YAHOO-HOLLYWOOD

THE WOLFMAN MOVIE REVIEW

2010-02-27T01:10:00.000-08:00

After being cursed by delays, The Wolfman, Hollywood’s latest spin on the popular werewolf myth, finally bares its ugly fangs in theaters this week. Predictably, the film is a train wreck of a debacle -- one would expect nothing less from a notoriously troubled production that saw its original director, Mark Romanek, abandon ship just two weeks before the start of shooting -- but The Wolfman’s problems stem less from the late-game addition of helmer Joe Johnston, who at the very least delivered a terrific looking film (its gorgeously eerie Victorian aesthetic, evoking a palpable, exquisite sense of dread, is by far its best feature) than from the misguided efforts of its producer and star, Benicio Del Toro. The Wolfman is the brainchild of Del Toro, an ardent horror fan who conceived the film as an homage of sorts to the low-budget “monster movies” from the ‘30s and ‘40s that he loved dearly as a child. It’s fashioned as a loose remake of 1941’s The Wolf Man, a film that both established Lon Chaney Jr.’s performance as the definitive take on the character and introduced aspects of the werewolf legend now considered sacrosanct. The notion that a werewolf can be felled by an item made from silver, for example, owes its origin to The Wolf Man. But Del Toro feels all wrong in the role of Lawrence Talbot, the prodigal son of a 19th-century English aristocrat whose fateful encounter with a bloodthirsty lycan, the same creature that brutally murdered his brother just days prior, triggers his unwitting initiation into the accursed tribe of feral man-beasts. Del Toro's resume of low-key, understated performances marked by a muttering, often imperceptible delivery in films like Traffic and The Usual Suspects suggests a skill set better suited to playing another famous movie monster, one significantly less loquacious than his character in this movie. Seriously -- the guy should have remade Frankenstein instead. Playing an American-bred (but English-born, we’re told) character in an 1890 setting, looking uncomfortable in period attire, surrounded by such “proper” British actors as Sir Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt, and fully annunciating all of his line readings for the first time that I can recall, Del Toro appears hopelessly out of place in The Wolfman. Things only get worse, unfortunately, when Del Toro’s character transforms into the dreaded werewolf. Each time the moon is full, the film transitions, with increasing ridiculousness, from a somber Victorian drama into a hard-core horror flick, replete with grisly shots of torn flesh, exposed spines, and severed limbs. The first overly gruesome attack triggers a kind of nervous laugh, more from the shock than anything else. The second invites an amused, uneasy chuckle, which soon snowballs into an outright belly laugh. And the effect soon spreads to the dialogue, the outrageous gore rendering the film's mannered melodrama strangely hysterical. Of all the Wolfman players, only Hopkins seems to get the joke, reveling in his manipulative mischief as Talbot's inappropriately glib, stoutly aloof father. If only he'd let his castmates in on it.

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE MOVIE REVIEW

2010-02-27T01:09:00.000-08:00

From Paris With Love is a volatile hybrid, half Hong Kong action flick, half American spy thriller, fused together in the Dr. Moreau-like laboratory of French filmmakers Luc Besson (The Fifth Element) and Pierre Morel (Taken). As a result of the violent process, some parts emerge oddly distorted: Bruce Willis becomes John Travolta, Matt Damon becomes Jonathan Rhys Meyers, believability becomes an afterthought, and plotting becomes irrelevant. Made up like Ming the Merciless and channeling the hep-cat spirit of Vincent Vega, Travolta stars as CIA Agent Charlie Wax, a brusque, trigger-happy bundle of Yankee hubris summoned to Paris to prevent a potential terrorist plot on a U.N. peace conference. Rhys Meyers plays James Reese, an uptight entry-level operative tasked with ferrying Wax around the city to gather the intelligence needed to thwart the conspiracy. Predictably, the two agents quickly settle into the standard buddy cop relationship: Button-down rookie Reese is appalled by coke-snorting, hooker-banging Wax’s unorthodox tactics, which usually land them in the middle of one huge, stunningly choreographed shootout or another; Wax, in turn, belittles his young sidekick’s naivety and stubborn adherence to protocol. At times Travolta’s action-hero routine borders on embarrassing — like watching your grandmother try to rap — but his exaggerated bravado is not entirely without its charms. He’s by far the most enjoyable part of the movie, skipping merrily through the bullet-strewn Parisian underground, spewing politically incorrect aphorisms in between explosions, reveling in his role as the obnoxious American. Virtually every line he delivers earns laughs — and often on purpose. If only he had a more capable sparring partner than Rhys Meyers, whose range, From Paris With Love sadly reveals, extends little beyond his petulant, amorous act as young Henry VIII in Showtime’s The Tudors. As much as Travolta enlivens the action, the unutterably bland Rhys Meyers deflates it — and he gets the lion’s share of the screen time, unfortunately. Director Morel, who cut his teeth as a cinematographer on such kinetic action fare as The Transporter, does some virtuoso work with the camera, incorporating everyday locales into his exquisitely frenzied set pieces. Dinner at a nondescript Chinese restaurant ends in a massive gunfight; an intimate dinner party launches an extended chase; a routine brothel visit gives way to ... another massive gunfight. If only he'd put as much care into his casting decisions. After each of From Paris With Love’s violent skirmishes, when Reese questions why things went so suddenly — and disastrously — awry, Wax angrily shouts “Don’t you get it yet?” to his hopelessly obtuse partner. At times, I think Travolta is actually pleading with his fellow castmember to wake up, get his act together and stop ruining the movie. It's a doomed effort.

DEAR JOHN MOVIE REVIEW

2010-02-27T01:07:00.000-08:00

The phrase “from the author of The Notebook” often provokes instant, visceral reactions from those familiar with the famously sappy 2004 romantic drama, with positive and negative responses strongly divided along gender and marital status lines. It’s one of four films based on the work of Nicholas Sparks, the John Grisham of romance novelists; the other three are 1999's Message in a Bottle, 2002's A Walk to Remember, and 2008's Nights in Rodanthe. The fifth Sparks-inspired romantic epic, opening in theaters just in time for Valentine’s Day, is called Dear John, but it’s so gloomy, so punishing, so unrewarding, it might as well be retitled Dear Job. Not that director Lasse Hallstrom (The Cider House Rules) doesn’t do his best to mitigate the melancholy, infusing Dear John with all the ingredients one expects from a Sparks adaptation: a pair of appealing young stars (Mamma Mia’s Amanda Seyfried and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra’s Channing Tatum), a charming, camera-friendly southern locale (Charleston, South Carolina -- America’s most polite city 11 years running!), a palette dominated by amber and khaki hues, a handful of wistful flashbacks, and a breezy, anodyne soundtrack. But beneath the film’s gooey romantic sheen lies an inordinately dreary story that repeatedly declares, "No, love won’t find a way, actually.” When he isn’t risking his life for a largely ambivalent country, U.S. Army Special Forces operative John Tyree (Tatum) assumes the equally thankless task of looking after his Asperger’s-afflicted father (Richard Jenkins), who seems incapable of expressing anything other than a sort of pained reticence. One day, happiness arrives in the perky, sun-drenched form of Savannah, a well-bred college student with whom he immediately embarks on a passionate affair, an affair which only strengthens while John is deployed abroad, thanks to their daily ritual of writing cloyingly affectionate letters to each other. But trouble soon arises for John and Savannah when they allow a man to come between them: Osama bin Laden, whose 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center has the secondary effect of initiating the demise of their seemingly indestructible relationship. After John leaves to fight in Afghanistan, Savannah falls prey to the apparently irresistable charms of Tim (Henry Thomas), a meek, cancer-stricken single father of an autistic boy, and soon marries him. (Evidently, stealing another guy’s girl is perfectly allowable if you suffer from a terminal disease. Men, be warned: If your girlfriend starts hanging out at chemotherapy clinics, watch out.) Looks like the terrorists won after all.

WHEN IN ROME MOVIE REVIEW

2010-02-27T01:05:00.000-08:00

Firing a rather tepid opening salvo in Hollywood’s annual Valentine’s Day rom-com blitz is When in Rome, starring Kristen Bell (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, TV’s Veronica Mars) and Josh Duhamel (Turistas, the Transformers flicks) and directed by Mark Steven Johnson (Ghost Rider, Daredevil). You read that correctly: Johnson, a guy who gave us two critically-reviled comic book flicks, was tapped by Disney to direct a movie entirely devoid of acrobatic fight sequences or computerized visual effects, the only filmmaking skills for which he’s received consistent praise. Hmmm ... maybe this is why Dick Cook was fired. Bell plays Beth, a high-strung New York City museum curator whose frustration over her barren love life spills over at her sister’s wedding in Rome, where she winds up drunkenly splashing around in the city’s fictional “Fontana D’Amore.” The embarrassing but harmless episode takes a momentous turn, however, when Beth absentmindedly steals a handful of coins from the fountain, unknowingly triggering an ancient Italian curse. Soon she’s romantically besieged by a diverse and highly aggressive group of oddballs played by Danny DeVito, Dax Shepard, Will Arnett and Jon Heder — the very men whose coins she plucked from the fabled fountain. The concept isn’t entirely without potential, but When in Rome’s script takes the quartet of previously funny actors and comedically castrates them, forcing them to survive this creative Dust Bowl on precisely one joke apiece. DeVito, playing a sausage magnate, emits only meat-related quips; Shepard’s self-obsessed model explores the comic possibilities of his washboard stomach; hapless street artist Arnett plasters the city with nude portraits of his unrequited love; and Heder’s wannabe magician mounts a series of botched magic tricks. (In a gag that might have been funny back in 2004, Efren Ramirez, Napoleon Dynamite’s Pedro, enjoys a cameo as Heder’s videographer. He’s this week’s winner of the Jeff Zucker “How Does This Guy Have a Job?” Award.) All of which serves to delay the inevitable coupling of Bell and Duhamel, two likable leads who gamely trudge through material so inane, so bland — and so safe — that it could fit comfortably in one of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s increasingly soporific family comedies. In fact, I’m not even sure if When in Rome made use of the standard PG-13 allotment of one F-word (used in a non-sexual manner, of course). Expect to hear it used liberally, however, by fellow audience members as the credits roll on this middling debacle.

LEGION MOVIE REVIEW

2010-02-27T01:01:00.000-08:00

The God of Legion, secular Hollywood’s latest Biblically-inspired action flick, is old-school, an angry, spiteful Almighty with a penchant for Old Testament theatrics. Fed up with humanity’s decadent, warmongering ways, He’s decided to pull the plug on the whole crazy experiment and start over from scratch. Fortunately for us, the God of Legion is also a rather lazy fellow. Instead of doing the apocalyptic work himself and wiping us out with a giant flood, which worked perfectly well last time, He opts to delegate the task to His army of angels — a questionable strategy that starts to fall apart when the archangel charged with leading the planned extermination, Michael (Paul Bettany), refuses to comply. Michael, who unlike his boss still harbors affection for our sorry species, abandons his post and descends to earth, where inside the swollen belly of Charlie (Adrianne Palicki), an unwed mother-to-be working as a waitress in an out-of-the-way diner, sits humanity’s lone hope for survival. Why is this particular baby so important? Is it the one destined to lead us to victory over Skynet? Heaven knows — Legion reveals little details, its script devoid of actual scripture. What is clear is that God’s celestial hitmen want the kid whacked before it’s born. But Michael won’t let humanity fall without a fight. Armed with a Waco-sized arsenal of assault weapons, he hunkers down with the diner’s patrons, a largely superfluous collection of thinly-sketched caricatures from various demographic groups, led by Dennis Quaid as the diner’s grizzled owner, Tyrese Gibson as a hip-hop hustler, and Lucas Black as a simple-minded country boy. Together they mount a heroic final stand against hordes of angels who’ve taken possession of “weak-willed” humans, turning kindly old grandmas and mild-mannered ice cream vendors into snarling, ravenous, foul-mouthed beasts. They descend upon the ramshackle diner in a series of full-frontal assaults commanded by the archangel Gabriel (Kevin Durand), the George Pickett of End of Days generals. Beneath its superficial religious facade, Legion is really just a run-of-the-mill zombie flick, a Biblical I Am Legend. Bettany, an actor accustomed to smaller dramatic roles in films like A Beautiful Mind and The Da Vinci Code, looks perfectly at ease in his first major action role, wielding machine guns and bowie knives with equal aplomb. Conversely, first-time director Scott Stewart, a former visual effects artist, does little to prove himself worthy of such a promotion, serving up some impressive CGI work but not much else worthy of note.

