disney made these kind of films that nobody else could imitate. People would try, but it never quite felt as great. Even Disney stopped making those kind of films for a while. We had a niche. And we forgot what that niche was – it was making these kinds of films. I'm not saying just “musical fairytales” - Lion King isn't a fairytale – but making films that were about strong storytelling, great characters that resonated with people – that they felt for these characters, they continue to live with these characters after the film is over – but also a lot of humor, romance, emotional qualities that are the things that stay with people. That's what made those films classic. We needed to have that kind of film again.

Bruce Smith: The problem wasn't the medium. The problem was the tone, the types of stories, the types of characters we were trying to tell those stories with. … (Referring to the motion-capture animation of films like Beowulf and The Polar Express) Something about those characters kinda pushes you away. You can't embrace those characters. You don't feel the pure emotional joy or sadness of those characters.

R.H.: There's a certain lack of genuineness about those characters.

B.S.: Yeah, it's hard to explain. It's something you walk away from [without] feeling.

R.H.: When you start animating, you get excited because you make a drawing that moves. But once you're into it and you realize what the power and capability of animation is, you become more excited about the idea that your drawings can move an audience and create emotion in them. That's the real reward.

The Princess And The Frog – just as Haycock and Smith claim – is a rewarding film – not only for children, but for anyone who has ever admired the unique tone of Disney's classic films. Before having seen it most people are recognizing it for being the first Disney fairytale with a black princess. After seeing it, The Princess And The Frog will be known for bringing the spirit of classic Disney film back to life.

Photo credit: Disney Animation Studios

Invictus

2009-12-11T00:01:00.005-07:00

- One star (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for brief strong language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of mediocre biopics and mediocre sports movies (like The Blind Side)

Biopics and sports flicks – the worst of both worlds

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a good biopic or sports movie. A good biopic usually tells you something about a famous person that you might not have known – for good or bad. Most good sports movies tell underdog stories where untrained teams defy the odds – even if they lose in the end. But nothing is more painful than bad versions of either genre. Director Clint Eastwood did a great job of blending two bad example of each with Invictus.

The first half of Invictus focuses on the post-prison life of famous South African president Nelson Mandela. The second half tells the story of the South African rugby team (the Springboks) that Mandela challenged to win the world cup.

For those too young to know the story of Mandela, be prepared to learn nothing about him. Eastwood expects you to already know his whole story going into it. There's is no pre-prison information given. Invictus begins with him being released from prison in February 1990, then without any warning jumps to him being elected to the presidency. Although he won with the majority vote, the movie portrays him as not having any followers. It seems like no one – black or white – trusts in him nor his decisions.

Trying to unite his country, Mandela gets involved in the nation's most popular sport – rugby. The only problem is that the blacks associate the Springboks as being the oppressive white man's team. So, Mandela challenges team captain Francois Pienaar to take his losing team to the world cup, giving everyone in the nation something to take pride in – no matter the color of the skin.

The second half of Invictus shows the team in action, taking on the most challenging opponents in world. But there are two big problems with this: One, the team never does anything to get better. No training, speeches or pep-talks. Two, they never bother to explain any part of the game of rugby. You never know what's going on. One guy will kick the ball to the other team, who kicks it back in return, just to have that same first kicker kick it once more through the goal posts. I feel like I understand the made-up, complicated, barely-explained game of Whack-Bat (from Fantastic Mr. Fox) more than I do rugby, which is a real-life popular game outside the United States.

Unless you mastered in South Africa with an emphasis on Nelson Mandela and a minor in the sport of rugby, you're not going to understand any single part of Invictus.

And as if the storytelling wasn't bad enough, having Morgan Freeman play Nelson Mandela is a complete joke. I've never lived in South Africa, but I know what that accent is and isn't supposed to sound like – and it's not supposed to sound like that. Freeman sounds like post-dental work Freeman for the first half and completely gives up on the accent in the second half. Outshining him in the most wasted role of his career is Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar – who changes his entire persona for a small role that isn't challenging in the slightest bit. Damon has a chiseled muscular body and an amazing South African accent so thick and defined that it's one hundred percent unrecognizable as being his own voice. The performances between the two are night and day.

If you are dying to see a sports biopic, don't settle for Invictus – settle for The Blind Side. As much as I hated The Blind Side, I have to recommend it as being a better film based solely on the fact that you can laugh at how bad it is. You never know what's going on in Invictus, making it painfully hard to roll your eyes at.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-12-05T14:48:00.008-07:00

- Four stars (out of five)
- Rated PG for action, smoking and slang humor.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Wes Anderson, George Clooney's awesome dry humor, tip-top stop motion animation and children

One of the funniest, well-crafted animated films of the year

Writer/director Wes Anderson is an “acquired taste” filmmaker. His films (Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou and The Darjeeling Limited) come across as odd upon initial viewings, but with subsequent viewings, they become more and more funny and entertaining. For those already adapted to his unique style of humor, Fantastic Mr. Fox will show that Anderson is still on top of his game.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is an expanded adaptation of Roald Dahl's (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) 1970 children's book. It tells the story of Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a retired chicken thief who has an itch to return to his burgling ways. After pulling off the biggest multi-farm heist of his short fox life, three of the most unrelenting and powerful farmers are hellbent on killing Mr. Fox, his fox family and all of their neighborly animal friends.

Much like a book, Fantastic Mr. Fox is in the format of a book with episodes, chapters and breaks. And although the content – the story, the jokes and the visuals – may not be the most typical you'd find in a “kid's” movie, there's just enough of it to keep children entertained. The rest of the content is all for the adults – sparing none of Anderson's humor, including an innocent and tactful way of “cussing.” The script feels as if it was written for a typical R-rated Wes Anderson screenplay, only substituting offensive language with the word “cussing.” "Are you cussing with me?" “The cuss you're not!” “What the cuss!” That way, it stays one hundred percent kid-friendly.

The amount of detail put into the animation of Fantastic Mr. Fox is brilliant. Although filmed with tiny miniature figurines of the characters, the amount of detail put into each individual character and set is so deeply defined that Anderson isn't afraid to do full-frame close-ups of their faces and expressions. Each fox hair individually moves in harmony with the gentle wind. It's amazing to see the amount of detail put into the tiny figurines.

Without a doubt, Fantastic Mr. Fox will be one of the films nominated for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars. Don't rob yourself of a fantastic moviegoing experience. Get out there and see it. You'll might even end up rooting for it take the Oscar over Pixar's Up.

Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

2012

2009-12-05T14:38:00.006-07:00

- Three stars (out of five)
- Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of big, dumb, mindless and unbelievable special effects driven blockbusters

A big disaster movie that's so awfully bad that it's good

Writer/director Roland Emmerich is the king of bad disaster flicks – The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day, 10,000 BC, Godzilla. To a lot of people, his films are a joke. Because of the writing and directing styles used for 2012, you can't help but assume that 2012 was done in such a clichéd manner that it was meant to be an over-the-top comical joke.

Instead of focusing the disaster on select specific areas – like New York City in Godzilla – 2012 brings the disaster to entire world. No location is safe. After solar flares cause Earth's core to heat up – mutating the neutrinos there – our planets crust is being consumed by the liquid core, making all land unstable.

Like most other disaster flicks, 2012 features an ensemble cast of characters that all end up interconnected and together by the end. John Cusack plays a divorced author, Amanda Peet (Saving Silverman) his ex-wife and mother of their two children. Danny Glover plays the U.S. President, Thandie Newton (Crash) his daughter, Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children Of Men) his scientific advisor. Woody Harrelson plays the kooky conspiracy theorist who's predicted the end of the world and secret elite plot to save humanity.

The end-of-the-world mass destruction sequences are a blast to watch. The special effects are fantastic – the kind that are meant to be seen on the big screen. Add outrages escape attempts to those sequences and you've got one fun movie. There's nothing like watching John Cusack and family trying to outrun a massive earthquake in busted-up limousine, or running from a fiery explosion to an airplane taxiing for take-off.

If you go into 2012 knowing that you're about to see a very long (158 minutes) – yet never boring – action-packed, over-the-top unbelievable movie, then you'll have a blast. If you're incapable of finding humor in things so bad that you laugh, then you'll hate it.

Photo credit: Sony Pictures

Ninja Assassin

2009-12-05T14:32:00.004-07:00

- Two stars (out of five)
- Rated R for strong bloody stylized violence throughout, and language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of violent ninja flicks

A guilty pleasure, one of the coolest ninja movies to date

Coming from the same team that made the Matrix movies and V For Vendetta, I had high hopes for Ninja Assassin – not only for being a good ninja movie, but a great movie in general. But I was wrong. Ninja Assassin is good for what it is: an ultaviolent ninja movie. It never apologizes for what it is and never lets up.

Ninja Assassin never gets any more violent and graphic than it's opening scene. That scenes paves the way for the rest of the film. If you can handle that, you can handle the rest. But if not, you'll know that you should leave.

The perspective of the story for Ninja Assassin follows the exact same mold as the one used for V For Vendetta – a savvy cop suspects something awry, follows instincts, unfolds a major secret and fights against the system and everything she used to stand for. In V For Vendetta it was a secret government-ran holocaust and with genetic testing. In Ninja Assassin, it's a worldwide secret system of hired killers.

Many visual elements of The Matrix and V For Vendetta can be seen in Ninja Assassin – the look of the fighting sequences, the “trail” left in the air of quick-flying objects. I can only assume that the reason they recycled these stylistic elements is because they look great and fit well with the new ninja elements created for Ninja Assassin.

If you're a sucker for ninja flicks, you'll dig Ninja Assassin. If not, then it'll come across as mediocre and too violent. But if I had to choose a guilty pleasure movie to not take seriously this weekend, it would be 2012.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Old Dogs

2009-12-05T14:27:00.003-07:00

- Half of a star (out of five)
- Rated PG for some mild rude humor.
- Who's going to like it: really old people, most likely those with dementia or Alzheimer's

From the maker of Wild Hogs comes a movie worthy of showing Guantanamo detainees to get information out of them

Robin Williams and John Travolta play childhood best friends and long-time business partners who are about to close the international business deal of a lifetime. Just when the pressure is on them to work out the kinks and finalize the deal, one of the finds out some life-altering news – he unknowingly has twin seven-year-old children. And if things couldn't get any worse, they are forced to take care of them for two weeks.

There are countless problems with Old Dogs. For starters, neither Williams nor Travolta are old enough to complain about and have the problems they have. Neither are old enough that they take mass amounts of pills each day. Often times they are portrayed as if they were at the Grumpy Old Men age, when they're not even close.

The problems that they face are so ridiculous and absurd, occurring so soon one after the other, that the contrivance of them is unforgivable.

How many times in one movie can the two of them be mistake for an old gay couple – especially because it's a PG Disney movie?!

I disliked Old Dogs so much that I no longer wish to write about it.

Old Dogs is pure torture. It hold Travolta and Williams' worse acting yet. I literally recommend this movie to no coherent human being.

Photo credit: Walt Disney Studios

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

2009-11-20T14:18:00.008-07:00

- One star (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some violence and action.
- Who's going to like it: fans of the Twilight books or movie – nobody else.

A teenage soap opera adaptation of Romeo and Juliet with vampires and werewolves

If you thought that Seinfeld earned the title “the show about nothing,” you obviously haven't seen New Moon – the longest movie where absolutely nothing happens. No plot.

New Moon – the second chapter of the Twilight franchise – is basically the same movie as the first, just with a different freaky male romantic interest. After Bella (Kristen Stewart, Adventureland) unintentionally poses a moral threat to Edward (Robert Pattinson, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) and his family, the Cullens leave the small town of Forks, WA to begin a new life somewhere else, leaving behind everything – including Bella.

In a deep dark rut of depression, Bella begins performing stupid reckless acts just to be visited by warning apparitions of a protective Edward. After her suicidal acts lose their luster, Bella copes with her depression by spending all of her time with a local Native American boy, Jacob (Taylor Lautner, Cheaper By The Dozen 2). But the relationship between them is damned to be like the one with Edward because of Bella's everlasting love with Edward and Jacob's new monstrous secret.

Other than a tiny ten-minute plot that's conjured up in the final moments of the movie (which is a blatant rip of Romeo and Juliet), that's all there is to New Moon. Only two revelations come about that further the saga's storyline – one you see in the the trailer (Jacob is a werewolf), and the other we've all presumed since the story began (I'll keep that one a secret for those who don't want me to spoil the one-and-only surprise).

Considering how much of a huge impact the Twilight saga has had on pop culture worldwide, it's shocking to me to the see the low-caliber in which the films are made. Every aspect of these movies are executed in the worst possible way. Each one of the the following rants exemplifies those poorly crafted aspects:

– Acting. Taking off your shirt multiple times in one movie and clinching your jaw is not acting (Jacob). Being slightly more tan than you were in Twilight, constantly breathing deeply, biting your lip and screaming is not acting (Bella). Smashing and contorting your face to show disgust is not acting (Edward). Don't even get me started on the secondary character's acting. Every one of the werewolf gang members that Jacob runs around with needs to take acting lessons. I've seen better acting on the CW.

– Directing. The directing in New Moon is no better from that of Twilight. Director Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass) relentlessly fills the frame with absurdly long single shots of nothing – a spinning overhead shot of Bella pointlessly crawling through the woods for a minute, a 360-degree slowly rotating shot of Bella sitting in a chair for over a minute just to show the months and seasons pass outside her window. For some reason, Weitz also feels the need to over-use slow motion effects – not only during action scenes, but any time a boy (shirtless or not) enters the screen. The majority of the New Moon consists of improperly used camera work – including several sequences that come across as dialogue-less music videos set to the least fitting music possible. Combined, all of these misused elements are enough to drive one crazy.

– The story (or lack thereof). It's hard to believe a slow, strung-out love story when not an ounce of chemistry exists between the romantic leads. I don't buy that Bella could be that caught up in Edward when he's so shut-off and cold. He never even smiles at her, so when he tells her that he loves her, I laugh. I don't buy it. And when Bella begins passing time with Jacob, she's so rude and blunt to him about how they will never have a romantic relationship that I can't figure out why he'd stick around with her. She's so obviously using him as a rebound that he's got to know. I don't buy any of it. It's too shallow and unbelievable.

– The studio. Nothing personal against Summit Entertainment, but with an already huge cult following, why would Stephenie Meyer sell the movie rights to her series to an unknown independent film studio? Why not something big? We saw what New Line did with Lord of the Rings and Warner Bros. with Harry Potter. Why settle for the lowest common denominator? Because of Summit's newness to the industry, it's obvious why the first two movies in this four-film franchise have been atrociously awful. It's like I said in my original Twilight review, these films feel so amateur that it's not surprising that I've seen better short films by undergraduate college film students. While the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films will live forever, Twilight will be forgotten.

With all of that said, none of it matters. The Twilight saga is critic proof. All the giddy teenage girls and romance-lacking middle-aged women will still see New Moon and absurdly drool all over it. My job is to stop those who aren't into the series to never get into it, to stop feeding this undeserving cash cow.

For my superbly brutal review on Twilight, click here.

The image below very well could be a snapshot of the cast while watching New Moon. That's how entertaining it is.

Photo credit: Summit Entertainment

The Blind Side

2009-11-20T14:09:00.004-07:00

- One star (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references.
- Who's going to like it: fans of feel-good movies and true story sports flicks (even though less than half of the movie is about sports)

A long, jumbled mess of a feel-good true story

The first trailer I saw for The Blind Side made it look like a serious drama with a heart about a woman who took in a homeless teen and taught him to be good at something he liked. The second trailer made it look like a comedic sports movie, playing circus music and slide whistles in the background. In reality, The Blind Side is a conflicted mix of both – two things that don't blend well together in this case.

The Blind Side's first half focuses on the homeless teenage character Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron, Be Kind Rewind). With nowhere to go on a cold Memphis night, Michael is picked up by the wealthy Touhy family (parents Sean and Leigh Ann played by Tim McGraw and Sandra Bullock) who take him under their wings and give him a future.

For anyone who knows sports, you know this as the story of the Baltimore Raven's Michael Oher. As amazing as the story may be, the movie falls apart because it is such a bad telling of Oher's experiences. While the movie is full of dramatic and comedic moments, they don't harmonize well together. Just after a moment where your heart strings are tugged on and you're finally starting to feel something, a bad one-liner is dropped, causing you to quickly lose the emotional connection that was just established. It's this dichotomy repeated over and over again that ruins the movie. The acting is good, the movie is well made. It's within the script that all is lost. The result is a movie barely over two hours, yet it feels more like three.

Although I'm just one person who strongly disliked The Blind Side, people are going to like it. It's that time of the year when people want feel-good flicks, and this one is more “feel-good” than most of those of the previous years – like Seven Pounds and The Pursuit of Happyness. If you liked those examples or movies in that same vein, you ought to enjoy The Blind Side. If not, stay away. It's sap and corn in it's highest concentration.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Box

2009-11-09T14:56:00.006-07:00

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Richard Kelly, Donnie Darko, The Twilight Zone and decent science fiction stories that require you to think and create your own conclusion IF you can write off a few bad things for a bunch of great ones

It's like an indie Twilight Zone with extra odd science fiction

Richard Kelly has a fairly big cult following. It all stems from his 2001 indie hit Donnie Darko, staring Jake Gyllenhaal. Folling Donnie Darko, Kelly wrote the screenplay for Keira Knightley's bounty hunter action flick Domino. Because of the admiration of his peers and colleagues, Kelly was asked to present his unfinished work-in-progess Southland Tales at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. It received awful reviews, followed up with by a very limited theatrical release in the U.S. - so small it appeared to be a direct-to-DVD title. Perhaps trying to prove himself as a more than a one-hit-wonder, Kelly has attempted his first major studio flick with The Box.

The Box is Richard Kelly's feature-length adaptation of the Richard Matheson's short story “Button, Button” which was also adapted into a 1986 Twilight Zone episode. It stars Cameron Diaz (Charlie's Angels) and James Marsden (X-Men) as a married couple struggling financially to support their family. Just as their financial troubles hit a new low, a mysterious package shows up on their front doorstep. Inside is a box with large red button and a note saying that a visitor will be arriving. That evening, a man named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon) shows up at their house to explain the conditions of the box: if the button is pushed, somewhere in the world, someone they do not know will die. As a result of having pushed the button, the couple will receive a case containing one million dollars. The terms of the agreement are that they can never ask about the identity of his employer, they must keep it a secret and they have 24 hours to make the heavy decision.

Because The Box is adapted from a short story into a 115-minute movie, some of it feels unnecessary. Once it gets past that initial premise of the story, it starts to get excessively wild – especially when it comes down to the science fiction parts of the story. If you can write-off those problems, knowing that you're going into an odd Richard Kelly film, then you should enjoy The Box. If not, you'll most likely hate it.

Forgive me for the brevity of this review, but if I go any deeper into any aspect, I will end up spoiling something. Simply pay attention to the criteria of people who will like The Box. If you don't qualify, don't see it.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

2009-11-09T14:50:00.004-07:00

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated R for language, some drug content and brief nudity.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Clooney's recent comedies (like Burn After Reading)

A comedy that draws laughs, but not as many as the trailer leads you to believe

The Men Who Stare At Goats opens with a line of text claiming that “more of [the film] is true than you would believe.” Take it as you will, but I'm going to believe it. In the early '80s, the government put together a secret program (called the First Earth Battalion) training psychic spies – or as George Clooney's character Lyn Cassady refers to them, “Jedi Warriors.” They were a group of odd men who (supposedly) possessed psychic abilities. They were used to track the locations of hostage soldiers, trained to pass through walls and kill with their minds – which is where the film gets it title. They were taught to kill goats with their minds by staring at them with intense concentration.

The film picks up with reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan MacGregor, who coincidentally played famous Jedi warrior O.B. Wan in the Star Wars prequels) trying to get into Iraq with press credentials in 2003. Upon meeting and befriending Lyn – a former “Jedi Warrior” – Bob decides to travel with him and uncover the unique story of the government's First Earth Battalion program from twenty years prior. The film jumps back and forth from Bob and Lyn's road trip through war-ridden Iraq and Lyn's retelling of his origins, those of the program and his involvement.

The best parts of The Men Who Stare At Goats come from the performances. As always, MacGregor is average and Clooney is perfect for the role he's in. Along with Clooney's, the other real memorable performance comes from Jeff Bridges (The Dude from The Big Lebowski) as the hippie founder and creator of the “Jedi Warrior” program. Clooney is always great, but any time Bridges is on screen, he's amazing.

Although The Men Who Stare At Goats is a fun and entertaining film, it's not the great film the trailers make it out to be. Instead of laughs and sizzle, it's chuckle and fizzle. The trailer is definitely funnier than the movie as a whole and the climax doesn't pop like the build-up leads you to believe. Simply put, it's good – not great. Worth watching as a matinée – not full price.

Photo credit: Overture Films

Gentlemen Broncos

2009-11-09T14:38:00.006-07:00

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some crude humor.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Jared Hess , Jermaine Clement, Sam Rockwell and silly awkward comedy.

Writer/director Jared Hess' funniest/quirkiest film yet

The summer that Napoleon Dynamite opened, I waited through all the relentless quoting and hype to see it. By the time I saw it, my response was, “That was it? This is what you're all talking about?” It wasn't until years later when I revisited it that I found it funny. Jared Hess' big screen debut was actually a pretty entertaining movie.

When I saw Nacho Libre for the first time, I didn't expect to like it much – figuring it too would take multiple viewings – but I was wrong. Though I loved it, I had to admit that a lot of the amusement I got from the movie stemmed from my background of having lived in Central America for a couple years. The comedy that Hess pulled out of that foreign culture was hilarious to me and those who have experienced it. But I still wasn't a huge fan of Hess' work. It all felt too contrived, forced. And it definitely ripped off a lot from fellow indie comedy filmmaker Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums). Although his third film, Gentlemen Broncos, also borrows a lot from Wes Anderson, without a doubt, it is his funniest film (upon first viewing) to date.

If Napoleon Dynamite took you into the weird world of an odd boy in Idaho and Nacho Libre showed you a Mexican monk's secret aspiration of becoming a professional wrestler, then Gentlemen Broncos introduces you to small town Utah and a home-schooled boy's obsession with bad science fiction – two things which when added together equal comedic greatness.

Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) plays the awkward teenager Benjamin. When shipped off to a home-schooled student's writing festival, two things happen that change Benjamin's life: he meets his favorite science fiction writer, Dr. Ronald Chevalier (Jermaine Clement, Flight of the Conchords), and he submits his own sci-fi book, "Yeast Lords", into a nation competition where the winner receives a limited publication and cover art hand-drawn by Chevalier himself.

With heat from his editors due to writer's block, Chevalier decides to plagiarize "Yeast Lords," only slightly changing the names and characters. With no knowledge of this, Benjamin sells the rights to "Yeast Lords" to a tiny local production company that spits out awful short films. Wackiness ensues as things get complicated and hairy.

The best thing about Gentlemen Broncos it the science fiction aspect. Throughout the film, it jumps to live-action scenes contrasting the differences between Benjamin's original book and Chevalier's rewritten version of "Yeast Lords." Sam Rockwell (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) plays the book's main character Bronco in so-bad-it's-good '50s style science fiction scenes. Any scene featuring Rockwell is comedic gold. (Stay until the end of the credits for an addition Bronco scene).