BOOK OF ELI MOVIE REVIEW

2010-01-21T00:14:00.001-08:00

Book of Eli, the ambitious, thought-provoking new thriller from brothers Albert and Allen Hughes (From Hell, Dead Presidents), is in many ways an anomaly in modern Hollywood. It’s a post-apocalyptic story that’s neither a remake nor an adaptation; its dystopian future is entirely devoid of zombies or vampires; and its core message, spiked with heavy amounts of faith and religion, borders on evangelical. Oh, and it’s absurdly violent, too. How this movie got made, I’ll never know.

The film is set approximately thirty years after a catastrophic war has decimated the planet, leaving its surface charred and inhospitable to the lucky few who managed to survive. A handful of dirty, decrepit, debauched cities host the last remnants of civilization; in between them, gangs of crazed cannibals, distinguishable by traits similar to those of meth addicts (shaky hands, bad skin, missing teeth, bizarre fashion sense, etc.), roam the bleak, unforgiving landscape, preying upon those foolish enough to travel alone.

Out of this infinite desert emerges a pious, solitary badass, Eli (Denzel Washington), wielding a vicious machete and carrying a rare book which, if placed in the right hands, could hold the key to civilization’s redemption. But in the greedy paws of unscrupulous folks like Carnegie (Gary Oldman), the tyrant of a lawless frontier town, the book can also be a powerful tool for subjugating the ignorant masses. Which is why Carnegie declares a veritable fatwa on Eli’s ass when he learns of his precious cargo, forcing the peace-loving missionary to brandish his blade in the service of the Lord.

Whatever their own religious beliefs, the Hughes brothers should get on their knees and thank God for Denzel, who almost singlehandedly makes Book of Eli’s hyper-stylized, incongruous mixture of B-movie splatter and high-minded spiritual hokum palpable. Together with Oldman, the film’s other fine lead, he imbues the often preposterous plot with just enough credibility to keep it afloat. Seriously, other than Denzel, who else could solemnly recite Psalm 23 in one scene, then go and carve up — literally — a handful of henchmen in the next, without eliciting howls of laughter from a movie audience? The only other actor who immediately comes to mind is a pre-meltdown Mel Gibson. Maybe.

But even a miracle worker like Denzel can’t prevent the wreckage wrought by Mila Kunis, a likable enough actress who is disastrously miscast in the role of Solara, a rough-hewn hooker-slave who eventually becomes Eli’s disciple. With her perfect complexion, shrill intonation and Valley Girl cadence, Kunis feels glaringly out of place in Book of Eli's coarse, brutal futureworld — and she can't hope to measure up to the likes of titans Washington and Oldman.

YOUTH IN REVOLT MOVIE REVIEW

2010-01-21T00:12:00.001-08:00

Hormones can wreak havoc on the teenage brain, causing it to contemplate all sorts of mischief in its drive to sate its carnal appetite. In the R-rated teen comedy Youth in Revolt, directed by Miguel Arteta and starring Michael Cera (Juno, Superbad) and newcomer Portia Doubleday, the volatile combo becomes downright hazardous.

The “teen” label is highly debatable here, as Youth in Revolt’s hapless protagonist, Nick (Cera), and his impish paramour, Sheeni (Doubleday), are both too quick-witted and hyper-articulate to qualify as mere high school sophomores. It’s the Juno debate: I don’t know if any teens actually talk like this, but if they do, I guarantee none are as sophisticated or attractive as our Nick and Sheeni. No, Youth in Revolt is more like a hipster’s whimsical projection of what his adolescence might have looked like if it weren’t spent buried in an issue of McSweeney’s. And on that level — as a sort of Porky’s for intellectuals — it actually works.

Though his vocabulary is highly advanced, 16-year-old Nick shares one important trait in common with most boys his age: He’d like to lose his virginity, preferably as soon as possible. But his chances seem woefully slim until he meets Sheeni, an attractive girl possessing a mind as sharp as his, but without the nagging insecurity and sexual inhibition. To top it off, Sheeni appears more than willing to escort Nick into manhood; circumstances, however, conspire to thwart them at nearly every turn, driving Nick to increasingly desperate lengths to be joined with her. Egged on by an imaginary wingman, his shrewdly Machiavellian alter ego Francois Dillinger (also Cera), Nick’s actions escalate from mere lies and manipulation to arson and auto theft with startling speed, and he soon earns the attention of the authorities.

With the cops hot on his trail, Nick spends the last third of the film in a sort of hormone-fueled version of The Fugitive, racing against time to crack the case of his virginity before being dragged away to juvenile hall. It’s one of the many odd shifts in tone that plague Youth in Revolt, as Arteta can’t seem to decide between raunchy sex comedy and surreal coming-of-age tale. Thankfully, he’s able to fall back on the talents of Cera and Doubleday, whose amusing and endearing — if suspiciously mature — repartee carries the film.

DAYBREAKERS MOVIE REVIEW

2010-01-21T00:10:00.000-08:00

Hollywood’s burgeoning library of vampire flicks gets a bloody new addition this week with Daybreakers, a grisly horror-thriller that adds a dystopian twist to the increasingly well-worn bloodsucker mythos. If Twilight is the Romeo and Juliet of the vampire genre, Daybreakers hopes to be its Children of Men. But hope, as they say, is not a plan. Nor is it a particularly effective filmmaking technique.

Set 10 years in the future, Daybreakers envisions a world in which a nasty plague has turned all but a tiny fraction of the planet’s population into vampires. But instead of descending into the kind of violent anarchy one might expect after such a catastrophic event, folks have adjusted surprisingly well, retrofitting their lives to accommodate their vampiric needs. (Potentially fatal sunlight, for example, is avoided with an elaborate system of underground walkways and computerized sunrise alerts.)

But all is not well in the future vampire world. The supply of uninfected human blood, upon which the civilization depends to survive, is dwindling rapidly, and attempts to synthesize it, led by Ethan Hawke’s reluctant biotech researcher Edward Dalton, have thus far proved disastrously ineffective. (A side effect of the latest blood substitute, for example, is an exploding head. Ouch!)

Dressed in a drab black suit and hat, his alabaster vampire complexion rendered even more pale by his moral objection to drinking human blood (he subsists instead on vastly inferior pig blood), Hawke’s character looks something like a Hasidic heroin addict (see below). Appalled by his company’s lucrative side business of imprisoning uninfected humans in vast blood farms (akin to the warehouses of “batteries” of The Matrix), he revolts against his smoothly sinister boss (Sam Neill) and joins a rag-tag resistance group led by a homespun mercenary (Willem Dafoe) who claims to have discovered the cure to vampirism.

LEAP YEAR MOVIE REVIEW

2010-01-21T00:07:00.001-08:00

The majesty of the Emerald Isle is on full display in Leap Year, an opposites attract romantic comedy starring Amy Adams (Julie & Julia, Enchanted) and Matthew Goode (A Single Man, Watchmen). Director Anand Tucker (Shopgirl, Hilary and Jackie), shooting entirely on location in Ireland, takes us on a whirlwind tour of the country’s breathtaking landscape, reveling in its fabled fairy-tale charm.

Pity, then, that such a magnificent setting is so mercilessly defaced by Leap Year’s unrelenting mediocrity. The film’s dubious premise, testing the already loose limits of rom-com believability, casts Adams as Anna, a type-A career girl who flies to Ireland intending to pop the question to her feet-dragging boyfriend on February 29th, aka Leap Day. Why Leap Day? Because, according to some idiotic old Irish tradition, that’s when women are allowed to do such things. (Click here to watch Adams herself try to explain the plot.)

Unfortunately for Anna, weather problems force her plane to land far away from Dublin and her would-be fiance. Trapped in a tiny coastal town with no reliable transportation at her disposal, she enlists the help of a scruffy, abrasive barkeep named Declan (Goode) to drive her cross-country so she can reach her destination by the 29th. And thus begins the traditional rom-com mating ritual of sexually-charged bickering followed by moments of abrupt, awkward intimacy.

While watching Leap Year, I swear I could hear the Irish countryside quietly weeping as it witnessed Goode and Adams slog through the film's succession of trite misadventures, the talented actors straining in vain to manufacture some semblance of romantic chemistry as an assortment of jolly Waking Ned Devine types futilely spurred them on. Oh, if only Greenpeace could have intervened and put a halt to such wanton environmental desecration. It's the worst thing to come out of Ireland since The Cranberries.

AVATAR MOVIE REVIEW

2009-12-31T10:09:00.000-08:00

It takes a special film to transform an audience of movie critics, highly-trained skeptics who can dismiss the most painstakingly crafted work with a mere smirk and roll of the eyes, into a bunch of glowing, giddy teenagers, but that’s precisely what happened earlier this week when Avatar, James Cameron’s extraordinary new sci-fi epic, screened for the first time. Count me among the awestruck rabble; Avatar is a truly astounding piece of filmmaking, a leap forward in visual effects artistry that sets a lofty new standard by which future event films will be judged.

Avatar wastes little time before unleashing the spectacle. Perhaps sensing our collective anticipation, Cameron serves up the barest of backstories before shoving off for Pandora, the staggeringly lush planet upon which the film’s futuristic tale unfolds. Through the eyes of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a crippled ex-marine who navigates Pandora vicariously through a bio-engineered surrogate (aka, an avatar), we’re introduced to the planet’s boundless, breathtaking collection of natural and unnatural wonders, all created from scratch, rendered with uncanny fluidity, and presented in the most realistic and immersive 3-D ever witnessed on film.

Occasionally, Avatar’s technical triumph is betrayed by its maddeningly derivative storyline, which borrows elements wholesale from Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai and countless similar films about oppressors switching sides and going native. Sent to gather intelligence on the Na'vi, Pandora’s blue-skinned indigenous population, for an Earth-based mining consortium, Jake becomes enamored with the proud, peace-loving natives and their groovy, granola ways. Soon enough, he’s joined their tribe, taken a smokin’ hot native girl for a wife (Zoe Saldana), and organized an army to help repel the encroachment of the rapacious earthlings.

The Bad Guys (Avatar’s moral perspective is as monochromatic as Pandora is colorful) who initiate the assault on the Na'vi are led by a tag team of grotesque, absurdly one-dimensional villains: Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) the khaki-lad, bottom line-obsessed corporate administrator of the mine; and Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), a bug-eyed, musclebound sadist who commands the mine’s vast security force. As Pandora’s Cortez and Pizzaro, they form a potent one-two punch of arrogant imperialist caricatures, deriding the noble Na'vi with sophomoric slurs like “blue monkeys” and “fly-bitten savages that live in a tree.” Neither would think twice of eliminating them entirely in order to procure the exceedingly rare, obscenely valuable element known as — I sh*t you not — Unobtainium.

Unobtanium? Really? It’s that kind of ham-fisted, uninspired pap littered throughout Avatar that makes me want to tear my hair out. If Cameron devoted a fraction of his time and effort toward improving the script as he spent perfecting the bone structure of the viperwolf (one of Pandora’s innumerable animal species), we might have a bona fide classic on our hands. But in Avatar, story and character development are treated as obstacles, pockets of narrative brush that must be clear-cut to make way for construction of the next extraordinarily elaborate set piece.

And yet, despite its flaws, Avatar represents one of those exceedingly rare instances in which style triumphs over substance — and by a landslide. I don’t know if Cameron has revolutionized the movie-watching experience (as he famously promised) but he’s surely improved upon it.

FANTASTIC Mr. FOX MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:56:00.000-08:00

Director Wes Anderson (The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou) was the subject of a minor controversy a few months ago when an L.A. Times profile alleged that the idiosyncratic auteur rarely visited the London set of Fantastic Mr. Fox, his stop-motion adaptation of the Road Dahl children's tale, preferring instead to issue orders to his crew via email. If the report is indeed true, Anderson’s poor attendance record certainly didn’t detract from the final result. Fantastic Mr. Fox is an utter delight: a lively, endearing comic caper that will appeal equally to both young and old, hipster and non-hipster alike.