My only problem with Gentlemen Broncos is an unnecessary, uncalled-for shoot-out scene that feels lifted right out of Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Other than that, Gentlemen Broncos is a hilarious, laugh-out-loud comedy that deserves far more credit than national reviews are giving it.

Photo credit: Fox Searchlight

A Christmas Carol

2009-11-09T14:21:00.008-07:00

- Half of a star (out of four)
- Rated PG for scary sequences and images.
- Who's going to like it: the simpletons who like every movie

Disney tells the same story again, only this version is not worth watching

I am huge fan of Robert Zemeckis. I'll never forget seeing the Back To The Future movies on the big screen for the first time. Forrest Gump is one of the best “feel good” films. And Contact is one of my favorite science fiction film. Those films are all in my all-time favorites list, so it personally wounds my soul for him to make a movie so bad that I wanted to walk out.

From Bill Murray's Scrooged to Mickey's Christmas Carol, every has seen one version or another of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol – so why Disney has decided to tell the same story again is beyond me. All I can figure is that they wanted to give it a CG 3-D twist – allowing them to charge more for admission.

A Christmas Carol was filmed the same way that Peter Jackson shot Andy Serkis as Gollum for the Lord of the Rings movies - motion capture: hook-up a bunch of odd digital devices and dots to an actor's body and face and have them act the scenes out. Computers take the data from the devices and dots and translate them into a digital image of the actor. Often times, the resemblance can be perfect. But why would you want to film something, then try to digitally make it look exactly like what you filmed already once? Seems like a lot of work to see the exact same performance for a digitally created face. It's obvious why Jackson used motion capture for Serkis' Gollum – nobody with or without make-up can create a character that looks like that. Once again, why Disney and Zemeckis wanted to make A Christmas Carol this way is beyond me.

The most annoying (and possibly disturbing) problem with Zemeckis' motion capture animation is in the eyes of the digital characters. You probably noticed it in both The Polar Express and Beowulf, the dead-looking eyes. They're lifeless. They look like Woody's still, fixed eyes in Toy Story whenever a human is present. With a few of the main characters in A Christmas Carol, the problem is better – not fixed, just better. Other times they look “dead” again. And the middle ground looks like crossed eyes – which I can't imagine was intentional.

I'm fairly surprised that Disney picked up A Christmas Carol for a few big reasons: one, it's disturbing – not in the scary Ghost of Christmas Past kind of way, but graphic in nature. For example, when Marley's ghost visits Scrooge in the beginning of the movie, while talking, the skin of his cheeks rips and tears from the corners of his mouth back to his ears. Unable to talk, he has to manually move his jaw by flapping it up and down with his hand. The movie consists of many graphic scenes of this nature.

Two, it's frightening – the only thing more frightening than a scary scene is a scary scene with scary things coming out at you in 3-D. Sorry, Disney – I don't want to deal with my kid having nightmares because of your inappropriately rated PG flick. No, thanks.

Three, it's not a kid's movie. The majority of the film is words – serious adult conversations, talking and talking for long chunks of time, followed by low-brow, dumbed-down "kids" humor. When they're not talking, it's Scrooge flying or falling through the air; it's a shrunken Scrooge running from huge dark horses; it's tiny Scrooge falling down the stairs, sliding down an icy rooftop repeatedly racking his groin into hanging icicles. There's a word for that – it's stupid. Stupid and inconsistent. Are you trying to make a dark version of A Christmas Carol? If so, that's okay – but stick to your guns. Make it a kid's movie with stupid kid's jokes in it, or make it a dark adult movie. You can't make it both because neither audience will be fully entertained.

It's takes a lot for me to hate a movie, but it didn't take Zemeckis much to make me hate A Christmas Carol. I don't know that I've ever wanted to walk out of a movie so bad in my entire life. That's how much I hated it. What a boring a poorly crafted movie.

You may be asking yourself, “If you hated it so much, why did you give it half a star and not zero stars?” Answer: because of the majority of the voice cast. When Jim Carrey was playing one of his subtle characters he was just fine – although his other performances were extremely annoying. It's the others in the voice cast that are impressive. Gary Oldman (Harry Potter), Colin Firth (Love Actually), Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride), Robin Wright Penn (The Princess Bride also) and Bob Hoskins (Hook) are all amazing. The only good reviews I'll give A Christmas Carol will be their talent. The rest is garbage.

If you're thinking of taking the family to a good Christmas flick, cross A Christmas Carol off your list. It's not worth it – especially when you consider the extra two bucks you have to pay per ticket for the 3-D. Go rent Mickey's Christmas Carol instead - it's the only Disney version I recommend.

Photo credit: Walt Disney Studios

This Is It

2009-10-29T20:16:00.003-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for some suggestive choreography and scary images.
- Who's going to like it: Michael Jackson fans and anyone interested in learning how major productions come about

This is it – MJ's last performance, singing and dancing as good as he did at 20

When “The King Of Pop” died on June 25 and newscasts started showing limited rehearsal footage from Michael Jackson's upcoming London production “This Is It,” I knew that someone would exploit those videos and turn them into a feature-length film. What I didn't foresee was that footage being turned into a well-made film documenting something that the never came pass – the “This Is It” show. Fortunately, I was wrong about it being a bad thing.

This Is It is a nearly two-hour documentary showing how “This Is It” was going to be. It begins more than two months before Jackson's death with intimate interviews with several of the back-up dancers shortly after being hired for the job, expressing their gratitude and respect to MJ. But with almost no hesitation, the film shows you what you came to see – MJ doing his thing.

Fan or not, there's no denying the fact that Michael Jackson could perform at age 50 just as well as he could in his prime. While watching it, I had the thought that Michael Jackson must have never gone a day in his life without using his singing voice. A few times throughout the film it shows Jackson singing classic hits in A Capella versions. That man truly mastered his voice. And his dancing skills hadn't diminished at all. From improvised dancing to the well-choreographed group numbers, Michael still had it.

This Is It does not try to prove anything. It's sole purpose is to give you one last Michael Jackson performance. The film features a total of 27 of Jackson's songs, with more than a dozen of them in their full-length. Often times throughout an entire song's performance, it will seamlessly cut between different rehearsals, showing off different costumes. The only problem some might see in this is that not all of the video's have the same quality. Sometimes it will cut to grainy footage, but most of the time it's in beautiful high definition.

After seeing This Is It, I gained an appreciation of Michael Jackson that I didn't have before - not that it doesn't show the odd side of MJ, because it does. I never realized how much Jackson had to do with the writing and preforming of the music itself. He was just as much involved in the visual aspect of “This Is It” as he was the musical aspect of his. He was just as much a director and choreographer as he was a performer. I can now agree with the long-time MJ fans in claiming that he was an extremely talented man, making it a bittersweet experience watching This Is It.

Photo credit: Sony Pictures

Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant

2009-10-23T15:46:00.006-06:00

- Two stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense supernatural violence and action, disturbing images, thematic elements and some language.
- Who's going to like it: boy's who don't know any better (read below for further explanation of this idea) and fans of John C. Reilly working comedic gigs

A not-so-bad teenage boy flick

Brothers Paul and Chris Weitz directed About A Boy and American Pie together. While Chris is off directing the latest installment of the Twilight franchise, Paul decided to kick off a vampire series of his own – perhaps what you might call the male antithesis of the girly Twilight series – Cirque Du Freak. The first of the book series is can now be seen adapted on the big screen, The Vampire's Assistant.

The Vampire's Assistant is about two best friends, Darren (Chris Massoglia) and Steve (Josh Hutcherson, Journey To The Center Of The Earth), who go to an underground freak show in their quiet hometown. Once there, Steve recognizes one of the freaks (John C. Reilly, Step Brothers) from drawings in a book as Crepsley, a 200-year-old vampire.

After Steve is bitten, hospitalized and dying from a magical venomous spider, Darren seeks the help of Crepsley to heal his best friend. Crepsley agrees to do so on one condition – that Darren gives up his human life to become Crepsley's half-vampire assistant. With Steve's wellbeing in mind, Darren agrees, fakes his death and moves in with the freak show. It's not long that dark powers turn everything around and wreak havoc.

Cirque Du Freak is the type of movie that I would've loved if I were a young boy. It's a fun teenage guy movie in the vein of the '80s flicks Monster Squad and Explorers – one that you would love at that age, but later see that it's not nearly as great as you thought it was when you were young. For that reason, I'm able to watch movies like The Vampire's Assistant and find the enjoyment in them.

If there's anything in The Vampire's Assistant that's going to please adults, it will be the secondary and side characters. Just as he has been in his recent comedies, Reilly is hilarious – not only because of his deliverance of funny lines or his bad hair, but because you get to see him as an action star. Playing Crepsley's mostly beautiful freak girlfriend is Salma Hayek (Desperado) – the bearded woman. Willem Dafoe (Boondock Saints) plays Crepsley's fellow vampire-in-hiding. Patrick Fugit (Almost Famous) plays Darren's snake-boy roommate. Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai) plays Mr. Tall, the owner of Cirque Du Freak. Orlando Jones (Evolution), Jane Krakowski (30 Rock) and Kristen Schaal (Flight Of The Conchords) play characters in the freak show.

Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is not a great movie – but it is fun. And the younger you are – even at heart – the more you'll enjoy it.

Photo credit: Universal Studios

Astro Boy

2009-10-23T15:38:00.005-06:00

- One and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for some action and peril, and brief mild language.
- Who's going to like it: anyone who hasn't seen anything Pixar yet

A bad rip of Pinocchio, A.I., Oliver, August Rush, The Incredibles and so on...

Metro City is a high-tech upper-class sovereignty that floats above the dreary world below. It's a place for the elite and powerful. They have nothing to do with the third-world people underneath them. That is, not until Astro Boy (Freddie Highmore, August Rush) is created.

After a tragic accident caused by the greedy president (Donald Sutherland, The Italian Job), Metro City's top scientist, Dr. Tenma (Nicholas Cage, Ghost Rider), is left childless. In an attempt to recreate the lost boy, Dr. Tenma makes a robot who's mechanical body is built with defenses to prevent it from every being lost again. Using a sample of the boys hair, memories are extract and placed within the robot to make him feel like a real boy. From here out, there is not an original idea in the entire movie. It's all coined from somewhere else.

Astro Boy feels more like an extremely low-budget Saturday morning cartoon than it does a feature film. It's episodic and the CG animation isn't very good. The only thing a Saturday morning cartoon has over it is proper voice casting. Instead of going for a cast of people who's voice really lend themselves to the movie, they went with big names – most likely just for advertising purposes. Aside from Highmore, Sutherland and Cage, the voice cast consists of decent actors like Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes On A Plane), Charlize Theron (Monster), Eugine Levy (American Pie), Kristen Bell (Couples Retreat), Bill Nighy (Underworld) and Nathan Lane (The Producers). Lane and Bell being the exception, everyone else is awful. The way the lines are delivered never match with the expression of the animated character.

If you're looking for a good animated flick to take the family to this weekend, don't make it Astro Boy. As you know from last week, don't even let it be Where The Wild Things Are. My recommendation would be Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs (even if you've already seen it, a second screening couldn't hurt) or wait two weeks until you can own Up on Blu-ray.

Photo credit: Summit Entertainment

Amelia

2009-10-23T15:16:00.005-06:00

- One star (out of four)
- Rated PG for some sensuality, language, thematic elements and smoking.
- Who's going to like it: people who've never seen a good movie before, people who like to be bored and elementary school teachers (read below for a further explanation on why)

One-fifth of the film is worth watching, the rest is trash

How can a film about one the most brave women in American history be so boring? I'll tell you how – show mostly the parts of her life that do not define her, the parts that nobody knows-slash-cares about.