Having too often overdosed on self-conscious quirk in the past, Anderson shows admirable restraint with Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the result is undoubtedly his most entertaining and accessible film yet. Admittedly, the film’s old school, retro-style animation does take some getting get used to; younger audience members, raised on a steady diet of cutting-edge Pixar flicks, might even suspect that they’re watching some relic produced before they were born. But their skepticism will quickly fade as soon they’re drawn into the first of several increasingly audacious farm heists mounted by the clever Mr. Fox (voiced with easygoing charm by George Clooney) and his rag-tag crew of woodland critter pals.

Despite its mainstream appeal, Fantastic Mr. Fox retains the distinctive feel of a Wes Anderson film. Clooney and co-star Meryl Streep are complemented by a supporting cast of Anderson regulars, including Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson. The film’s art direction is as stylish and nuanced as its stop-motion animation is precise; its soundtrack littered with the familiar sounds of the Beach Boys and the Rolling Stones. And Mr. Fox’s flair for elaborate, intricately-planned heists is reminiscent of one of Anderson’s earliest and most beloved characters, Bottle Rocket’s Dignan.

In an era of animated films produced increasingly by committee, it’s refreshing to see one that bears the singular style and personality of its director. After watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, I for one wouldn’t be the least bit dismayed if Anderson never made another live-action film again.

PIRATE RADIO MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:53:00.000-08:00

As the British Invasion stormed American airwaves in the mid-'60s, its conquest of its native land took the shape of a sea-based guerrilla offensive. Broadcasting from ships anchored just outside British territorial waters, a handful of so-called “pirate radio” stations defied the BBC’s strict limits on popular music by blasting the isles with around-the-clock rock 'n' roll. Writer/director Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Love Actually) pays tribute to that vibrant era with Pirate Radio, a sentimental, lighthearted ode to the renegade DJs who helped British rock find its sea legs.

Curtis introduces us to Pirate Radio’s motley ensemble through the bright eyes of Carl (Tom Sturridge), a naive schoolboy whose godfather, Quentin (Bill Nighy, playing perhaps the hippest sexagenarian in history), owns and operates Radio Rock, Britain’s premier pirate station. Surrounded by a crew of boisterous, impossibly well-dressed musical misfits — all of whom are seemingly modeled after various '60s countercultural archetypes (the mod hipster, the impish lothario, the uncompromising purist, the dazed hippie, the Jim Morrison clone, etc.) — Carl’s unusual voyage of discovery commences in earnest.

Pirate Radio may strike some as reminiscent of another nostalgic paean to the wonders of rock 'n' roll, Almost Famous — not least because star Philip Seymour Hoffman essentially resuscitates his Lester Bangs performance in this film. But Pirate Radio is far less ambitious than Cameron Crowe’s 2000 film, not seeking so much to define an era as to use it as the backdrop for a brisk, buoyant comedy. And in that regard, it succeeds far more often than it fails, thanks largely to the efforts of a talented cast led by Hoffman, Nighy, Nick Frost and Rhys Darby. There are a few bittersweet moments scattered throughout Pirate Radio, but at its core the film a comic coming-of-age story — punctuated by a lively soundtrack loaded with classics from the Who, the Kinks, the Rolling Stones and other seminal bands.

It should be noted that a significantly longer version of the film, titled The Boat That Rocked, debuted in the UK over six months ago. Narrative gaps are evident throughout Pirate Radio, but director Curtis’ decision to pare nearly 20 minutes off the film’s running time for its American release looks like a wise one, as the shortened length still tests the limits of one’s patience. Rock 'n' roll can be many things, but it must never, ever be boring.

2012 MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:51:00.000-08:00

The ancient Mayan calendar, with its supposed prediction of a December 21, 2012 apocalypse, has long fascinated assorted fringe scholars, doomsday fetishists and George Noory acolytes. In 2012, the audacious new disaster epic from director Roland Emmerich (10,000 B.C., The Day After Tomorrow), it provides the inspiration for a $250 million orgy of destruction, the likes of which has never been seen on the big screen.

Give the Mayans credit: their chosen method for the planet’s demise in 2012 is anything if not imaginative. The earth’s core, we’re told, is being heated to the point of instability by mutant neutrinos emitted by an increasingly malevolent sun. (The Mayans, a civilization that had little use for the wheel, having apparently identified the subatomic particle several millennia prior to the advent of quantum physics.) The initial signs of this phenomenon — sudden fissures on Earth’s surface triggered by ruptures in its crust — are casually dismissed as harmless earthquakes by government officials.

Ahh, but they know better. In fact, the President (portrayed without a hint of irony by Danny Glover) and his advisers became hip to this neutrino business years ago, but chose not to inform the public for fear of the panic that might ensue. What they fail to realize, despite the pleadings of the film’s requisite Lone Voice in the Wilderness (Chiwetel Ejiofor, bringing kind of a sad dignity to the proceedings), is that the lethal process is accelerating far faster than anyone could have predicted. Personifying the government’s pompous intransigence in the face of obvious calamity is Oliver Platt, who plays the President’s Secretary of Douchebaggery.

And what a gorgeous calamity it is. First come the super-earthquakes, which send Los Angeles plummeting into the ocean. Then the volcano beneath Yellowstone Park erupts in spectacular fashion, blanketing North America with a massive cloud of poisonous ash. Not to be left out of the eco-gangbang, killer tsunamis join the party, bombarding much of Asia and the Indian subcontinent with tidal waves the size of Mt. Everest. Emmerich’s breathless CGI onslaught is truly unprecedented in its scope.

Beyond the awe-inspiring carnage, however, there’s precious little to distinguish 2012. John Cusack leads a bloated cast that largely phones in a succession of forgettable roles. The conspiracy-themed script is painfully trite, rife with cliches and devoid of any and all subtlety. Its heavy-handed message, urging unity across class and cultural lines, feels superficial and soulless. Even the film’s visual effects — doubtlessly 2012’s greatest asset — occasionally come off as distractingly fake. The film even feigns a gallingly faux subversiveness, toppling Christian landmarks like the Vatican and the Christ the Redeemer statue in spectacular fashion, while avoiding Islamic monuments entirely. (We brought it up in our interview with Emmerich — click to hear his eye-opening response.)

All of this clocks in at a bewildering two hours and forty minutes, well beyond the acceptable length for such an empty-headed disaster flick.

You’ve been warned.

THE FOURTH KIND MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:48:00.000-08:00

Paranormal Activity’s unlikely run atop the box-office chart may have come to an end, but the moviegoing public’s nascent fascination with otherworldly phenomena — the unfriendly variety, in particular — shows no signs of waning. The Fourth Kind, a supernatural thriller from writer-director Olatunde Osunsanmi, represents Hollywood’s latest attempt to capitalize on this peculiar trend.

Paranormal Activity and The Fourth Kind are very different movies, to be sure, but they share the same basic approach, employing gritty, documentary-style footage to convince us that what we’re watching unfold onscreen is more “real” — and thus more convincing — than the typical glossy Hollywood thriller.

But The Fourth Kind goes far beyond Paranormal Activity in its effort to establish its legitimacy. In an unprecedented — and exceedingly ballsy — maneuver, star Milla Jovovich begins the film by breaking the fourth wall and addressing the camera directly. In a lengthy monologue, she introduces herself as “actress Milla Jovovich,” explains that she’ll be portraying real-life psychologist Dr. Abigail Tyler, and declares that the documentary footage scattered throughout The Fourth Kind is authentic, recorded during a sleep-disorder study conducted in Nome, Alaska, a few years ago.

Why Nome? Because, we’re told, its citizens are afflicted with an unusual number of nighttime sleep disturbances, the bulk of which are accompanied by terrifying visions of hostile, alien-like creatures. Nasty fellows, these extra-terrestrials are, taunting and tormenting and probing their victims as they lie helpless, paralyzed with fear. Some of the otherworldly visitors even have the audacity to take possession of their somnolent subjects, using them as vessels to deliver ominous warnings to Abby and her colleagues. Speaking in ancient tongues with voices horribly distorted, they demand that she end her research.

But Abby won’t listen to them, and her persistence effects increasingly dire consequences. One of her afflicted patients kills himself and his family; another is paralyzed after levitating during a harrowing hypnotic episode; finally, the aliens set their sights on Abby herself. One might be tempted to dismiss these episodes as merely the hallucinations of a badly traumatized woman — the classic unreliable narrator — if it weren’t all captured on video.

For those willing to buy into The Fourth Kind’s claims of authenticity, the experience is at times genuinely terrifying. But after a while it becomes increasingly obvious that the film’s documentary sequences are staged — and often badly so. Director Osunsanmi brought a clever idea to the table, but he didn't quite have the skills — or the actors — to pull it off, and the result feels like an elaborate cinematic con job.

THE INVENTION OF LYING MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:46:00.001-08:00

The Invention of Lying starts out really strong but turns serious, finds religion, and forgets the laughs. Ricky Gervais co-wrote, co-directed and stars in the film which is set in a world where no one has ever told a lie. The premise is intriguing and the first half hour or so isn't pure genius, but it's highly amusing. In the first few minutes Jennifer Garner's utterly brutal assessment of Ricky Gervais' chances of scoring on their first date is uncomfortable yet funny. She's out of his league in every way and because there's no fudging on the facts, she lets him know it in no uncertain terms. That's entertaining.

But the premise gets old and the honesty is too mean-spirited after a while to elicit many laughs. Points for trying, but the execution is just slightly off in Gervais and co-writer/co-director Matthew Robinson's rookie effort.

The Story

Can you even imagine a world where every single person tells nothing but the truth? Nothing is sugar-coated and no one's feelings are spared. I don't think that's a world I'd want to live in, that's for sure. Even commercials and feature films only spout facts. You should buy Coke because it's famous. Pepsi's good when they don't have Coke. You get the point.

Gervais plays Mark, an unfortunate, unpopular, unlucky screenwriter saddled with having to bring the 1300s to the big screen in an entertaining - yet truthful - way. The Black Plague isn't the most lighthearted of stories and Mark's on the verge of being fired on a daily basis, until one day his boss really does pull the plug on his employment situation. Jobless, practically broke, and with an ailing mom in a nursing home ("A Sad Place for Hopeless Old People" according to the building's sign), Mark heads to the bank to pull out the last of his money. But while talking to the bank teller he makes the discovery of a lifetime - he can lie.

Rob Lowe and Tina Fey in ' The Invention of Lying.'

Since no one else on Earth can do this, Mark has a hard time convincing even his closest friend, Greg (played by stand-up comedian Louis C.K.), that he can speak something other than the truth. Mark tells him he's a Black Eskimo, invented the bike, and has only one arm, and Greg believes every word of it. Flabbergasted, Mark finally realizes he can make a lot of money using this new power and also do a lot of good. As his mom's taking her last few breaths, he comforts her by telling her she won't just be slipping away into nothingness. This sets in motion a chain of events that has people across the globe hanging on Mark's every word.

The Cast

Taken separately, Ricky Gervais and Jennifer Garner were both fine in their roles - Garner's deadpan delivery of some outlandish lines during the film's first 10 minutes was absolutely hysterical. But together there's zero chemistry. Supporting performances by Rob Lowe as Gervais' rival at work and for the heart of Garner, Louis C.K. as Gervais' frumpy best friend, Tina Fey as Gervais' not supportive at all assistant, and Fionnula Flanagan as Gervais' sick mom are all terrific. There's also a batch of big name actors appearing in cameos who all liven up the film during their brief but memorable moments on screen. The cast isn't really at fault in this one; it's the material that lets them down for the last half of the movie.

The Bottom Line

Gervais and Robinson take on organized religion, even going as far as to create new Commandments (with pizza boxes substituting for stone tablets). That actually worked for me, though it's likely to polarize audiences. At least Gervais and Robinson go there and don't back off. Kudos for that.

Jennifer Garner and Ricky Gervais in 'The Invention of Lying.'

However, as the bluntness of the characters seems to escalate, The Invention of Lying takes on a real mean tone, and it didn't need to. The Invention of Lying has a great premise but the execution stalls, losing momentum as it chugs to a romantic comedy cookie-cutter type ending. It all just wears thin after a while. There are definitely funny moments, particularly in the first half of the movie, but not enough to sustain the comedy throughout its 100 minute running time.