We all know the ending to Amelia Earhart's story – sort of – so I guess that's the reason why the filmmakers wanted to show us what she was like aside from being a pilot. The majority of the film is lagged down in telling the love story between Amelia (Hilary Swank, Boys Don't Cry) and publisher George Putnam (Richard Gere, Pretty Woman), and her affair with businessman Gene Vidal (Ewan McGregor, Star Wars). The problem with the telling of this story is that no chemistry exists between any of the couples. They are all so dry together that you never once buy that any of these relationships actually work. And with a script with as much bad dialogue as Amelia has, it's even hard to believe the things that do work.

Hollywood is already boosting her Swank's performance as being an Oscar contender, but I whole-heartedly disagree. This may be Swank's worst performance to date. Her character is inconsistent – at times she plays it with a stylized 1930s voice, other times not. The shifts occur without warning or reason throughout the entire film. The simple truth is that Amy Adams' portrayal of Amelia Earhart in the absurd sequel to Night At The Museum was more convincing than Swank's – Adams at least chose a character, stuck with it and had fun.

The way that Amelia is written feels extremely amateur. For example, Amelia Earhart was a first-of-her-kind type of woman. She did something that only men were "supposed" to do. To accentuate that idea, Amelia's character is written as if she was a stereotypical man, and the leading men are written as if they were stereotypical woman. Both Gere's and McGregor's characters come off as these over emotional males that never speak-up or fight for their dreams, while Amelia is a cold and tough woman who will do whatever it takes to achieve her goals - even if it means hurting the ones she supposedly loves.

The only part of the film worth watching is the last twenty minutes. Thank heaven, the filmmakers don't create an ending to try to explain Earhart's mysterious disappearance. Instead, they present the facts and let it be. But the events leading up to the plane's disappearance are interesting, even creating an intensity that's completely absent in the film prior to that point. Other than the finale, the film is a completely uninteresting and boring waste of time.

Amelia is one of those somewhat “educational” historical films that lazy elementary school teachers across the country will show in class just to eat up two hours of teaching time. Anyone who grew up in the '80s knows how bad those movies were that they showed to us in school. Amelia is equally as bad – making it a perfectly worthy choice for those teachers to use.

Photo credit: Fox Searchlight

Where The Wild Things Are

2009-10-16T00:04:00.000-06:00

- One and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.
- Who's going to like it: overly sensitive adults that are still attached to the book and fans of beautiful boring art

A conflicted great-looking less-than-entertaining movie about a kid, yet not made for kids

Ever since I saw the first trailer for Where The Wild Things Are, I've been excited to see it. I remember loving the children's book when I was that age, so when I saw that it was brought to life in the exact same way I remember seeing it in my mind, it became one of the movies I anticipated the most this year. Imagine my disappointment upon seeing it dragged out and far less exciting than I remember it being.

First, let's talk about the book. Ten sentences about an imaginative boy named Max who gets in trouble for messing with the family dog, runs away, ends up in the make-believe world where the Wild Things are, becomes their king, almost gets eaten by the Wild Things, so he goes home. The end. Simple story, right?

While the movie is simple too, it's simply too long. Considering that there's no plot to Where The Wild Things Are, crossing 100 minutes in length, it feels like an eternity. And even as simple as the story to the film appears on the surface, nothing is shown that doesn't express some form of child psychology – mostly along the lines of loneliness and sadness, creating an unnecessary and not entertaining tone that exists throughout the whole movie.

The story to Where The Wild Things Are is extremely repetitive. It basically consists of Max and the Wild Things constantly getting offended. Max assigns tasks for the Wild Things to do, someone gets their feelings hurt. Max and the Wild Things play too hard, someone get physically hurt. Why do we need to see it over and over again? I understand that everything that happens where the Where The Wild Things Are is a representation of some aspect of Max's psyche and his friendless life with his mom and mean sister, but why do we need to be beat over the head again and again with the same thing?

Being based on a famous children's book, you'd think that being PG-rated movie, it would be for kids too. But it's not. It's far from a kid's movie. In the press screening I attended, the audience was filled with families with children of all ages. From the amount of crying, rustling and parents taking kids out of the theater, I can tell you without a doubt that Where The Wild Things Are is not a movie for your kids. The fun moments are scarce, it's not a movie you laugh through and it's very frightening. Kids will go from being terrified to being bored out of their minds, over and over again. I'm not even a kid and I was bored out of mine! This film is made for adults who loved the book; adults who want to go back to where the Wild Things are; adults who can look past the awful pacing issues just to experience the nostalgic memories of childhood; adults who were once loner kids – the ones without friends that were left to their own imaginations. Other than those who admire it's brilliant filmmaking, I can't see anyone outside of those boundaries finding enjoyment in Where The Wild Things Are.

After the pacing and storytelling problems, my next big complaint lies in the characters. Other than Max (12-year-old Max Records, The Brothers Bloom), there's not a single other character you'll care about. Not Max's mom (Catherine Keener, Into The Wild) nor her boyfriend (Mark Ruffalo, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind). Not his sister. Not any of the Wild Things - voiced by James Gandolfini (The Sopranos), Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine), Catherine O'Hara (Home Alone), Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Chris Cooper (Breach), Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under) and Michael Berry Jr. (Mission: Impossible III). If you're like me, you'll actually dislike the Wild Things. Throughout the entire movie, all I could do was hope and wait for Max to go home so I wouldn't have to see them on screen again. Max - Max Records - is the only actor that feels like he showed up to film a movie.

Am I glad I saw Where The Wild Things Are? Yes. It looks amazing. I'm astonished at the world that director Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) created with Jim Henson's puppets, miniatures and very little special effects. It's absolutely beautiful, exactly what I imagined as a child. Would I see it again? Maybe once more in my life simply to enjoy the way it looks. But my Blu-ray shelf is not a place where the Wild Things are going to be found.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Law Abiding Citizen

2009-10-16T00:03:00.000-06:00

- Half a star (out of four)
- Rated R for strong bloody brutal violence and torture, a scene of rape, and pervasive language.
- Who's going to like it: fans of gratuitous graphic violence and Gerard Butler's naked backside

First half = a B-movie story of Saw meets Se7en, second half sucks

Nothing sets the tone for a movie like an opening scene home invasion where the father is tied up, stabbed and forced to watch his wife raped and killed, followed by his little girl meeting the same fate. That's my review of the film. If you like/can handle stuff like that, then you'll enjoy Law Abiding Citizen. If not, then stay home.

Now, please don't take this as me being lazy and not wanting to write a review for the movie. That's simply the best way to break it down. There are plenty of other things to talk about, but that's me quickly breaking it down to the very core. I could talk about:

-- how the first half is actually kind of fun because it is what it is and it never apologizes, but then the second half takes itself way too serious.

-- how the ending is a cop-out that breaks the moral and message of the film and it's central characters.

-- how Jaime Foxx (Ray) is supposed to play the protagonist, but his character is such a jerk that you root for Gerard Butler (300) the antagonist.

I could do that, but I don't want to.

Law Abiding Citizen is not worth watching. As you can tell, it's even less worth talking about. Everyone who sees it for soon forget about it. When it is finally available to own on DVD, it'll probably go straight into Walmart's $5 DVD bin. I wouldn't pay to see Law Abiding Citizen, so neither should you.

Photo credit: Overture

The Boys Are Back

2009-10-16T00:02:00.000-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some sexual language and thematic elements.
- Who's going to like it: anyone willing to go to the Broadway Theatre

Clive Owen stars in Scott Hicks' (Shine) latest indie flick

The Boys Are Back tells a far-from-typical story about JoeWarr (Clive Owen, Children Of Men), a recently widowed man not only struggling through his own grief, but with properly raising his now motherless son. And as if things couldn't get any harder, Joe's ex-wife pawns off their teenage son on him too. The film takes you on their journey to getting their feet back on the ground.

There's not much of a plot to The Boys Are Back, but that's not a bad thing. Instead of feeling like a contrived Hollywood picture, it feels like you're fly on the wall witnessing this realistic story. Because of the natural feeling of the film, you never get bored – it feels like real life. And it's from this element that the film can be recognized for such high levels of excellence.

Although the cast is comprised of mostly unknown actors, there's not a bad performance in it. Owen's recent action roles haven't given him much of a chance to prove his acting talent, but he gives nothing less than a brilliant performance here. And every other actor, young or old, matches his genuine charisma, adding a great depth to the picture as a whole. One to watch out for is 17-year-old British actor George MacKay (Defiance), playing Joe's oldest son Harry. Forgive him for the fact that he looks a lot like Harry Potter's Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint).

The Boys Are Back is one of those rare gems that we're fortunate to have opening here in Utah. Depending on how the rest of the year's movies play out, don't be surprised if this is one of the films you see nominated come awards season. Do feel ashamed if you never took the time to see it.

Photo credit: Miramax

More Than A Game

2009-10-16T00:01:00.000-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for brief mild language and incidental smoking.
- Who's going to like it: not only sports fans and LeBron James lovers, but anyone interested in learning how basketball really is “more than a game”

More than just a sports movie

When I was about 18-years-old, a few friends turned me on to the idea that being for California, it was required of me to be a Los Angeles Lakers fan. Since then, I have been. At that time, Kobe Bryant was the latest and hottest addition to the team, so for me he's one of the best. Imagine how offended I was when there were talks of some new kid coming out of high school being “better than Kobe” and “what Kobe could be if not for his ego.” Because of the trash-talking comparisons, I've never liked LeBron James. Until now.

More Than A Game shows the well-documented personal experiences of LeBron James, the “Akron Fab Five” and their coach. Although their defying-the-odds story is well-known to sports fans, it's their little-known and extremely touching and coming-of-age story that's shown here – the ups and downs of families, friendships, teammates and basketball. Although More Than A Game tells a story you already may know, it shows what it took those players to get through it. It shows you the type of character you have to be to accomplish such things.

I'm still a Lakers fan and I'll still root for Kobe one hundred percent of the time, but I've got nothing but respect for LeBron. I learned he's a good, loyal, friendly and happy person with a great big heart. Do I want to see him win a championship? No. But I do want to see him play as hard as he can and go as far as he can.

Go Lakers!

Photo credit: Lionsgate

Drag Me To Hell (Blu-ray)

2009-10-13T00:01:00.010-06:00

- Three and a half stars (out of four)
- Contains both the theatrical PG-13 version (for sequences of horror violence, terror, disturbing images and language) as well as the unrated Director's Cut
- Who's going to like it: fan's of Sam Raimi (mostly his Evil Dead films and Army of Darkness), fans of classic horror mixed with situational comedy, and people who have been yearning for a truly scary PG-13-level horror flick.

New to DVD & Blu-ray - Just in time for Halloween

Christine Brown (Alison Lohman, Matchstick Men) is an attractive young loan officer. When her boss tells her that she needs to prove she's ready for a big bank promotion by making “the hard decision” with delinquent accounts, Christine jumps at the chance to deny an old gypsy woman her undeserved loan extension. Feeling humiliated, the gypsy attacks Christine and casts an ancient curse upon her – in three days, she will be dragged to hell by an unstoppable and merciless demon.

Writer/director Sam Raimi is a horror mastermind. Although other contemporary horror movies now act opposite this idea, he knows that less is more. Nowadays, too many horror movies go over-the-top with ultra violent, grizzly and graphic murders and mutilations. They thrive off those moments in an attempt to project fear, when in reality it's just shock. Raimi proves otherwise by not showing anything at all. Working in a PG-13 manner, he can make a film just as scary – if not scarier – than any of the others.