Still, it's not a bad movie, just one that doesn't provide as many laughs and as much entertainment as you'd hope given the film's set-up and great start.

JULIE AND JULIA MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:43:00.000-08:00

Hitting theaters near the end of a summer movie season filled with explosions, over-the-top action and general silliness, Julie and Julia is a delightful, tasty treat for adults. Julie and Julia is cooked to cinematic perfection and filled with terrific performances from the entire ensemble cast, led by Doubt co-stars Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. The story - like the delicious food served in Julie and Julia - will satiate moviegoers looking to fill up on a full-bodied film for their box office dollars.

Julie and Julia, though based on two true stories, plays out as a tale almost too good to be true. Julia, as played by Streep, is so completely engaging and so loved by all who come in contact with her that she seems like the creation of a very imaginative mind rather than a flesh and blood women. Julie, on the other hand, is a timid, can't accomplish anything young woman who, with the help of a famous chef she's never met yet leans on daily, blossoms into a determined, self-reliant woman. What Julie learns from studying Julia takes her from handling phone calls from relatives of victims of 9/11 to juggling interview opportunities and book deals. It would seem the story of Julia and Julie's strangely intertwined lives could only spring from a screenwriter's pen, but Julie and Julia is based on the real lives of these two captivating women.

The Story

Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep in 'Julie and Julia.'

Julie and Julia is culled from two books. One book tells the story of Julia Child as she transitions from the bored wife of a diplomat stationed in France to student at the famed Le Cordon Bleu school to cooking teacher and ultimately cookbook author and star of her own TV show. The second book was written by New Yorker Julie Powell, a cubicle-dwelling government worker who, back in 2002, decided to stir things up in her life by cooking all 500+ recipes in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking over the course of just 365 days. And in addition to tackling Child's recipes, Julie charged herself with creating and updating a blog based on her daily adventures in the kitchen. Julie had a history of not completing things, but was determined to see this year-long experiment through to the end. Fortunately, she had an understanding, level-headed husband on her side to steady her when the going got rough (i.e. when she had to kill lobsters, poach eggs, and perform other hazardous duties) and a strength of spirit she didn't know existed until she followed Julia's lead.

The Cast

Although Powell's book dwells, as expected, more on her own portion of the story, the film divides its time fairly equally between Julia's story and Julie's. Meryl Streep plays Julia as a gigantic woman with a real gusto for life, showing her to be as passionate about eating and cooking as she is about her loving husband, Paul (Stanley Tucci). It's a joy (not of cooking but of watching) to see The Devil Wears Prada's Streep and Tucci reunite onscreen as a happily married couple who absolute adore the ground the other walks on.

Amy Adams has a tougher row to hoe playing a struggling woman trying to find herself in a world that doesn't care in the least if she succeeds. Even at lunch with her closest female friends, Adams as Julie is put down, her life brushed off as trivial. But as Julie sees her universe expanding as the number of readers commenting on her blog increases, Adams takes Julie from shrinking violet to a strong woman in her own right. And if you're like me, you're going to walk out of Julie and Julia wondering who Chris Messina is and where he's been hiding. As Julie's husband, Eric, Messina is a revelation.

The Bottom Line

Meryl Streep in 'Julie and Julia.'

Julie and Julia isn't just a movie for foodies, although I'll warn you now not to go to this movie on an empty stomach. Restaurants immediately adjacent to theaters screening Julie and Julia are likely to see an uptick in business from people driven crazy by the mouth-watering dishes on display in Julie and Julia. And if you don't know how to cook...well, I need to stop for a moment to let you know where I'm coming from in the culinary skills department. I once ruined a skillet attempting to cook a grilled cheese sandwich. The result was an inedible disaster and a pan that looked like someone had held it under a space shuttle as it was taking off. That was a few years back and I'm better now, but I'm still far from feeling comfortable around the kitchen. If it's microwaveable, I'm all good. Anyway, Julie and Julia made me want to rush out and whip up a souffle or some exotic beef dish. It also made me long for more films of this ilk, movies that don't need tricks, gimmicks or special effects to compete in theaters.

It's so refreshing to see strong female characters drive a story. Streep and Adams don't share a single scene in Julie and Julia, but they do share the ability to engage the audience. Together though separate, these powerful actresses make Julie and Julia a scrumptious moviegoing experience.

KNOWING MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:41:00.000-08:00

If I'd have known Knowing's last half an hour was going to play out the way it did, I wouldn't have wasted my time watching the first hour and a half. Knowing takes an interesting premise and all but destroys it with a final act that's, at select moments, jaw-droppingly ludicrous. Knowing's loaded with possibility, but flounders its way to a disappointing conclusion.

It's not Nicolas Cage's fault Knowing doesn't work. Cage, who can and usually does go overboard in scenes meant to convey stressful situations, actually keeps himself reined in. It's the script and the effects that are totally out of control.

The Story

It's 1959 and a classroom full of elementary school students is busy drawing pictures to insert into a time capsule to be buried in the school's courtyard. The students draw pretty pictures of robots and rocket ships and other items representing what they believe the world will look like in 50 years when the capsule's opened. But there's one student, Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson), whose drawing is unlike the others. Lucinda's hearing voices and those voices are telling her to write down numbers that, on the surface, look to be totally random.

Nicolas Cage in 'Knowing.'

Flash forward 50 years and astrophysicist John Koestler (Cage) is a widower raising a super bright 10 year old son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), who's wise beyond his years. He's also a sensitive boy with a hearing problem which causes him to use a hearing aid. He's not deaf, as John points out, he just hears things jumbled sometimes and the hearing aid helps him sort the words out.

When the time capsule is opened at a special ceremony, each member of Caleb's elementary school class is handed an envelope containing one of the drawings done 50 years prior. Caleb receives Lucinda's paper, which he finds fascinating enough to take home instead of leaving it at the school as instructed.

John, who has a bit of a drinking problem, downs some booze and strangely enough, that helps clear up the meaning of the Lucinda's numbers. John becomes obsessed with the idea that the paper actually lists major incidents in which people have died over the past 50 years (including 9/11). And, of course, there are three catastrophes on the paper that haven't yet occurred and John believes he can stop them from happening. To do this he tracks down the now deceased Lucinda's daughter, Diana (Rose Byrne), and granddaughter, Abby (Robinson, again). As they attempt to put the final pieces of the puzzle together, strange men watch their houses and whisper bizarre things into Abby and Caleb's ears.

The Cast

The kid actors – Robinson and Canterbury – aren't annoyingly precocious and are fine young performers. And Rose Byrne does a decent damsel in distress to Cage's 'I'll protect my son at all costs' action guy. Byrne adds a lot emotionally to the story, an important element as Cage, despite the fact he apparently loves his son, comes across as mildly detached.

The Bottom Line

Are we just going through the motions as our fate is already determined, no matter how desperately we want to change our future? Knowing does address that question but with a very unsatisfying resolution. It tosses out half a dozen red herrings along the way, two or three of which would have been much more intriguing to follow than the ultimate conclusion to the film.

Nicolas Cage in 'Knowing.'

The pacing's off, which is disappointing as I never found that to be an issue with director Alex Proyas' previous films (Dark City, The Crow, I, Robot). I was also disappointed with the way the huge action set pieces were integrated into the story. It felt like someone had this great vision of plane and train crashes and just had to find a way to work them into a feature film. Why Cage's character acts and reacts the way he does at times doesn't make the least bit of sense, unless the point is to just push another action scene into Knowing.

Knowing's a film that never seems to figure out what it wants to be, but it goes here, there and everywhere in one big hurry. Riddled with problems, Knowing isn't likely to impress anyone but the most ardent Nicolas Cage fans. But even those may be hard-pressed to endure the ending without letting out a laugh or two.

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:36:00.000-08:00

There are r-rated movies (ones that show some skin and/or sex), R-rated movies (ones with a mix of sex and violence and bad language), and then there are R-rated movies (ones that push the envelope, usually in the direction of graphic violence). The Last House on the Left, the 2009 version of Wes Craven's first movie, is R-rated in no uncertain terms. The violence of The Last House on the Left is cringe-inducingly raw and downright nasty. Last House is strictly an adults-only film, and then only for adults who can handle intense and brutal violence, including a particularly horrific rape scene.

The Last House on the Left is not a film for everyone (but other than Pixar's products and a few other G-rated offerings, is there really such a thing as a film for everyone?). So what do you need to know going into The Last House on the Left to determine if it's for you? If the first paragraph of this review sent up a caution flag but you're still interested, then The Last House on the Left might be something for you to check out.

It's not a fun movie and there are scenes you'll be tempted to watch through your fingers. It's not educational. The revenge plot plays out fairly straightforward once the movie hits its stride half an hour in. After the kidnappers take their victims into the woods, The Last House on the Left delivers an unwavering, unremitting hour of some of the most terrifyingly real moments you'll see in a horror/thriller.

The Story

Based on the 1972 film that launched the careers of Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham, The Last House on the Left has a fairly simple plot. Krug (Garret Dillahunt) escapes from prison aided by his brother Francis (Aaron Paul), girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome), and teenage son Justin (Spencer Treat Clark). Then Justin's left alone in a hotel room for a few hours so he heads into town and picks up two teen hotties – Mari (Sara Paxton) and Paige (Martha MacIsaac) - with the promise of pot waiting for them back in his hotel room. However, their partying is interrupted when dad, Francis and Sadie show up and spoil their good times.

Aaron Paul, Garret Dillahunt, Spencer Trent Clark, and Riki Lindhome.

Krug's face is plastered all over the news, but Mari and Paige haven't been paying attention to that so initially they have no clue how much trouble they're in. But their bad luck - and bad judgement - quickly becomes evident when Krug and his crazy cohorts make it clear the girls won't be going home anytime soon. Taken against their will, the young women are horribly abused and left for dead. Then in a wicked twist of fate, the foursome shows up on the doorstep of Mari's parents' house. Only after they've welcomed in these strangers and given them refreshments and a guesthouse to sleep in do the parents figure out these strangers they've helped have brutalized their 17 year old daughter. And once they come to that realization, the gloves come off and the parents are out for revenge.

The Acting

Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn go from being caring parents to tigers protecting their young in a totally believable, utterly realistic manner. One second they're serving coffee and chatting about the weather, and the next they're using any manner of household objects as weapons. Go parents!

Sara Paxton's normally seen in lighthearted fare but with this role she proves there's a lot more to her than teenage romantic comedies. Garret Dillahunt (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) sports almost black hair (in order to make him look more evil?) and delivers a creepy, fascinating performance as the leader of this little crew of criminals. Riki Lindhome makes Sadie into a chick you'd never, ever want to encounter in a dark alley or a brightly lit street, and Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) is incredibly good at playing a hideous, delusional killer. Spencer Treat Clark as Krug's conflicted son lucks out and doesn't have to take part in the vicious attacks. Clark's fine as Justin, a teenager with more than his fair share of issues.

Sara Paxton, Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter in 'The Last House on the Left.'

The Bottom Line

The Last House on the Left is probably not a film you'll buy on DVD after watching in the theater. One screening of this is sure to be enough for anyone. And for those familiar with Craven's version, there have been a few changes made to make this The Last House on the Left flow a little smoother than that 1972 film, and to ramp up the stakes once the parents discover they're harboring their daughter's attackers.

Absolutely harsh, unflinchingly brutal, and unrelentingly intense, this The Last House on the Left is a crisp, provocative, tension-filled remake that lives up to the original. It doesn't pull punches, doesn't cave in to horror movie clichés, and though the rape is one of the most disturbing ever depicted in a film, the payoff is there down the road – if your stomach's strong enough to hang in there and not give up on The Last House on the Left.

LAW ABIDING CITIZEN MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:33:00.000-08:00

Law Abiding Citizen asks you to not question its leaps in logic in order to get into its violent tale of revenge. And if you're willing to not analyze the plot, to not shake your head in wonder at the series of twists and turns the story takes, then Law Abiding Citizen's not a bad action thriller. But it takes a lot of sacrifice on the viewer's part to allow it to be so.

From a convicted killer's fast-track to the lethal injection chamber, to the intricate, time-consuming maneuverings of a man out for revenge, Law Abiding Citizen isn't going to win any honors for the most coherent, logical plot ever written. However, as action films go, the pacing's fast, the basic premise is fine, and Gerard Butler gives it his all in a darker role than usual. Strangely enough, Law Abiding Citizen's a fun ride, though it feels a bit bizarre to call a film loaded with violence and murder "fun."

The Story

We don't know much about the Shelton family before two ruthless home invaders break into their house, stab the father, and rape and murder the mother and young daughter. Clyde (Butler), the father, is badly wounded but survives, only to see one of the killers get a mere slap on the hand in exchange for testifying against his cohort in crime. Clyde argues and tries to persuade Assistant DA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) into turning down the deal, but Nick doesn't feel he can get a conviction at trial. Nick's all about his conviction record as he's very political-minded and always looking out for number one, even if it means a brutal murderer gets to serve just a couple of years behind bars.

Gerard Butler shows some skin in 'Law Abiding Citizen.'

Flash-forward 10 years and the one who didn't make a deal is set to die by lethal injection. Something goes horribly wrong and instead of passing on relatively peacefully, the chemicals cause him to be wracked with pain and die a horribly gruesome death. But that's just the beginning of all the deadly shenanigans. The killer who got off easy is found chopped up in dozens of pieces. The most likely suspect in both of these killings? Clyde Shelton.

Arrested for both murders, Clyde goes face to face with Assistant DA Rice as Rice tries to get him to confess to the killings. And Clyde actually says he'll confess if Rice agrees to an utterly ridiculous demand - bring him a comfy mattress for his jail cell and he'll say he killed the men who murdered his family. Once that demand's met, Clyde reveals he has more to say if Rice is willing to make more deals. Rice says he is only because what Clyde has to say involves the potential deaths of other people involved in the prosecution of his wife and daughter's murderers.

As Rice quickly finds out, Clyde won't be happy until he's exacted revenge by killing everyone associated with the case. And, Clyde's not just a grieving husband and father. No, he's a man on a mission with the tools to carry out dozens of killings from inside his jail cell. Clyde will only find his need for vengeance satiated when the entire criminal justice system has paid for letting killers off easy, and that means ADA Rice has to figure out just how Clyde's able to mastermind all these killings (including bombings and a remote controlled assassination of Rice's boss and mentor) before Rice's own wife and daughter become victims of Clyde's brand of justice.

The Cast

Gerard Butler was originally interested in playing the part of the Assistant DA, but opted instead for the role of the widower out for blood. That's a good choice on Butler's part as he's played so many romantic leads and good guys in the past, mixing things up shows audiences he does have a completely different set of skills. Yes, he does get to show off his fabulous body, but there's so much more meat to the role than just what's revealed in that brief but memorable scene. Butler's nasty and ruthless as Clyde, and you root for him despite what he's doing to - in some cases - basically innocent people. Clyde's this puppet-master manipulating an entire city, and Butler pulls off the part so well, it appears he relished the opportunity to get down and dirty with this ruthless and driven character.

Gerard Butler in 'Law Abiding Citizen.'

On the flip side, there's Jamie Foxx who portrays Nick Rice as a smug, self-centered prosecutor completely obliviously to how his actions (or more accurately, inaction) affect the citizens he deals with. We're not meant to support Rice at the beginning of the film, but Foxx tries to at least make him semi-human and not completely loathsome. Still, Butler's characterization of the wronged father makes him the one we pull for throughout the film, despite the attempts by Foxx, screenwriter Kurt Wimmer, and director F Gary Gray to woo us to Nick Rice's side later in the game.

The Bottom Line

Law Abiding Citizen is not the slickest thriller ever put together. It's not the most intelligent indictment of the judicial system ever put forth in a feature film. However, director F Gary Gray said he's not trying to preach to the audience, he's just trying to entertain. Gray wanted Law Abiding Citizen to be a wild ride, and that it is. You root for the guy who's killing people long after you really should - it's that kind of movie. For all its faults, Law Abiding Citizen is a ride worth taking.

The violence is intense, the action is over-the-top, and the big plot twist late in the film will likely take you completely by surprise. Law Abiding Citizen isn't everyone's cup of tea, but if you like your films gritty and raw, it's one you'll find fairly entertaining.

MONSTER vs ALIENS MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:30:00.000-08:00

I know Jeffrey Katzenberg and James Cameron and a host of other assorted filmmakers want me to like 3-D, but I'm not buying into the hype. I find wearing the glasses and waiting for something to appear to lurch from the screen more irritating than entertaining. But 3-D's not going away anytime soon if Katzenberg and his ilk have their way, and it was in that frame of mind that I sat through Monsters vs Aliens in 3-D and IMAX.

Monsters vs Aliens is beautifully animated, and even the muted colors you see through the annoying 3-D glasses are sparkling enough to enliven the screen. And the voice cast, which includes Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, and Will Arnett, do infuse their characters with more personality than the dialogue should allow them to. Yet fun seemed to be missing from the whole production, making Monsters vs Aliens just a run of the mill animated family movie and nothing more – even with all the so-called bells and whistles attributed to 3-D films.

The Story

Susan (Witherspoon) is ready to say I do to her narcissistic weatherman fiancé when out of the clear blue sky falls a meteorite. Despite the fact she's dressed in her wedding gown, Susan trudges down the hill to get a closer look. But getting up close and personal with a meteorite on your wedding day is never a good idea. The substance contained inside the meteorite causes her to mutate into a 47 foot tall woman at the most inopportune time (as she's poised to exchange vows with her creepy husband-to-be).

The Missing Link (Will Arnett), Dr Cockroach (Hugh Laurie) and B.O.B. (Seth Rogen) in 'Monsters vs Aliens.'

The military shows up (don't ask how they knew they'd be dealing with an out-of-control bridezilla), captures this now gigantic woman, and locks her away in a secret government holding facility alongside other 'monsters'. These other monsters are used to being locked away from the public as they've been caged up for decades, but Susan (newly renamed Ginormica to match her enlarged status) is immensely unhappy and willing to do anything to get out and go home. She's even willing to have Dr. Cockroach (three guesses what he looks like and the first two don't count) experiment on her to see if he can return her to her normal size.

But when Earth is threatened by first a robot from outer space and then a squidish alien who calls himself Gallaxhar (voiced by Rainn Wilson), the caretaker to the monsters, General W.R. Monger (Kiefer Sutherland), suggests letting the monsters free to take on the aliens. And so the battle begins as Ginormica, the gelatinous one-eyed blob known as B.O.B., Dr Cockroach, a Swamp Thing look-alike called The Missing Link, and the gigantic insect labeled Insectosaurus are the people of Earth's only hope. And yes, there's a lesson in there about how it's okay to be different.

The Voice Cast

Seth Rogen sounds like Seth Rogen – which isn't a bad thing - as B.O.B., a blob with a tiny brain who falls hard for a jello dessert. Hugh Laurie plays doctor once again as an overgrown cockroach whose mad cackle sends shivers down Ginormica's ginormous spine. And Will Arnett gamely gets into the character of an amphibious creature who thinks too highly of himself and of his fighting skills. Reese Witherspoon, tackling her first animated feature film role, starts out playing Susan with a perky voice and a bounce in her animated step before transitioning into Ginormica's much more authoritative voice. Witherspoon's warmth comes through, and Susan/Ginormica springs to life thanks to her engaging, energetic delivery.

Ginormica (Reese Witherspoon) and The Missing Link (Will Arnett) in 'Monsters vs Aliens.'

The Bottom Line

Monsters vs Aliens is a step backwards in storytelling, compared to the studio's own Shrek film franchise or any Pixar production. Where Pixar excels is in delivering a compelling, entertaining plot along with fantastic visuals and humor. Monsters vs Aliens left out the entertaining plot and jumped straight to trying to impress with its 3-D action.

There are some fun moments in Monsters vs Aliens, but they are too few and too far in between to make Monsters vs Aliens a must-see (in 3-D or in 2-D). That's not to say youngsters won't laugh and squeal over this animated family-friendly film. There's enough action and enough cool-looking characters to check out to keep the under 12 crowd interested throughout the short running time. But adults are going to get fidgety waiting for Monsters vs Aliens to wind to a close. Pixar's set the bar high and DreamWorks Animations' Monsters vs Aliens doesn't come close to being able to leap over it.

MY ONE AND ONLY MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:26:00.000-08:00

Renee Zellweger looks gorgeous and delivers her best performance since the original Bridget Jones movie in My One and Only, an engaging '50s period piece directed by Richard Loncraine (Firewall, Wimbledon). The audience for My One and Only is going to be limited, just due to the subject matter, but for adults with discerning taste and a fondness for old Hollywood, it's quite a juicy morsel.

My One and Only is based on the life of actor George Hamilton - he of the perpetual tan. The story follows Hamilton as a young teen trying to deal with his flighty platinum blonde, perfectly made up mother's desire to snatch a wealthy husband after packing up and leaving George's band leader dad behind. Along with Robbie (Mark Rendall), his homosexual big brother who wants to be an actor, George (Logan Lerman) travels from city to city in a Cadillac Eldorado, his mom constantly on the alert for potential beaus with big money. Their journey ultimately leads to California where Robbie gets his shot at a career in front of the camera only to find out he's really not a very good thespian. No matter, George is - and the rest is Hollywood history.

Mark Rendall and Logan Lerman in 'My One and Only.'

In addition to terrific performances by Zellweger, Lerman and Rendall, My One and Only also features Kevin Bacon as George's estranged dad. Bacon's not in the film much, but when he shows up, he's incredibly entertaining to watch. The same goes for David Koechner, Chris Noth, Nick Stahl, and Robin Weigert. It's George's story, but these fine actors make you wish there were time to dwell on some of the peripheral characters who touched his life.

My Own and Only brings the 1950s back to life in stunning detail. The sets and costumes are absolutely faithful to the era. And director Loncraine doesn't just get the props right, he captures the spirit of the decade. My biggest complaint about Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock was that he made it look like the 1960s, but I never believed I was watching people who were actually living through those moments. Loncraine delivers that to us in My One and Only. It's not just set in the 1950s; it could actually be taking place in the 1950s. The characters and dialogue are true to the time, making My One and Only an entertaining little gem.

NEW IN TOWN MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:24:00.000-08:00

Boy meets girl, they don't like each other, argue, are forced to work together, boy saves girl, girl starts to admit she kind of likes the guy, circumstances force them apart, and girl comes to the realization he's the one. Insert Renee Zellweger as an eager beaver up and coming corporate type from the sunny state of Florida in place of 'girl'. Insert Harry Connick Jr as a good ol' boy who lives in Stereotypical Small Town, Minnesota in place of 'boy.' And there you have New in Town, a romantic comedy that uses every genre trick in the book to try and get a few laughs.

There's nothing new in New in Town. We've seen this plot play out a million times before in much better films. The only thing New in Town has going for it is the chemistry between Renee Zellweger and Harry Connick Jr, and that's not enough to make New in Town a 'Town' worth visiting.

This is a fish out of water story of Lucy, a big city girl who travels to a tiny Minnesota town to help transition her company's latest acquisition, a food manufacturing plant, into a profitable, well-oiled, well-run plant. Of course, Lucy's proposed changes are met with resistance, the locals take advantage of her big city ways, and the union rep she needs to have on her side (who also happens to be a firefighter and a snowplow driver) turns out to be the guy she insulted on her first night in town. But you know - as I've already laid out in the opening paragraph - how things play out, so let's get down to the nitty gritty on where New in Town goes horribly wrong.

Harry Connick Jr in 'New in Town.'

First, every Minnesotan in the film has the IQ of a gerbil. The one exception to the rule is the transplant from a bigger city – Ted – who only wound up in Minnesota after obtaining a higher education elsewhere. From the way they exaggerate the accent (out Fargo'ing Fargo) to the fact the men are all one dimensional hunter/gathers, to the gossipy scrapbooking female Minnesotans, this is one film that seems to have deliberately tried to alienate an entire state.

And secondly, you've got to wonder if screenwriters Kenneth Rance and C. Jay Cox were working off a checklist of clichés. Got the complete opposites as leads? Check. Got the improbable first meeting that establishes their initial antagonism toward one other? Check. How about the typical plot device of forcing the two to play nice in order to get a job done? Check, and double check. The only novel aspect of New in Town was the weather – and jokes about freezing your butt off can only carry a film so far.