While featuring plenty of extremely frightening and crippling scenes, he's able to add a great level of comedy. Now I'm not talking jokes and punchlines, but funny situations and actions. For some, these humorous elements may go right over your head – which is okay. You'll still enjoy the the scary nature of the film. But for those who get it, you'll be surprised at how smoothly Raimi transitions from laughs to screams. One moment you'll be scared out of your wits, the next you'll be cracking up. Then he'll make you jump out of your again. It's absolutely brilliant.

For those who avoid unnecessary “unrated” editions, keep in mind that this is titled Raimi's “Director's Cut,” meaning this is the way he originally wanted it to be. If you're like me, you wont touch it unless is holds that title (except for The Lord Of The Rings extended editions). Even if you still want nothing to do with the Director's Cut, know that both the DVD and Blu-ray versions of Drag Me To Hell feature the theatrical version as well.

If you are one of those people who wont watch an unrated movie because of it possibly containing R-rated content, fear not with the unrated version of Drag Me To Hell. Just as Universal is claiming, the unrated version is simply “too intense for theaters.” Only seconds longer than the theatrical cut, the Unrated Director's Cut offers alternate Raimi-esque sequences to those in the PG-13 version, featuring just a little more blood. I counted two:

Beware spoilers:

- Christine's spraying nosebleed begins as bloody vomit.
- Instead of an implied animal sacrifice, we see Christine's face as she performs the act. Blood sprays up in her face and on her clothes – more blood than could possibly fit in the tiny animal's body.

End spoilers.

There is only one special feature on the DVD release of Drag Me To Hell. The thirty-something minute “Production Video Diaries” briefly take you through the films production. It's hosted by co-star Justin Long (Live Free Or Die Hard) and is also found on the Blu-ray.

The Blu-ray also holds three exclusive features: BD-LIVE allows viewers to connect to the internet and access new and exciting exclusive online and interactive features, including My Scenes Sharing and My Chat; a digital copy of the Drag Me To Hell Unrated Director's Cut can be transferred to your iPod, Mac or PC; and the Universal Ticker is Universal Studios Home Entertainment's newest feature – an up-to-date system for checking out news about upcoming titles, Blu-ray features and exclusive events.

Although the manufacturer's suggested retail price of the Drag Me To Hell Blu-ray is $39.98, for this week only you can purchase it for $24.99 at Target – which is an exceptionally good price for what I deem one of the most fun and satisfying films of the year.

Photo credit: Universal Studios

Couples Retreat

2009-10-09T11:03:00.010-06:00

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for sexual content and language.
- Who's going to like it: couples with kids (preferrably not in the theater with them), adults who've been through relationship struggles, fans of Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman and Jon Favreau.

A comedic, heartfelt odd take on long-lasting relationships

The subject matter of team screenwriters Jon Favreau (Swingers) and Vince Vaughn (The Break-Up) is starting to show signs that the two are “growing up.” Their themes are getting more serious and many of their laughs derive from adult situational experiences. While they are still capable of writing their typical funny scripts, they are progressively including deeper morals and themes. This idea is completely evident in their latest film, Couples Retreat.

Dave (Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman, Watchmen) are the main couple in Couples Retreat. They have been married longer than any of their friends and are the only ones who have children. They play the “normal” couple. No matter what troubles they go through, everything “just works.” After being worn down from years of unsuccessfully trying to have children, their friends Jason (Jason Bateman, Arrested Development) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell, Forgetting Sarah Marshall) begin having marital problems, questioning if divorce is the answer. Jason and Cynthia seek the help of Dave and Ronnie to convince the rest of their couple friends to join them in on a couples retreat where their marriage will be evaluated by a world renowned love guru (Jean Reno, The Professional), helping them to make the right decision. After being convinced by Dave and Ronnie, Joey (Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis, Sex and the City) – a secretly dysfunctional and soon-to-be-divorcing couple – and Shane (Faizon Love, Idlewild) – a recently divorced “good man” – and Trudy (Kali Hawk) – Shane's young and wild new girlfriend – come along for fun and moral support. Once upon the island, all realize that this dream resort is more like a refiners fire that will try each couple, forcing them to fully participate in the program or go home.

While Couples Retreat is filled with plenty of good laughs, serious themes are constantly arising. But the balance between sad truths and good laughs is perfect. At times it feels like a typical Vince Vaughn comedy, and others feel like a light drama. Not all of the dramatic moments work as well as intended, but the shifts between the two flow perfectly and always occur at the right moments.

The casting for Couples Retreat could not have been any better. Vaughn, Favreau and Bateman play their always-entertaining typical characters, giving plenty of room for the females to really shine. For the first time, I actually enjoyed watching Akerman on the big screen (maybe that's because she's usually playing unlikable characters or the movie she's in is simply an awful. Examples: The Heartbreak Kid and 27 Dresses). She perfectly played the realistic and stable female. Both Bell and Davis were also very fun to watch do their thing. And the mostly unknown supporting was great as well.

Any adult who is (or has been) married and doesn't mind appropriately rated PG-13 humor should be considering Couples Retreat this weekend. It's a funny movie with a heart and honest morals.

Photo credit: Universal Pictures

Whip It

2009-10-03T14:10:00.007-06:00

- Three and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for sexual content including crude dialogue, language and drug material.
- Who's going to like it: everyone.

Pure, laughable entertainment with a heart

It's always refreshing when you go to a small movie knowing nothing about it - zero expectations - and it ends up being something fantastic. All I knew about Whip It before the screening was that it starred Ellen Page (Juno), it was about girl's roller derby and that it was directed by Drew Barrymore (Charlie's Angels). Leaving the screening, I was glad that was all I previously knew about it because it ended up being one of those little gems you rarely get to enjoy.

Page plays Bliss, a high school teen coming into her own, learning that she's not the beauty pageant participant that her controlling and overbearing mother (Marcia Gay Harden, Mystic River) raised her to be. While trying to discover her true self, Bliss sneaks out of her small town of Bodeen, Texas to watch Austin's local roller derby league play. Intrigued by the newly found sport, Bliss decides to strap on her old Barbie skates, polish up on her rollerskating skills and try out for the team. Upon seeing her speedy skating abilities, coach Razor (played by Luke and Owen's little-known, yet hilarious brother Andrew Wilson) adds her to the Hurl Scout team, giving her the skating name Babe Ruthless. Teammates include Maggie Mayhem (Kristen Wiig, SNL), Bloody Holly (Zoe Bell, Deathproof), Rosa Sparks (musician Eve) and Smashley Simpson (Barrymore). With the help of their new talented teammate and Razor's new playbook, the Hurl Scouts begin the long season of roller derby with the goal of beating their arch rival Iron Maven (Juliette Lewis, Natural Born Killers) and her team, the Holy Rollers.

What a great little film! With it's great cast and hilarious script, it's filled with so many charming and memorable laughs. Jimmy Fallon (Late Night with Jimmy Fallon) arguably gives his best performance as the league's dirty announcer “Hot Tub” Johnny Rocket. Alia Shawkat (Maeby from Arrested Development) plays Bliss' smart and slutty best friend. Daniel Stern (Home Alone, City Slickers) also arguably give his best performance as Bliss' loving and proud push-over dad. And how can you no laugh at all of the derby girl names? Jaba the Slut. Eva Destruction. Juana Beat'n. Kami Kaze.

There's just one little dismissable thing that keeps Whip It from being a perfect four-star movie - it has a few typical plot points. The majority of the film is completely original. But some of the story flows in a typical manner. In those cases, it usually breaks your predictions. But the fact that it goes down that same old road again is the one thing keeping Whip It from being what I call a "perfect" film.

Again, don't just take my word on how good Whip It is – look it up online. Critics and general audiences alike are loving it. I guarantee that Whip It will end up being just as big an indie hit as Juno and Little Miss Sunshine.

Photo credit: Fox Searchlight

Zombieland

2009-10-03T14:03:00.005-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated R for horror violence/gore and language.
- Who's going to like it: anyone and everyone who can handle awesome and comedic, gross and over-the-top zombie killings and zombies killing, as well as anyone who dreams of there one day really being a zombie outbreak

An Americanized version of Shaun of the Dead

Humans are no longer the dominant beings in the U.S. – zombies are. The few surviving humans now know it as the United States of Zombieland. For survival and self-preservation, one must rely on a series of strict guidelines and rules. It's every “living” man for himself.

The less you know about Zombieland going into it, the better you are. For that reason I'll be brief and vague. Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland) plays Columbus (each character is named by the location he or she is from), an online gamer who rarely left his dorm before the zombie outbreak. Now hoofing it down the dangerous road home to see if his family is still alive, Columbus runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson, No Country For Old Men) – a snake-skin-jacket-wearing multi-weapon-wielding zombie killing machine searching for one of life's long lost "little things." Heading in the same direction, Tallahassee offers Columbus a ride. Both hit a road block when when their plans are turned upside down by two conniving sisters, Wichita (Emma Stone, Superbad) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin, Little Miss Sunshine), heading to Pacific Playland – a supposed zombie-free amusement park in Los Angeles where Wichita can help Little Rock remember what it's like to be a kid.

Because of so many awesome surprises and ideas used in Zombieland, I recommend you stop watching trailers, television and online spots. Don't read any reviews (other than this one). For some reason, all marketing ploys right now are spoiling some of the best and most memorable parts. Don't let anyone tell you a thing about it, because those are the things people will be talking about after seeing it. Avoid spoilers like zombies!

Nut-up or shut-up. Go see Zombieland immediately. It's bloody, disgusting, creative and hilarious! I promise you that you wont be disappointed in the slightest.

Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

The Invention Of Lying

2009-10-03T13:43:00.008-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for language including some sexual material and a drug reference.
- Who's going to like it: people who like intelligent, thought-provoking humor and fans of Ricky Gervais and all Ricky Gervais productions – The (BBC) Office, Extras and Ghost Town

Intelligent satirical comedy from always-entertaining Gervais

There is no reason why the name Ricky Gervais shouldn't be known in ever American household. There are few people who do not know about the hit television series The Office, and even less who know that The Office wouldn't exist had Gervais not teamed up with friend Stephen Merchant to write and star in the original BBC series that spawned the American version. Their unique view of mundane careers through intimate documentary-style filming is now know and imitated across the globe.

After The Office, Gervais and Merchant reteamed for another BBC series – later picked up for American distribution by HBO – titled Extras, focusing on Gervais' character, a film extra trying to make his acting break. Each episode of Extras featured major celebrity cameo who played a self-centered or idiotic version of him or herself. Between The Office and Extras, Gervais has given us great, intelligent satirical comedy that focuses on and explores odd aspects of society.

Last year, Gervais broke through onto mainstream American cinema opposite Tea Leoni and Greg Kinnear in his first lead role in Ghost Town, a great blend of standard American comedy and Gervais' awkward and dry British humor. With that success, Gervais was able to make a movie that is one hundred percent Gervais, meaning it's dry and awkward, it's a social commentary and it's really funny. It's The Invention of Lying.

Co-written and co-directed by Gervais, The Invention of Lying takes place in an odd little world where people are completely incapable of telling lies. They often blurt out offensive truths in tactless manners. Because of this, there is no such thing as fiction, films or religion. There is simply truth - as painfully honest as it can be.

Gervais plays lead character Mark Bellison, a non-fiction writer whose life is sadly headed down the drain because of truth. The woman he fancies, Anna (played by Alias' Jennifer Garner), although she thinks he's a very good guy, refuses to date him because he's a “chubby little fat man with a pug nose” - and that wouldn't be good a good genetic match if they ended up having children. Mark is about to be fired because he can't find any good non-fiction stories to tell. And his mother is dying, knowing she's about to cease to exist. Amidst all of this pressure, worry and depression, Mark's brain changes and allows him to do something that nobody has ever done before – he lies. And because of his new superpower, he can do and get away with whatever he wants.