Zellweger and Connick Jr are game enough and appear to have tried to make this thing work, but the writing sabotaged their efforts. Plus, I don't think it would have been possible to shoot Zellweger in worse lighting. Once she hits Minnesota (actually, Winnipeg was substituted for the Land of 10,000 Lakes), Zellweger's never presented well onscreen. I don't know if it's the makeup, the lighting, or what, but the end result is very unflattering.

Harry Connick Jr and Renee Zellweger in 'New in Town.'

I laughed a total of two times watching New in Town, and they were more polite chuckles than hearty guffaws. I'm not sure putting out a romantic comedy about a big corporation coming in and putting locals out of work during these hard economic times is a smart move. But then I'm not sure there is a good time to send New in Town out in theaters.

NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: Battle Of The Smithsonian REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:19:00.001-08:00

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian has bigger effects and the setting is of a much grander scale than 2006's Night at the Museum. There's more room to stage chase scenes and many more historical figures/pieces of art available to come alive by moving the film's venue from New York's Museum of National History to the Smithsonian complex in Washington D.C. 20th Century Fox accomplished the near impossible by being allowed to film inside the Smithsonian, yet they failed to take full advantage of the setting.

With so much new to play around with, there should be no reason for Night at the Museum #2 to feel like a rerun of Museum #1, right? Wrong. There's even a lengthy monkey-slapping scene in #2, just like there was in the first movie. Granted, this time there are two monkeys. And twice the monkeys should equal twice the fun, but not so with Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

The Smithsonian setting does allow a few really quirky, cute interactions with famous works of art. The most engaging of these being our hero Larry escaping with his helper Amelia Earhart into the famous Alfred Eisenstaedt photo of a soldier planting a kiss on a nurse in Times Square on V-J Day. That, and a touching scene with the Tuskegee Airmen thanking Amelia Earhart for her groundbreaking accomplishments, do set this one apart from the original. But there's a lot of retreaded material in here that seems just barely reworked for this sequel.

The Story

Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart in 'Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.'

We catch up with Larry the Night Watchman after he's moved on from his job at the museum to being a rich inventor of semi-useful products. He's pretty much forgotten about his friends at the museum, but when his old buddies are crated up to be shipped to the Smithsonian's warehouse where they'll languish for eternity (or until someone cleans the place and tosses them out), Larry comes to their rescue. The tablet that brought them to life in NY didn't make the trip, but as luck would have it there's another tablet already housed in the Smithsonian's warehouse that has the same magical powers. Unfortunately, the guy who possesses this tablet, Kahmunrah (the older brother of NY's tablet owner), uses its powers for evil.

Kahmunrah's collecting henchmen (i.e. Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Al Capone) to help him open up a passageway between worlds so he can bring forth his army of bird warriors. The gang from NY are ready to fight, but they're being held prisoner in a shipping container for most of the film. Meanwhile Larry, Amelia Earhart, the monkeys, some Einstein bobble heads, and the Statue of Abraham Lincoln are left to figure out how to stop Kahmunrah and save the day.

The Cast

Ben Stiller slips into his night watchman uniform once again, delivering pretty much the same level of performance as in the first Night at the Museum movie. If you liked him in that, you'll like him in this. If not, well then why watch this sequel? It's more Larry-centric than the first movie so if Stiller's not your cup of tea, pass on Museum 2.

Robin Williams is back but barely used, Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan have expanded roles as the tiny cowboy and Roman soldier tag team, and even Ricky Gervais puts in an appearance again as the curator of NY's museum. And they all do what you expect them to do with the material, though Wilson and Coogan don't seem to be having as much fun this time around.

From just checking out the trailers I thought Hank Azaria was going to annoy me to no end as the Egyptian Kahmunrah, but he's actually more entertaining to watch than Stiller or the rest of the returning Night cast. However, his performance doesn't hold a candle to Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. I don't know if Adams is playing her anything like the real Amelia, but it's a blast to watch Adams get all sassy as the world's most famous female aviator.

Owen Wilson and Hank Azaria in 'Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.'

The Bottom Line

There's a batch of other actors thrown into the mix (Christopher Guest, Alain Chabat, Bill Hader, etc) without being given much to do, and way too much time is spent on scenes that are only sort of cute but go absolutely nowhere. Two different scenes have Stiller being threatened if he crosses an imaginary line when one would have been just fine. And we've seen the Easter Island statue or whatever it is make rhymes out of dum dum a couple of times already so enough is enough. With so little time to devote to so many new characters, chopping out a few dum dums wouldn't have harmed the movie whatsoever. I know I'm nitpicking, but I wanted something fresh, something original out of this sequel, and instead it's mostly recycled material.

Kids should still get a kick out of this Museum, but adults may have a harder time finding something worth laughing at this time around.

OBSERVE AND REPORT MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:16:00.000-08:00

Well, that's 85 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Observe and Report is mean with ugly characters in disturbing situations, which would be fine with me if it were in the least bit funny. Labeled a comedy, there's next to nothing to laugh at in Observe and Report.

You know, I have no problem at all with lines of dialogue sprinkled liberally with 'f—ks' and 'sh-ts' – if, and this is the catch, there's a reason and if it's not overdone. I don't know a single human being who uses the word 'f—k' in every sentence. But in Observe and Report, the word's used so often it goes beyond irritating and becomes absurd.

Seth Rogen's a talented guy and in general I laugh – when I'm supposed to – at pretty much everything he does. But Rogen, playing his darkest, most unlikeable character yet, can't save this disjointed, caustic film from failing to generate any good chuckles. It's great Rogen's trying something different here, but this isn't the right material to use to spread his acting wings.

The Story

Seth Rogen as mall cop Ronnie Barnhardt.

Ronnie Barnhardt (Rogen) is a mall cop – excuse me, the head of mall security – who lusts after a big boobed, plumpy lipped cosmetics girl named Brandi (Anna Faris). When a flasher targets women at his mall, the opportunity presents itself for Ronnie to be the hero, take down the flasher, and get the girl. But Ronnie's prone to violence, delusional, and off his bipolar meds so when a real police detective (Ray Liotta) butts in on what he believes is his case, Ronnie goes off the deep end. The film then takes a serious turn to the dark side, and Ronnie – who's never a likable guy in the first place – becomes someone you'd never in your life want to encounter in a mall or elsewhere on the planet.

The Bottom Line

Anna Faris can make even a very bad movie worth watching. Faris can normally be depended upon to deliver the laughs, and in fact one line of hers (delivered during the most uncomfortable/controversial scene of the film) is the best thing about this movie. But neither Faris nor Rogen are capable of making Observe and Report into anything other than a flatlined comedy without heart, soul, or any depth.

Seth Rogen in 'Observe and Report.'

Writer/director Jody Hill (The Foot Fist Way and Eastbound and Down) could have had a hit with this concept, but somewhere in the execution things went really, really wrong. I think we're never supposed to like Ronnie at any point in this film, and that's fine. But to make a character so unappealing, so repulsive and expect to get some laughs out of his dangerous antics is simply ludicrous. Audiences don't have to empathize with Ronnie or approve of his behavior, but we do have to have something to latch onto about the guy to keep us involved and entertained. Hill never throws us that lifeline.

Shockingly violent, uneven and choppy, Observe and Report is definitely not what you'd expect from the trailers. Anything that could count as comedy is showcased in those promotional clips. The rest is sort of painful to watch and not really worth observing or reporting on.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:14:00.001-08:00

Paranormal Activity takes a Blair Witch Project-style approach to storytelling, using 'footage' found after an event to reveal what took place. But while the Blair Witch Project filmmakers opted to keep the actual action (other than rock piles) off camera, Paranormal Activity shows us the goods. What scares the participants also scares the audience.

Whether you're going to find Paranormal Activity a complete waste of time, a decent horror film, or the scariest movie ever depends on whether you think there's enough revealed by the time the film ends. I'm plopping Paranormal Activity into the decent category. It didn't live up to all the prerelease hype; it's not the be-all, end-all of horror movies. But for what Oren Peli was able to accomplish with an $11,000 budget, Paranormal Activity should definitely be applauded. Peli wrote, produced, directed and edited the film and shows real talent and flair for storytelling, signaling the man's got quite a future in filmmaking (if he chooses his follow-up project wisely).

Paranormal Activity's really the little film that could. The movie made its way into Steven Spielberg's hands and the writer/producer of Poltergeist was so freaked out by it, he brought it back to the studio in a black bag. I'm not sure why exactly Spielberg needed to put it in black bag in order to feel safe, but he did. Although it was originally bought by the studio with the idea of remaking it using a bigger budget, a public screening persuaded DreamWorks/Paramount Pictures to leave it be. Paramount is releasing it in a few cities at a time, based on people demanding it in their city. The buzz generated online by people tweeting about it and chatting on message boards has made Paranormal Activity into one of the most talked about movies of 2009. And it was all accomplished without a film crew and with a tiny budget.

'Paranormal Activity' poster

The Story

The action never leaves a two-story house in San Diego. Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat) are pretty much your typical nice young couple. They're not married - she's in college, he's a day-trader. They're relatable, they don't speak movie dialogue, and they seem to really be into each other. Basically, they're people you wouldn't mind being friends with, which means that when events begin to escalate, you really feel for what they're going through. You pull for them to get out of the situation safely.

See, something is terrorizing Katie at night. When we meet the couple, Micah hasn't heard these noises that are waking Katie up from sound sleep. Micah's not really convinced there's anything going on, but he's a caring boyfriend who tries to be supportive. So what does he do? He buys a videocamera in hopes of capturing whatever it is on film. If something's indeed messing with them at night, the evidence should show up in the footage.

Micah follows Katie around with the camera during the day and at night he sets up the camera to record events in their bedroom, feeding the stream into his laptop. And oh yeah, that camera does in fact confirm the existence of something terrifying in their house. To say more would be to spoil the story.

The Cast

First off, I don't know a thing about Katie Featherston or Micah Sloat but I will say they are extremely convincing and absolutely perfect as the couple in the center of all the action. Everything rests on their shoulders, and their performances are truthful and riveting - better than much of what we've seen onscreen this year from actors making millions of dollars in less demanding roles.

The Bottom Line

Had Paranormal Activity taken the Blair Witch Project route of just teasing the scares, it would not have been in any way effective. But Paranormal Activity uses a camera set up in the bedroom at night with low lighting and shows us the paranormal activity going on around this couple sleeping in their bed.

Paranormal Activity works so well because it shows us there really is something going bump in the night. You have every reason to be freaked out by squeaking noises you hear on your stairs or that door that seems to be opened wider than it was when you went to bed. That feeling of being watched...yes, something is keeping an eye on you as you get your 40 winks.

A scene from 'Paranormal Activity.'

Paranormal Activity takes its time getting to the scares, building up the story, drawing us into the lives of this couple, fleshing them out so we see them as flawed but innocent people. As the events unfold and as we see Katie and Micah increasingly lose control of what's going on, we genuinely want to reach out and help them. But unlike many haunted house films, there's a reason why the main characters can't just simply leave. And it's a good reason, a real plot twist that makes Paranormal Activity not just a creepy ghost story.

There's a lot to appreciate about Paranormal Activity, and I'm going to admit a large part of my disappointment in the film likely came from knowing too much going in. That, and I wanted more of the nighttime activities of whatever's in that home with this couple. Yet it is, as I said at the beginning of this review, a decent horror film. The plot is tight, the film moves right along at a snappy pace, and there are a few scenes that made me jump in my seat.

My suggestion: try to avoid watching any trailers or videos from the film before sitting through Paranormal Activity. The less you know, the more likely you are to be frightened

THE PROPOSAL MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:10:00.000-08:00

Sometimes chemistry can trump originality, as in the case of The Proposal. This romantic comedy from Peter Chiarelli and directed by Anne Fletcher is rife with rom com clichés down to its 'wrapped up in a tidy bow' Hollywood ending any novice to the genre could have seen coming a mile away. Yet despite the fact The Proposal is predictable and stuffed with recycled schtick, it's surprisingly enjoyable and completely charming. If it was a baby, you'd want to pinch its little cheek - it's that cute.

Sandra Bullock had all but sworn off romantic comedies, but fans of the genre should feel fortunate she gave in and did The Proposal. It's been a while since Bullock played a character this much fun to watch. Teaming up with Ryan Reynolds for the first time brought out the best in Bullock, and it made Reynolds come across as even more charismatic than usual.