The first half of the film is about Mark discovering and using his power to benefit himself and his friends. Mark becomes successful at work as he begins writing far-fetched fictional tales that the public take as true stories. When withdrawing money from a bank, he claims there must have been a clerical error causing his account to be empty and the naïve clerks simply trust him and give whatever amount of money he asks for. The only selfish thing that Mark will not do is manipulate Anna into loving him.

In the second half of the film, Mark begins using his power for the good of others – creating hope, comfort and happiness – but not without digging himself deep into trouble and conflict. It's at this point where the film takes an odd turn, one that some people will find blasphemous and anti-God. But if you sit it out, you'll find that it only shows the good that comes out of religion.

But don't take just my word on The Invention of Lying – here's a list of major actors that obviously like Gervais' work enough to want to be in this movie: Jonah Hill (Superbad), Tina Fey (30 Rock), Jeffrey Tambor (Arrested Development), Rob Lowe (Wayne's World), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Mission: Impossible III), Louis C.K. (Parks and Recreation), Edward Norton (Fight Club), Jason Bateman (Arrested Development), Christopher Guest (The Princess Bride) and Bobby Moynihan (SNL).

If you're a not-so-easily-offended-by-religion person up for a witty, satirical comedy with lots of heart, don't miss The Invention of Lying. It will make you think and laugh, as well as appreciate Ricky Gervais all the more.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Capitalism: A Love Story

2009-10-02T16:06:00.005-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated R for some language.
- Who's going to like it: anyone intrigued by astonishing, little-known facts and Michael Moore fans

Pay attention to the facts - not Moore's interjections – and it's worth it

Everybody knows what capitalism is, but Michael Moore is here with Capitalism: A Love Story to more deeply define it and show us how it has become the dark power to strip the USA of its democracy. Before seeing it, I assumed it was going to be 100% B.S., but after reviewing the facts, I must eat my words.

Just to name a few, here are some of the things that I found informative and shocking: the details on the supposed “bailout,” “Dead Peasant” insurance policies and Plutonomy. Because of these examples and many others shown in the film, I fear not only for the state that our nation is in, but also the direction in which we are headed.

Being a controversial documentary, of course Capitalism is biased, but not nearly as much as his previous films. This one appears to be his first film that's not directly tied in to one single political party – although it could have used more Republican voices.

Not being a fan of Michael Moore (considering he charged my school $40,000 for a one-hour speech) nor his highly biased films, I was not looking forward to screening Capitalism: A Love Story. Even after the screening I was disappointed at the film and how much mindless, arrogant Michael Moore material he included in it – in other words, how much of himself he included in it. But after a few days, I noticed that I was constantly telling people about the irrefutable and appalling facts, memos, testimonials and video clips he showed – things that I had never heard about. If you can push aside the asinine segments where Moore goes to Wall St. and asks for the bailout money back, shoveling through the many manipulative moments of people being evicted from their foreclosed homes, paying attention to the facts alone, then Capitalism is a film well-worth watching.

Photo credit: Overture Films

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs

2009-09-18T14:29:00.006-06:00

- Three stars (out of four)
- Rated PG for brief mild language.
- Who's going to like it: everyone – while it's definitely a kid's movie, adults will probably laugh more than the kids will.

It's like an animated version of Hot Rod made for kids and adults alike

The trailers for Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs made it look like the least entertaining kid's movie since Ice Age. To say the least, I wasn't looking forward to the Saturday 10:00 AM press screening – but I went anyways. Just three minutes into the movie, I was sold. My mind was changed and I was glad I had stumbled out of bed for what ended up being my second favorite kid's flick of the year – even better than Monsters Vs. Aliens, but not quite as good as Up.

Loosely based on the children's book, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs tells the story of Flint Lockwood (voiced perfectly by SNL's Bill Hader) – a nerdy living-at-home twenty-something failed scientist/inventor. When his latest discovery – a machine that turns cloud water into any desired food – turns out successful, Flint's gloomy mid-Atlantic island town of Swallow Falls looks towards him and his invention to boost their quality of living by bringing to tourists to experience the food rain phenomenon. To show this odd occurrence to the rest of the world, a mainland weather channel sends new anchor Sam Sparks (voiced by The House Bunny's Anna Faris). Being both science nerds, Flint and Sam experience a natural attraction towards one another and end up having to save Swallow Falls on their own.

As a kid's film, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs works perfectly. But at the same time, it's also absolutely entertaining for adults too. Being from two of the makers of ABC's How I Met Your Mother, what else would you expect? The laughs never stop and always only seconds away for each other. Unlike the Shrek movies' use of innuendos to appeal to adults, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs relies on good old classic comedy to keep them entertained and laughing.

Unlike other recent animated flicks – like 9 – Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is appropriately voice cast; they didn't just look for big, named actors to lend their voices. Along with previously mentioned Hader and Faris are Andy Samberg (Hot Rod, SNL), Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead, Army of Darkness), James Caan (Elf, The Godfather), Mr. T (does he really need an explanation?), Bobb'e J. Thompson (Role Models), Benjamin Bratt (Miss Congeniality, Law & Order), Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother, Harold & Kumar), Will Forte (SNL) and Lauren Graham (Gilmore Girls, Bad Santa).

Not matter if you've got kids to take the movies this weekend or not, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is a strong choice. I can't think of anyone who wont love it. It's pure fun for everyone.

Photo credit: Columbia Pictures

The Informant!

2009-09-18T14:18:00.005-06:00

- Three and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated R for language.
- Who's going to like it: people who enjoy intelligent, witty, complex and thought-provoking satirical comedies.

Damon plays a perfect absent-minded whistle blower

Director Steven Soderbergh is a hit-and-miss filmmaker. His critically acclaimed award-winning films Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Traffic and Erin Brockovich are eclipsed by the bad ones – such as Bubble, The Good German and Solaris. Not only is he hit-and-miss with his stand-alone films, but even within his own series'. Ocean's Eleven was fun and exciting. Ocean's Twelve and Ocean's Thirteen were awful. Che: Part One beautifully tells the interesting first half of the life of revolutionary guerrilla Che Guevarra. Che: Part Two painfully explains Guevarra's ill-fated ending. But Soderbergh's latest film The Informant! irrevocably redeems him from all past sins.

The Informant! tells the painfully true story of Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon) - a corporate biochemist blowing the proverbial whistle on several international price-fixing corn corporations during the mid '90s. With the help and direction of two FBI agents (played by Quantum Leap's Scott Bakula and The Soup's Joel McHale), Whitacre successfully obtains the evidence needed through undercover operations, but at the same time lets the FBI down by his relentlessly moronic, un-thoughout actions. The less you know about this true story, the better the movie will be for you.

Considering that the Academy is now making ten nominees for the major awards, you can expect to see The Informant! receive a Best Picture nomination. Just as the film deserves the Best Picture nomination, so does Matt Damon for Best Actor. For those used to seeing Damon in the Bourne movies, The Informant! proves Damon has even got the chops for comedy. The random first-person rants from Whitacre's wandering mind will crack you up throughout the film; I can't imagine anyone else doing the Whitacre role as well as Damon does.

Considering the wide spectrum of films opening this weekend, The Informant! is the one made for the adults looking for good, smart entertainment. The Informant! is an intriguing not-very-well-known story that's well-worth knowing and seeing.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Jennifer's Body

2009-09-18T14:05:00.006-06:00

- No stars (out of four)
- Rated R for sexual, bloody violence, language and brief drug use.
- Who's going to like it: teens who find this “cool” and don't know any better and dirty guys who expect to see more of Megan Fox than the PG-13 Transformers allow.

You won't find me checking out Jennifer's Body again – it's like an R-rated Twilight that actually tried to be funny (as opposed to the laughs Twilight unintentionally earned)

The opening line to Jennifer's Body is, “Hell is a teenage girl.” To script-writer Diablo Cody: I'd rather be stuck with a dozen teenage girls for two hours than have to watch Jennifer's Body again, so what does that make your movie?

Winning the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Juno has gone straight to Diablo Cody's head. I didn't jump on the Juno train because I thought the script was awful and awfully boring. Critics and fans have praised her since, but I'm banking on her being a one-hit-wonder. And nothing proves my idea more than the result of Jennifer's Body.

Being a fan of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead saga and having an Oscar for a teen dramedy doesn't give you the credentials to make a horror comedy. It's obvious that's what Cody was going for with Jennifer's Body, but she sorely misses the mark. She should have taken filmmaking classes from Raimi before attempting it.

Because of bad advertising, Transformers star Megan Fox mistakenly appears to be the lead in Jennifer's Body. The true lead in Jennifer's Body is little known actress Amanda Seyfried (Big Love, Mama Mia, Mean Girls). Seyfried plays Needy (Yes, that's her name. And no, Cody could not have been more subtle.), a mildly nerdy high school girl lacking self-esteem. Needy's best friend is Jennifer (Fox), a bitchy, nose-in-the-air cheerleader who uses sex and her body to get whatever she wants. Life is turned around for both of them after attending an indie concert where all hell literally breaks out. The two become separated when the Jennifer ditches Needy for the band. Lured in by the creepy lead singer (Adam Brody, The O.C.), Jennifer is the sacrificed virgin to the devil in return for the band's success. Little did the band know that Jennifer wasn't a virgin. The result – Jennifer is now possessed by a demon, creating a new cycle: Unless she feasts on human flesh once a month, Jennifer's body deteriorates – making her a literal “man eater.”

Not a bad story, but Jennifer's Body is so poorly scripted and executed that it comes across as a confused tale. One minute it's a serious story, the next it's a comedy. There's a huge chunk that feels identical to the trainwreck movie Twilight. Then it's a horror movie, followed by The O.C.. It's too “cool” for it's own good and only comes across as a jumbled “hipster” mess. And as if that's not bad enough, for some reason Cody doesn't know that more is less. The movie just goes on... and on... and on. Even being under two-hours, Jennifer's Body feels like it'll never end. Cody tried far too hard on her sophomore project – and it shows. I recommend Jennifer's Body to no one.

Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

Love Happens

2009-09-18T13:58:00.005-06:00

- One and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for some language including sexual references.
- Who's going to like it: people who enjoy intentional emotional manipulation and sappy Lifetime Network made-for-television movies.

Completely mistitled. Should be titled Nothing Happens.

Love Happens is an all-around conflicted tale. Let's start with the title. Love Happens. With a title like Love Happens, you'd expect it to be a romantic film – but it's not. Why it's titled Love Happens is absolutely unknown to me. Love doesn't happen because that's not what the movie is about. Trailers show Love Happens as a romantic comedy with Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Anniston, which is misleading.

Love Happens stars Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Thank You For Smoking) as self-help grievance guru Burke Ryan. Burke is one of the most successful grievance counselors because he lost his own wife three years prior to the film's beginning. He's on his way to becoming the next Dr. Phil. Love Happens starts when Burke begins one of his conventions in Seattle, Washington – the hometown of his now-deceased wife. Upon starting the convention, Burke bumps into the unnecessarily quirky hotel florist Eloise (Anniston, Friends and The Break-Up). And here is where the film becomes utterly conflicted.

Instead of doing what it advertises – showing a relationship flourish between Burke and Eloise – it starts telling multiple disconnected stories. Story #1 - Burke and Eloise. They go on a few dates, but nothing romantic, mostly just hanging out. Story #2 – The convention. For some reason, the screenwriters thought we should see Burke work his magic. There's a really long, boring, manipulative and predictable plot (I would call it a sub-plot, but it's much too big to simply have the prefix “sub” attached to it) involving the grieving father of a deceased child. Story #3 – The In-Laws. Burke's angry in-laws (played in part by Martin Sheen) live in Seattle, so they angrily enter the story just to overexpose the already visible Story #4 – Burke is guru just to hide the fact that he hasn't learned to cope with the loss of his own wife. Loop back to Story #1 – Eloise discovers this and decides to help him cope. That's why there's no romance. She's too busy trying to fix Burke. The end.

Love Happens feels like Lifetime Network original programming. I wouldn't watch that stuff on television for free, let alone pay to see it in theaters. Unless you enjoy this kind of stuff, I recommend you avoid it too.

Photo credit: Universal Pictures

All About Steve

2009-09-04T00:02:00.006-06:00

- Half of a star (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for sexual content including innuendos.
- Who's going to like it: nobody.

Even worse than The Ugly Truth

All About Steve stars two actors from two of this summer's biggest movies – Sandra Bullock from The Proposal and Bradley Cooper from The Hangover. The trailers for it look funny and project the idea that it's a cute romantic comedy. And that's just what 20th Century Fox wants you to think. But don't fall for it, for this movie has been around for a while, sitting on a dusty shelf – nobody has wanted to release it. Why? Because it's downright awful.

All About Steve is basically all about nothing. Bullock plays Mary Horowitz a socially-awkward and neurotic newspaper crossword constructor. Her obsessive compulsive life is thrown in an opposing direction when she's set up on a blind date with Steve (Cooper), a on-location cameraman shooting tragedies and disasters for a local news show. In an attempt to permanently get away from Mary's craziness, Steve tells her that his work will keep them apart in their relationship and that he would take her on the road with him if he could.

Being her normal psychotic self, Mary's obsession about Steve overcomes her. The next crossword puzzle she publishes, titled “All About Steve,” only features hints like, “Steve's car smells like this,” and “Steve's kiss is like this.” The puzzle frustrates so many of the paper's readers that she's fired from her job, giving her the free time she needs to fulfill Steve's hollow invitation to be on the road with him.

And that's only the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The other 84 minutes are filled with random characters, unbelievable situations and awful writing. It's Mary following Steve like a puppy-dog stalker from one lame disaster to another – an anticlimactic cowboy standoff in Arizona, a domestic parenting case in Oklahoma, a tornado (that just-so-happens on a bright, sunny day) and a mine collapse trapping a dozen deaf children.

This movie is so dumb in nature and content that it's offensive. The characters, their decision and the situations that they end up in are unmotivated and unbelievable. I challenge someone to defend All About Steve as being “entertaining.” Everything about it is one hundred percent absurd. But it's not only offensive to audiences in that manner. The group of deaf children that fall down the mine shaft are constantly ripped on – not that I'm one against “politically incorrect” humor, but this one consistently cracks brutal jokes at the expense of deaf people. The constant barrage of deaf jokes makes you question whether the jokes were done to be funny or cruel.

Speaking of political incorrectness, while watching All About Steve, Bullock's performance reminded me of Robert Downey Jr.'s lines in Tropical Thunder about Sean Penn's performance as a “retard” in I Am Sam. He says that Penn didn't win the Oscar because he went “full retard,” that nobody wants to see a fully retarded person on the big screen. I thought back to that scene while watching Bullock playing the Mary character. Over the duration of the film, Mary's neurotic nature never lifts up – not once. Because of that, it becomes very uncomfortable to watch. You feel like a kid staring at your uncle's four-fingered hand, unable to break eye contact with the missing digit. Not that there's anything wrong with Uncle Rex for missing a thumb, but that there's something wrong with you for being drawn to it. It's not comfortable; therefore it's not entertaining.

Several times throughout the movie I felt embarrassed for the actors involved – for the lines delivered, the characters they had to play and the things they had to do. I felt like it was degrading for them. And then I felt even more embarrassed when I realized that Sandra Bullock was a producer of the movie. After having such great comeback success with The Proposal, this trainwreck-of-a-movie will be a step backwards for her. How embarrassing.

All About Steve is too off, odd and unconventional for audiences. The movie's moral is: “every crazy, neurotic and weird person fits in somewhere.” After seeing All About Steve, I can tell you where general audiences won't fit in – and that's in the theater showing this movie.

Photo credit: 20th Century Fox

Extract

2009-09-04T00:01:00.001-06:00

- Two stars(out of four)
- Rated R for language, sexual references and some drug use.
- Who's going to like it: hard to tell. Mike Judge fans for sure. You'll just have to see it and make up your own mind.

A much more dry, less character driven Office Space

Writer/director Mike Judge has an inconsistent fanbase. One person who loves his 1999 dark cult comedy Office Space may hate his animated television series King of the Hill. Fans of his '90s MTV hit Beavis and Butthead may have no clue that he wrote and directed a film starring Luke Wilson titled Idiocracy. Judge's style of comic is quite unique. While some comedic parts may trigger immediate laugh-out-loud responses, others are more subtle and situational, almost requiring a second viewing to fully “get the joke.” And that's the best way to describe Judge's comedy – either you get it, or you don't. And Extract, Judge's latest film, is no exception.

Extract stars Jason Bateman, best known for playing the lead in television's Arrested Development, as Joel Reynolds, creator and owner of Reynolds' Extract company – a small extract-making and bottling facility. Joel's picture perfect life is about to be rocked. There's a major lack of intimacy from Joel's emotionally shut off wife (played by brilliant SNL cast member Kristen Wiig), causing him to be tempted by the gorgeous and flirty new temp employee Cindy (played by That '70s Show and Forgetting Sarah Marshall star Mila Kuna). Joel's best friend Dean (Ben Affleck), a drug-using modern “spiritualist” bar owner, drugs him up and convinces him to hire a good-looking 20-something gigolo to temp his wife into cheating so that Joel can cheat on her with Cindy and not feel bad about it. At the same time, Joel is having problems at work. Although he's in negotiations to sell Reynolds' Extract for a very high price, the buying company won't finalize the deal until a lawsuit filed by a former injured employee is closed. The several developing conflicts in Extract all end up affecting each other until the breaking point.

While I laughed consistently throughout Extract, mostly due to lines of dialogue and situations presented, it doesn't quite live up to the expectations created by Office Space. There aren't any of the everyday observations that you can connect with. To explain that, let me remind you of a scene in Office Space. One of the office employees can't get the fax machine to work. It gives meaningless error codes that help you in no way to solve the problem. When you saw that scene, you connected immediately with the situation because you've used a similar machine and had a similar experience. Nothing along the lines of that observational humor happens in Extract.

Another thing missing here was a complete cast of memorable characters. Any Office Space fan can spout every character's name off the tops of their head. Why? Because they were memorable. While Extract gives us several, they aren't in the right places. Ben Affleck's Dean is hilarious. I wish he'd play more of these types of roles. He's memorable, funny and unique. David Koechner (Champ from Anchorman) plays Joel's unbelievably annoying neighbor. Fairly unknown actor Dustin Milligan plays Brad the gigolo. If you don't laugh every time he's on screen, then you're not a Mike Judge fan. Kristen Wiig is perfectly utilized as the subtle comedic tool she is. She's funny without even having to try. While I list these as being the character highlights of Extract, notice that none of them are the leads.

I'm a huge Jason Bateman fan. He makes me laugh – even in his serious roles. Mila Kunis is fantastic. As if being easy on the eyes isn't enough, she also wins you over without having to try. But in Extract, neither offer very much. Kunis' character just comes in and stirs the pot and Bateman's makes bad decisions that he thinks are right, when in reality it just further complicates his situation. Neither characters bring anything new or special to the show. And considering Bateman's Joel is the lead character, it's all the more important that his character have some unique twist, yet be normal enough for us to connect with.

But with everything said, know this: every Mike Judge film can not be accurately critiqued after one viewing and three days. The first time I saw Office Space, I laughed – but not nearly as much as I did the second time. The third viewing was even more funny than the second time. I just keeps getting better and better. And the same goes for Idiocracy. With only one viewing under my belt and three days to make up my mind, this review of Extract may be completely inaccurate. Only time and multiple viewings will tell.

Photo credit: Miramax

The Final Destination (in 3-D)

2009-08-29T18:43:00.007-06:00

- Two stars (out of four)
- Rated R for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality.
- Who's going to like it: fans of the previous FD flicks and the horror genre, people who want to see creative and gross deaths in the third dimension, and anyone needing to see a real horror movie after seeing H2

FD3D takes the kills above and beyond any other Destination and dimension

Ever since 2000, audiences have taken to the Final Destination movies. In each one, a group of youngsters cheats Death by acting opposite a premonition, only to have Death viciously hunt them down one by one in the order they were supposed to die. The resulting death is usually far more gruesome than the original Death had planned for them.

In Final Destination, the first of the series, a group of graduates exit a plane before take-off, preventing them from being on it as it explodes just off the runway. In Final Destination 2, a carload of friends take an off-ramp and survive a nasty highway wreck involving a logging truck. In Final Destination 3, several friends high-tail-it to avoid a tragic roller coaster accident. And in The Final Destination, a foursome of friends make it out of a NASCAR stadium previous to a killer accident that brings the mayhem into the stands.

Had The Final Destination not been filmed in 3-D, it still would be worth viewing. But the 3-D definitely adds a bit more fun to the moviegoing experience. As if the grizzly death sequences weren't gross enough, seeing them in the third dimension makes them just a little bit grosser. There's something about seeing intestines blasting towards you that feels ickier in 3-D. The same goes for flying tires that decapitate people. The 3-D is not so much a gimmick used for The Final Destination, but instead works as a medium to enhance the experience – and it works just fine.

Director David R. Ellis and writer Eric Bress are the only returning staff for FD3D. Both worked on FD2, which is arguably the most fun of the franchise. The only recognizable actor from FD3D, playing a secondary character, is Mykelti Williamson, most known as “Bubba” from Forrest Gump. Williamson plays the supposed-to-be-dead security guard that escorts the group out of the stands before the accident happens. Even though the primary characters are all unknown actors, they work; they are typical FD actors, meaning they're not great actors, but they do just fine for a FD movie. The guys are either charming and/or good looking, and the girls even more so. That's one thing you can expect from a good horror movie – good-looking people always looking great.

It didn't take a premonition for me to realize that FD3D was going to be the fun horror movie out of the two being released this weekend (the other being Halloween II). Rob Zombie can't even re-make a good classic movie. But Ellis and Bress have made a great fourth installment to a fun series. So let's just hope The Final Destination is not really the final Destination flick.

Photo credit: New Line Cinema

Halloween II

2009-08-28T15:01:00.010-06:00

- Half of a star (out of four)
- Rated R for strong brutal violence throughout, terror, disturbing graphic images, language and some crude sexual content and nudity.
- Who's going to like it: fans of Rob Zombie and fans of his last Halloween movie – nobody else.

H2-no. Wasn't there already a Halloween II?

Many people can't comprehend how others find enjoyment in horror movies. Being a fan of the genre, allow me to explain. Horror movies are the most fake things on Earth. Everything is exactly the opposite of reality, and when you see it brought to life, it's funny. Characters hear a disturbing noise and move closer to investigate instead of running in the opposite direction. People don't trip that often in real life. And they always seem to die in the most unrealistic and disgusting manners – which is fun. Often times there's a great guessing game of “who done it.” You'll jump a few times – maybe let out a yelp – as well as laugh (typically due to bad dialogue, gross death sequences and the unexpected). They're all around fun! The bigger the group you go with, the more fun you'll have. They make for great man-dates. It takes a lot to make a horror movie not worth watching in my book – and the new Halloween II is definitely not worth watching.

Everything I mentioned above that makes horror movies entertaining is absent in Halloween II (also known as H2). Director Rob Zombie, from the band White Zombie, has no business making films. His previous movies, House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects and the 2007 remake of John Carpenter's Halloween, are all insufferable. For the fourth time, Zombie has made a film that will make the “Movies I'll Never Watch Again” list.