The Story

In a scene reminiscent of Meryl Streep's grand entry in The Devil Wears Prada, the witchy, bitchy Margaret (Bullock) makes her way through the office as her employees cower in terror. Margaret's one of the most powerful book editors in the business and she doesn't tolerate anything less from perfection from her underlings. And it's her personal assistant, Andrew (Reynolds), who suffers the brunt of Margaret's wrath when things are even slightly out of line.

For three, long, grueling years in which he worked weekends, missed out on family gatherings, and was generally miserable as hell, Andrew suffered and put up with everything Margaret dished out, all the while holding out hope that one day it would all be worthwhile when she promotes him to editor. But nothing in those three incredibly difficult years prepared Andrew for Margaret's latest and greatest demand: marry her or lose his job. Seems Margaret is Canadian and she's been working in this country without the proper visa. In order to keep her high-powered position in the firm - and to stay in NY - she tells her bosses she and Andrew have secretly been dating and are now engaged to be married.

Oscar Nunez and Sandra Bullock in 'The Proposal.'

Once Andrew recovers from shock, he agrees to be Margaret's partner in crime but with a few stipulations of his own. First, he wants the manuscript he's been pushing to be published. And he wants a guarantee that he'll be promoted in the very near future. And finally, he wants Margaret to get down on her knees in public to ask for his hand in marriage. Margaret agrees, and it's off to Sitka, Alaska to meet her future in-laws.

The weekend getaway will also provide the 'engaged' couple with the opportunity to share personal details they'll need to know about each other in order to effectively convince the immigration investigator their relationship's not a sham. But, since this is a rom com, once in Alaska Margaret's icy facade begins to melt. And Andrew, who has real issues with his dad, emerges as someone Margaret could actually care for. Throw in a sassy 90 year old grandmother who wants to see her only grandchild married before she passes away along with Margaret's growing affection for the guy she's bossed around for years, and this mini-vacation turns out to be so much more complicated and confusing than the work-obsessed illegal alien had ever anticipated.

The Cast

Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds make for a formidable team in The Proposal. These two play so well off of each other, we can only hope they'll find another project in which to share the screen - though preferably in one not quite so formulaic. Any decent adult comedy (even of the non-romantic type) would benefit from a Bullock/Reynolds pairing.

W.C. Fields' saying should be amended to "never work with kids, animals or Betty White." In The Proposal White's a scene-stealing senior citizen who pulls the rug out from underneath her co-stars while playing a snappy, spunky, irrepressible granny. Mary Steenburgen and Craig T Nelson are good as Andrew's parents, and Malin Akerman livens up the romantic storyline by showing up in a few scattered scenes as Andrew's ex. Also showing up here and there throughout the film is The Office's Oscar Nuñez. Nuñez is a jack of all trades in The Proposal, playing waiter, store clerk, and the only stripper in the town of Sitka. He's terrific and doesn't overdo it, not even when he's performing nearly naked in Bullock's face, giving her an eye-full of Oscar she'll likely never forget.

Betty White gets touchy-feely with Sandra Bullock in 'The Proposal.'

The Bottom Line

The Proposal is everything those who hate romantic comedies loathe. But for moviegoers who like their films light and fluffy - and don't care if a movie doesn't reinvent the wheel in the process of being entertaining - then The Proposal is just the ticket. A great date movie that's not too sappy, The Proposal is pure escapist fun.

THE SOLOIST MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:08:00.000-08:00

Here's the deal: Audiences aren't buying into dramas right now. Comedies, comic book-inspired films, action movies, teen films...those are getting the attention of moviegoers. Anything that makes us forget about what's happening in our world and gets us caught up in a total fantasy experience for a couple of hours is doing well at the box office. So, in this climate, it's not the wisest move to unspool something as serious and thought-provoking as The Soloist. Come on, now is not the time of year we normally see films of this ilk, even when the atmosphere isn't as poisonous to dramatic films as it is currently.

The Soloist is the type of prestige film that would normally come out in October, November or December - the sort of picture that usually garners awards attention and attracts ticket buyers looking to check out supposedly the best of what Hollywood has to offer for the year. Orchestrating a beginning of the summer movie season release for The Soloist doesn't make much sense. It was pushed back from a late 2008 release anyway, so what harm would have come from delaying it a few more months to a more appropriate time of year? I don't get it. Summer's when we want to have fun at the theaters, not get caught up in a sad tale of homelessness, mental illness, and the affect of journalism on society at large. And it's a shame The Soloist may get ignored by moviegoers and critics groups alike as it features a couple of the best performances we're likely to see in all of 2009.

The Story

Based on a true story, The Soloist explores the unusual relationship between Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr) and Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx), a homeless, schizophrenic street musician who dresses in wild, psychedelic toss-offs and keeps up a steady stream of conversation decipherable only to his own ears much of the time.

Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr in 'The Soloist.'

Lopez is looking for a story to fill up his column, and a random encounter with Ayers sets off his writer instincts and sets his brain to pinging with ideas. Ayers tells Lopez during their first meeting that he attended Juilliard, and the way he plays his violin (which has but two strings left on it) makes that pronouncement seem a possibility. Lopez checks up on him and finds out that in fact Ayers did attend the prestigious school for a couple of years before dropping out.

As Lopez gets to know Ayers - as much as anyone can know a stranger with severe mental problems who's not being treated for his disease - he discovers an incredible musician still exists inside the man who 99.9% of the population would go out of their way to avoid eye contact with. What started as the idea for one column turns into a life-changing relationship from which both men benefit, though in vastly different ways.

The Cast

Is proclaiming Robert Downey Jr one of the best actors of his generation pushing it? Check out The Soloist and tell me Downey Jr isn't at the top of his game as a newspaper reporter who uses Ayers to get a story before finding himself unintentionally becoming the most stable friend the tortured Ayers had during his years on the streets. It's mostly through Downey Jr's eyes that we follow the story, listening in while he dictates what he's learned dealing with Ayers into his tape recorder before writing up his articles for the LA Times. Downey Jr thoroughly and absolutely becomes this veteran journalist who gets too close to his subject and finds himself caught up in Ayers' life to point where an actual friendship has formed.

Jamie Foxx delivers yet another poignant performance as he tackles what just had to be the most difficult role of his career. Whether speaking at a manic pace as Ayers' mind trips out on him or altering everything about his being when Ayers shows moments of near lucidity, Foxx never, ever turns his portrayal of Ayers into a caricature of a mentally unbalanced man.

Robert Downey Jr and Jamie Foxx in 'The Soloist.'

The Bottom Line

Director Joe Wright chose The Soloist as his first American film after having earned high praise for his work helming Pride and Prejudice and Atonement. And Wright appears to have been the right choice for this tricky film. He handles the scenes of homeless people and the mentally ill living hard lives on the streets without sugar-coating his subject matter. Wright's made an honest, unflinching film that's uncomfortable to watch at times, a pure joy to behold at others, and overall as faithful to its source material as possible while still being cinematically entertaining. I'm hoping audiences will give it a chance, despite the bad release date and somber subject matter.

STAR TREK MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:03:00.000-08:00

This Star Trek did what Batman Begins managed to do for me back in 2005. Prior to that origin story, I had no clue as to what the fuss was all about. Why were people still interested in a guy who dressed up like a bat and fought clowns to keep Gotham safe from crime? I didn't get it, and Batman didn't appeal to me in the least. But Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale taught me everything I, as a non-comic book person, needed to know about the Caped Crusader and made a Batman fan out of me.

The same now goes for this Star Trek. I remember watching exactly one Star Trek movie prior to this - the one with the whale - but nothing about any of the other films interested me in the slightest bit. I did catch reruns of the original series as a kid every now and then, but never considered myself a Star Trek 'fan' of any sort. But now, thanks to screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, director JJ Abrams, and an incredibly talented cast of actors, I really understand and appreciate what it is about Captain Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the USS Enterprise crew that gets people all worked up.

Star Trek takes audiences on the adventure of a lifetime, and I'd gladly sit through this revamped, reinvigorated, re-energized origin tale over and over again - something I don't say about even the very best summer blockbusters. Being a Trekkie seems sort of cool after watching 2009's version of Star Trek, something I would never in my wildest dreams have anticipated ever thinking prior to this Star Trek film.

The Story

Kurtzman and Orci serve up an origin story crammed with details yet fast-paced and flowing. The story they've fashioned takes place in an alternate universe and so not every bit of Star Trek mythology plays out as anticipated; there are twists and turns here that Trekkies and Trekkers won't expect (including a surprisingly touching love story). It's a smart - and brave - move on Kurtzman and Orci's part as they've managed to tell a story that doesn't put off newbies or Star Trek veterans by placing it in this other reality.

A scene from 'Star Trek.'

Every main character from the Star Trek franchise is given his or - in the case of the lone female, Uhura (Zoe Saldana) - her time to shine as they're introduced and given their assignments onboard the USS Enterprise as it leaves on its maiden voyage. We learn Kirk's a rebel who signs up for Starfleet after being goaded into it by Captain Pike. Spock (Zachary Quinto) is an instructor at Starfleet only because he opted not to follow in the footsteps of his forefathers. Bones (Karl Urban), a doctor who doesn't like to fly, immediately finds a kindred spirit in Kirk (Chris Pine), and the two quickly develop a close friendship that actually is the catalyst to Kirk serving aboard the USS Enterprise. Scotty (Simon Pegg) doesn't enter the picture until later on, but when it's his time to join the USS Enterprise crew he does so with a bang. And in this reality, Uhura is an intelligent and feisty woman who doesn't take any crap from anyone, including Kirk.

This new group, fresh out of the Starfleet Academy, is immediately thrust into the heat of battle when Nero (Eric Bana) - a visitor from the future - seeks revenge for a horrific act that hasn't yet occurred. Kirk, proving he's born to be the man in charge, takes the lead after Captain Pike is kidnapped, butting heads with Spock (his nemesis from the academy) as the crew of the USS Enterprises has the fate of Earth resting in their hands. Fortunately, in a splendid twist that makes total sense, another visitor from the future is willing to share information crucial to their success.

The Cast

Chris Pine - brilliant. Zachary Quinto - brilliant. Eric Bana - brilliant. You get the picture? JJ Abrams did a simply amazing job of matching actors to roles, and not once does any performance feel like - and here's where it could have gone desperately, disastrously wrong - a copycat of the original. These are fresh, original takes on the characters yet at the same time, you know exactly who these people are. How did they pull that off? It's an unbelievable accomplishment I can't even begin to describe. Adjectives fail me.

The Bottom Line

This bold adventure is sure to win over a whole new generation of fans. There's something for everyone in this Star Trek. I know I was totally enthralled and completely entertained throughout the film. The special effects were first-rate, the cinematography was stunning, the production design was unparalleled, and under Abrams' direction every aspect of this Star Trek felt vibrant and fresh and engaging. And on that subject, Star Trek deserves to be seen in all its big screen glory so don't wait for the DVD/Blu-ray release.

Anton Yelchin, Chris Pine, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, John Cho, and Zoe Saldana in 'Star Trek.'

Star Trek is the perfect summer movie. There's not a thing about this film I'd change, a scene I'd cut, or dialogue I'd in any way alter. It's got the action, the heart, the thrills, and the humor needed to provide the perfect escape experience audiences are looking for now more than ever.

Star Trek is an incredibly impressive, exceptionally entertaining film. And best of all, it doesn't matter if you know absolutely nothing about the series or films. Don't be put off by the fact it's a Star Trek movie and don't dismiss it because you're afraid you'll be lost and confused by the plot. No prior knowledge is needed to become immersed in this high-flying, sci-fi extravaganza.

This origin story works on so many different levels, I can't wait to see what Abrams and crew have up their sleeves for the next Star Trek adventure

TAKEN MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:01:00.001-08:00

Liam Neeson makes Jack Bauer look like a wimp in Taken, a ridiculously silly action drama directed by Pierre Morel (District B13). Taken's like a Bourne movie without the brains, a film made solely to satisfy action junkies who care not one iota about plot as long as there's plenty of bloodshed and a substantial number of dead bodies piled up by the time the credits roll on by. If all you want out of your movie-going dollar is to watch one man overcome incalculably high odds to rescue his daughter from evil foreigners (Americans, good – everyone else, bad), then Taken is the movie for you.