H2 picks up right where Halloween left off. Sort of. Massive mass murderer Michael Myers was just shot and (supposedly) killed by the girl he's been trying to kill, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton, Obsessed). En route to the morgue, Michael escapes and begins killing his way to Laurie again, finally getting to her on Halloween one year later - the day she learns that she's really Angel Myers, Michael's baby sister. This plot device might have been a great reveal, but we've known that since the last movie.

Zombie's H2 lacks creativity. Any time a situation has grown to the point where you ask yourself, “How's Laurie going to get out of this one?” it ends up being a dream sequence. There are at least three big sequences in H2 that end up being dreams. It's completely void of any entertainment value. The things that horror movie fans look forward to never show up. The characters are underdeveloped and boring. Every one of Myers' kills is the same – repeated stabbings with a foot-long knife, over and over again, until the person is well-dead. There is no hiding or running from Michael Myers because no matter what you do (shooting him in the head obviously doesn't kill him) or where you go (you can go to a friend's new house and he'll somehow find you there), he's somehow right behind you (although we never see him run or move quickly). H2 never for a second creates a feeling of intensity. You're just a spectator watching a boring and uneventful bloodbath-of-a-story unfold.

Although I haven't seen it yet, I'm putting my money on The Final Destination 3-D being a better horror moviegoing experience this weekend (check back tomorrow for my review). At least you know you're going to see creative deaths through several different mediums – all in the third dimension! There is only one good thing that comes out of Halloween II: 'Weird Al' Yankovic has a small cameo where he asks if the killer is “Austin Powers' Mike Myers.” It's nice to finally have a character acknowledge the coinceidental connection.

Photo credit: The Weinstein Company

Inglourious Basterds**

2009-08-22T16:08:00.014-06:00

- Four stars (out of four)
- Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.
- Who's going to like it: Tarantino fans, those who like Spaghetti Westerns, those who hate Nazis, people who don't mind graphic violence, and anyone who's ever studied film

It's like Pulp Fiction meets The Good, The Bad and The Ugly set during WWII

Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France, a group of Jewish American soldiers roamed around in civilian clothes hunting Nazi soldiers – collecting their scalps as trophies along the way – in route to a German film's premiere in Paris where a considerable amount of high-ranking Nazi leaders would be in attendance. Not really, but that's one of the stories Quentin Tarantino is telling in Inglourious Basterds. The other story is of a young Jewish woman whose family gunned down by Nazi troops right before her eyes. She managed to escape, but now a changed woman with bloody revenge on her mind. By the end of Inglourious Basterds, all parties will meet in what I'm calling the best “pay-off” ending to movie this year.

Even though I view Inglourious Basterds as one of the best films of the 2009, I know that most people wont. You'll have to see it for yourself. I have a feeling it will be this year's There Will Be Blood – you'll either love it or hate it. And here are four factors that I think will divide the audiences:

One – Language. Not as in “foul language” (even though it's in there), but “actual” language. The majority of the spoken dialogue in Inglourious Basterds is not English. It's only about 20% English and 80% German, French and Italian. Unless you know this going in, you probably wont be prepared for reading subtitles. Though this is a small factor, I know that for some people it will break the film.

Two – Dialogue. As every Tarantino fan knows, Quentin is a guy who loves his dialogue. Seeing how it is always so natural, smooth-flowing and cool, I'm alright with that. But some people wont be. There are a few scenes in the film that border (if not exceed) twenty minutes of pure dialogue – most of it not pertaining to the plot or story. This will drive some people crazy – maybe even bore them to death. But there's a reason for it. And that's the next point.

Three – Slow build to brief explosions of violent action. Tarantino decided to make Inglourious Basterds like a spaghetti-western, following the molds of Once Upon A Time In The West and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Because of that, Inglourious Basterds has a similar structure to those. For example: the opening scene is approximately 20 minutes of talking, a slow build to something huge – and as you watch it, you'll feel it. The tension of not knowing what's going on and what's going to happen becomes so thick that you'll barely be able to sit there without moving. And then it happens. You realize what the charade has been all about, then there's a brief moment of strong violence, and the formula starts all over again. That's the pattern that Inglourious Basterds repeatedly follows for two and a half hours. It's a dialogue-driven slow build from beginning to end, creating uncomfortably strong moments of tension followed by busts of graphic violence.

Four – A lack of Basterds. The group of Nazi-killing American soldiers is nicknamed The Basterds. Considering that the film is named after them, you'd think it was solely based on them, focusing on their story. But because it's also telling the story of the Jewish revenge-seeking woman, it's a shared story. In the first hour of the film, my guess is that The Basterds only have 15 minutes of screen time. They do appear more frequently after that first hour, but people are going to want what's advertised – a whole lot of ruthless Nazi-scalping Basterds.

There are two things that had better come out of Inglourious Basterds (or I'm not going to be a happy man come awards season): foreign actors Christoph Waltz and Mélanie Laurent had better receive Oscar nominations for their supporting roles. Laurent plays Shosanna Dreyfus, the revenge-seeking Jewish woman and Waltz plays the merciless and menacing, yet always smiling, Nazi Col. Hans Landa (known as the “Jew Hunter”), the man responsible for the slaughtering of Shosanna's family. Both Laurent and Waltz are two actors that can tell you exactly what they're feeling without saying a word. Laurent's eyes speak louder than her voice. Both are absolutely stunning actors that will draw you in and hold your attention each time they're on the screen.

But we can't talk acting without mentioning the rest of the fantastic Basterds cast. Brad Pitt plays Lt. Aldo Raine, the desensitized hick leader of The Basterds. Any time he's on the screen, whether it be from the ignorant words leaving his mouth, his thick and awful Tennessee accent or the blunt honest truths he untactfully spits from his mouth, you're laughing. If Pitt continues playing characters like his Chad in Burn After Reading and Raine in Basterds, I'll die a happy man. German actor Til Schweiger plays Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz, a Nazi-hating German soldier court marshaled for killing his leaders. Out of admiration, the Basterds spring him from his cell and make him a member of the team. He is the rock n' roll of the Basterds. Eli Roth, director of the Hostel films, plays Basterd Sgt. Donny Donowitz (A.K.A. the “Bear Jew”), a blunt force with a baseball bat used to “convince” captured Nazi soldiers to give up valuable information. If he played for the Red Sox, they'd never lose to the Yankees. This is Roth's best performance yet. Diane Kruger, most known from the National Treasure movies, plays a German actress secretly helping The Basterds to the Paris film premiere. Kruger brings a little class to The Basterds. And Mike Myers (Austin Powers) plays the British assistant to Winston Churchill, General Ed Fenech. Although you might not have guessed Myers to be the best-cast role in Inglourious Basterds, he sure does a fine job in his scene. Hopefully more filmmakers will consider him for other non-conventional roles in the future.

And for the Tarantino fan, yes, he managed to work both Pulp Fiction stars Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel into Inglourious Basterds. Neither appear before the camera, instead they lend their voices. Jackson narrates the voice-over introduction to Stiglitz's character and Keitel is the over-the-phone voice of Raine's American commanding officer.

Without trying to make general audiences feel dumb, I truly feel like Inglourious Basterds – much like 2007's There Will Be Blood – is a film that only those who study or work in the film industry will fully appreciate and enjoy. For those of us who see every movie released, it's refreshing to see something so creative and wonderfully mastered. Technically speaking, Inglourious Basterds is about 99.9 percent perfect. I just have one small beef: When we're first introduced to The Basterds, we see all of them, but don't get to know most of them personally. One of them, played by style="font-style:italic;">The Office's B.J. Novac, is simply a recognizable face that we only see in the beginning. He doesn't have any lines or do anything of worth to the plot. We forget he exists. Then, in the end, he magically appears in a place where he shouldn't be without any explanation – and his character has a name! I'm sure that his reappearance has something to do with deleted scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor. And because he really has no significance to the plot or story, I can dismiss it. I really feel like Tarantino put this movie together and realized it was far too long, so he cut it down to two and a half hours. As for me, just like I've been doing with his Kill Bill series, I want more. I want to see the full Basterds. I want to get to know Novac's character and find out why he is where he is. None of that is pertinent to the movie we now see, so I can dismiss it - but I still want to know.

Supposedly, Tarantino is currently working of the full version of Kill Bill – known as The Whole Bloody Affair. Hopefully, after that, we'll get Inglouriously Extinded Basterds.

Photo credit: The Weinstein Company

** Note: Both of the words in the title “Inglourious Basterds” were intentionally misspelled. Rumors range from Tarantino accidentally misspelling them, to intentionally misspelling them to avoid a problem with the MPAA's acceptance of the title. Tarantino refuses to give an explanation why.

The Time Traveler's Wife

2009-08-17T12:31:00.007-06:00

- Two and a half stars (out of four)
- Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality.
- Who's going to like it: women who enjoy romantic flicks, the guys who don't mind getting dragged to them and guys who enjoy science fiction and the fun playing with of time.

A great blend of sci-fi and romance

Before seeing The Time Traveler's Wife, I was looking forward to it for three reasons: one - the science fiction aspect, playing with time and characters. Two – Rachel McAdams. She can do no wrong. And if you saw her in State of Play, you know that her acting abilities are quickly getting better and better. And three – Eric Bana. Lots of people criticize him for his performances in Funny People, Star Trek, Hulk and Troy. But you can't dicredit his outstanding performances in Black Hawk Down and Munich. The guy can act.

And just as I had hoped, all three of those things came together to make The Time Traveler's Wife a movie well worth viewing.

Although the trailers make The Time Traveler's Wife out to be McAdams' character's story, it's not. The film tells the story of Henry DeTamble (Bana) who at the age of six disappears through time just before a fatal car crash – saving his life. Just moments later, he returns naked to the same site of the crash where an adult version of himself tells him that everything will be alright. Although the film cuts to black there, you get the feeling that the older version of Henry explained that from then on, Henry would unexpectedly travel through time, leaving his clothes behind, arriving at his unknown destination completely nude. Call him a criminal, but he usually breaks and enters just to get clothes.

Jump thirty years into the future. Now an adult attending college and working in the on-campus library, Henry meets a beautiful girl named Clare Abshire (McAdams). Even though this is the first time Henry meets Clare, it's not the first time she meets him. Since Clare was a child, she's known an adult version of Henry that would travel back in time spend afternoons with her. She fell in love with the much older Henry and has waited her whole life for the day that she would meet him, being an adult. Romance ensues.

There's not too much of a story to The Time Traveler's Wife. It shows the hardship and burden of Henry's disappearing to other times of their relationship - taking you through the sweet ups and downs of life as if you were in this odd relationship. The women who see this film will enjoy the romance aspect of it all. The men who see it will enjoy the craftiness of the script in using time travel as a fun cinematic device. For example: in one scene, Clare is waiting for Henry to show up for a very important event. Just as he is supposed to arrive, he travels. Moments later, saving the day, a much older version of Henry donning gray hair arrives and fills in for the younger one. Another example: In the middle of the night, while sleeping next to Henry, Clare gets a phone call from a younger naked Henry that needs help, having just traveled forward in time now stranded in the cold. Fun things like this happen throughout the entire film. Early in the movie Henry disappears, but later we see where he went. An older version of Henry appears, and later we see when he goes back. These sort of Back To The Future moments are very fun to watch.

But with all of the fun aside, at it's very core, The Time Traveler's Wife is a dramatic science fiction romance film. It's serious and somber. The first thirty minutes of the film are not only slow, but don't successfully help you create connections with the characters. After that, it picks up and starts getting right everything it got wrong in the beginning. All in all, I really like The Time Traveler's Wife. And I suspect most people will too.

Photo credit: New Line Cinema