The Story

Bryan Mills (Neeson) quits his job as a 'preventer' working for the CIA or FBI or another organization known by its initials to try and connect with his daughter Kim who he pretty much ignored while she was growing up. Now that she's turning 17, Bryan's decided it's time to try and have a relationship with Kim. His ex-wife's not happy about his sudden desire to become a part of their daughter's life, but Bryan's convinced it's the thing to do.

Now retired, Bryan lives off his pension and money made from taking the occasional odd job with his ex-government agency buddies. One job finds him and his three ex co-workers guarding a pop singer on her way into and out of a concert. Now, we never find out why this pop singer is attacked after leaving the stage, but she is and Bryan happens to be the temporary bodyguard who saves her. She, of course, is grateful and gives him a reward for his bravery that you know is going to figure big somewhere down the line in the film.

…As I'm typing this out, all that's going through my head is the fact that none of this plot nonsense matters one little bit. Rather than continue on in detail, here's all you really need to know:

Liam Neeson in 'Taken.'

Bryan is skilled with guns, knives, his hands, torture devices, stealing cars, and breaking and entering. Kim is a perky 17 year old virgin spoiled by her mom and super wealthy stepdad who buys her a pony on her 17th birthday while her real dad can only afford a small karaoke machine. Why a pony and not a car? She's 17 not 10… But I digress. Against her dad's best judgment she goes on vacation with her 19 year old best friend to Paris. Everything she tells her dad she'll be doing there is a lie. Dad is super suspicious. His worst nightmare comes true as soon as Kim hits French soil. Daddy's pristine princess is this flame that attracts all manner of bad men, all of whom will rue the day they chose her to mess with as Bryan has no qualms whatsoever about killing (which puts him one up on Mr. Pony Buyer). That's Taken.

The Cast

Liam Neeson is a surprisingly believable man of action. Taken shows us a side of Neeson we haven't seen before and given a better script to work off of, it might be fun to see Neeson take on a kick ass, take no prisoners sort of character again. Neeson's intense and most definitely scary as a dad with just the right training and disposition to rescue his precious daughter from the clutches of the evil slave-trading, prostitute making, villains who chose the wrong girl to take advantage of. This is all Neeson's show as every other character is just window dressing or there for him to kill. Even Maggie Grace as Kim and Famke Janssen as his ex-wife Lenore are nothing more than one-dimensional decorations in this action-heavy killfest.

The Bottom Line

Liam Neeson in 'Taken.'

Taken doesn't care who it offends, what ethnic groups might be insulted by their portrayal in the film, how sinister everything French is made out to be, or the fact all events that occur in the film's 94 minutes defy probability and logic. When the hero's outnumbered, why is it the bad guys attack one at a time? Why do half a dozen men stand around and wait their turn instead of acting as a group? Why don't bullets hit their mark when the men firing them are highly trained bodyguards or killers or something of the sort? Why doesn't this ex-government agent ask his buddies to help him track down his daughter? If you're asking these questions and expect reasonable, logical answers from the script by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, then you're expecting far, far too much from Taken.

Go in with low expectations for the script but high expectations for the way the action's staged (the hand-to-hand combat is particularly well choreographed), and you'll be satisfied. But, again, this is only a movie for diehard action fans. All others should avoid theaters screening Taken at all costs.

TAKEN MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T08:01:00.000-08:00

The Story

…As I'm typing this out, all that's going through my head is the fact that none of this plot nonsense matters one little bit. Rather than continue on in detail, here's all you really need to know:

Liam Neeson in 'Taken.'

The Cast

The Bottom Line

Liam Neeson in 'Taken.'

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T07:57:00.000-08:00

Denzel Washington and John Travolta square off in the action thriller The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, an updated, reworked remake of the 1974 film directed by Joseph Sargent based on John Godey's novel. This new Pelham has Tony Scott at the helm and if you're familiar with his films, you know going in how he'll shoot key action sequences. Scott's style is unmistakable and it actually serves him well in Pelham, taking the static premise of two men engaged in a cat and mouse game over the radio and mixing in frenzied action shots to help pump up the audience's adrenaline.

In a summer loaded with action films, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 won't go down as the best of the lot. But it is an engaging popcorn flick that's well acted, energetic, and even a little thought provoking (though probably less so than intended).

The Story

A gang of thugs, led by a man who calls himself Ryder with a 'y' (Travolta), takes over a New York subway train, holding its 19 passengers hostage in an effort to extort $10,000,000 from New York City. All that stands between innocent people being shot dead inside the subway train and their safe release is one man, disgraced transit bigwig Walter Garber (Washington). Walter's been demoted to manning a dispatch station while he's being investigated for accepting a bribe and luckily for the good citizens of The Big Apple, Walter has heretofore untapped negotiation skills. He also has the uncanny ability to make a connection with a complete stranger over the radio while picking up clues about who this Ryder guy is and what really motivates his actions.

Ryder has given the city of New York just one hour to come up with the $10 million ransom, threatening to kill one passenger per minute if NYC passes the deadline without paying him off. How will these killers get off the train and out of the subway with the money? That's the key question in everyone's mind. And although Garber has New York's Finest watching his back, ultimately he's the one who has to go face-to-face with Ryder in order to try and stop his escape and save the passengers of Pelham 1 2 3.

Denzel Washington in 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.'

The Cast

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 doesn't show New York City at its best, but it does show off the scenery-chewing skills of Travolta and the 'I'm a good but flawed man' charm of Washington. Travolta in particular really gets into character, taking Ryder completely - and seemingly gleefully - over the top. Travolta and Washington barely share a scene together as 90% of their conversations take place over the radio, but the juicy and at times philosophical exchanges between the two work because both are so committed to their roles.

John Turturro, as the head of the hostage negotiation team ,and James Gandolfini, NYC's end of term mayor who's past the point of caring what the public thinks of him, provide support as well as a needed break from Travolta and Washington's radio dance.

The passengers on the subway train, although pivotal to the gang's plan, don't stick out as individuals. Instead Brian Helgeland's script sort of just touches on extremely basic facts about the people held hostage. There's an ex-Ranger, a mom watching over her small child, and a young guy who's been communicating with his girlfriend via video chat on his laptop. They're all generic characters and none stand out.

The Bottom Line

Despite the premise, Brian Helgeland's adaptation and Tony Scott's direction doesn't allow time for the audience to get bored. But when things start to get deep, when issues raised become touchy, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 takes a step back and launches into an action-oriented scene. That's, at times, a real disappointment as digging deeper and showing more layers of the central characters would have helped Pelham overtake its predecessor.

John Travolta in 'The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.'

As it stands now, the original film - with all of its outdated effects - is the more engaging of the two. Still, this Pelham benefits from terrific acting by Washington and Travolta, and Scott's hyperkinetic style. It's entertaining enough to make it worth checking out but ultimately forgettable, unlike Scott and Washington's previous collaborations (Crimson Tide, Deja Vu and Man on Fire).

TERMINATOR SALVATION MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T07:52:00.001-08:00

The summer of 2009 finds a batch of franchises trying to rise from the dead. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement as X-Men wasn't really dead, but you get the picture. Hollywood's bringing back some popular film franchises and, so far, the results have been mostly positive. Wolverine wasn't wow worthy, but it was at least a decent action film. Star Trek on the other hand exceeded all expectations, effectively reviving, reinvigorating, and re-whatever else a film series that had flatlined.

Now McG and Warner Bros are rebooting the Terminator franchise, sans Arnold, with Terminator Salvation. Removing Schwarzenegger from the mix is a risky move but, truthfully, as a native Californian I'd rather see our governor concentrate on fixing the state's economy than stomping around blowing things to pieces while speaking in truncated sentences. And if you're going to take Schwarzenegger out, plopping in Christian Bale as the film's main draw isn't a bad trade-off.

So Bale's John Connor, Australian newbie Sam Worthington (keep an eye on this guy...he's going to explode - and since we're talking Terminator I'll throw in that's not to be taken literally) is a hybrid we haven't seen before in a Terminator movie, Moon Bloodgood and Bryce Dallas Howard fill the Sarah Connor strong female character void, and Anton Yelchin tackles the pivotal role of a young Kyle Reese. It's not a bad collection of actors for a Terminator film but that doesn't guarantee, even with Bale in the lead, that this new Terminator is going to live up to its predecessors. Granted, pretty much any new addition to the Terminator franchise would have to be better than Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, a film most diehard Terminator fans would like to use time travel to go back and destroy. But what about living up to Jim Cameron's Terminator (1984) and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)? T2's effects still hold up after all these years, which is really saying something for the work Cameron and the effects artists did on that sequel.

Sam Worthington and Anton Yelchin in 'Terminator Salvation.'

Director McG and screenwriters John Brancato and Michael Ferris had a heavy load to bear in bringing this fourth Terminator to life, and for the most part they succeeded in making a movie that is worthy of Cameron's Terminator franchise. It might not be quite as good as T2, but it's certainly within arm's reach of the bar set by that film.

The Story

After a brief recap of events leading up to Terminator Salvation's present day - post-apocalyptic 2018 - we find Skynet and its Terminators, Hunter-Killers, Hydrobots, and other cruel machines have left the planet a bombed out wasteland, with just scattered pockets of human survivors. Members of the Resistance (they wear red arm bands as a badge of courage) fight off the machines in organized assaults, but we humans are not winning this war.

John Connor, not yet the leader of the Resistance, is disliked by the Resistance's head guy (played by Michael Ironside) but respected by the grunts on the ground. Along with his right-hand man Barnes (Common) and his eight months pregnant wife, Kate (Howard), John Connor works on hunting down Skynet's machines. But an encounter with Marcus Wright completely changes John Connor's perception of Skynet's capabilities.

Marcus is a hybrid with a human heart and brain housed in a skin-clad mechanical body, a creature - apparently of Skynet's making - that Connor never knew existed. Resistance fighter Blair Williams (Bloodgood) trusts Marcus - he saved her life - but the Connors aren't as accepting. Marcus is declared an enemy, Blair has to rescue him from being put to death, and that sets up a confrontation between John and Marcus that changes the course of both men's lives. John and Marcus discover they share a goal: to keep Kyle Reese (Yelchin) alive. Kyle's been captured by Skynet and John Connor knows there is no other option than to rescue him. The future of mankind is depending on it and if it means he has to try and trust a machine, then he's willing to go that far in order to guarantee Kyle's survival.

The Cast

Bale's the very definition of intense and he can handle action scenes like nobody's business. But he opted to use a modified Batman growl in this that just seems out of place. It's a small misstep but one that bothered me enough to remind me throughout the film that this is Christian Bale. I think it's the first movie where I didn't lose sight of Christian Bale the actor while watching one of his characters.

Bloodgood's a real revelation in this, and boy does she kick some serious butt. Howard is also terrific, though underused, as John's second in command. Same goes for Common as John's right-hand man. We see little of him but when he's there, he has an impact.

Moon Bloodgood in 'Terminator Salvation.'

The two real standouts in the whole production are Yelchin as Kyle Reese and Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright. They're so good in this I'd liked to have seen more of them working together as a tag team going after Terminators. Yelchin's boyish good looks don't at first glance fit with the hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners Kyle portrayed by Michael Biehn. But the more Yelchin's onscreen, the more Kyle the teenager seems to warp into Kyle the man who will become the father of the leader of the Resistance. And Worthington is the star of this film. The pre-release hype focuses on the John Connor storyline, but Marcus Wright as played by Worthington is the most compelling character to come out of the Terminator franchise other than Schwarzenegger's Terminator.

The Bottom Line

Schwarzenegger didn't step foot on the set but thanks to seamless CG magic, he and Bale square off in a fight scene that needs to be seen to be fully appreciated. And McG, Brancato and Ferris (as well as a few writers who weren't included in the screenwriting credits...most notably Jonah Nolan) tip their caps to longtime Terminator fans by throwing in references that should make the fanboys (and fangirls) happy.

Overall the special effects are incredibly effective, with the muted colors helping Terminator Salvation sell the idea this is what our world would look like after the apocalypse. It's gritty, gross, and depressing and convincingly captures this new robot-dominated world.

T800 in 'Terminator Salvation.'

This Terminator takes itself very seriously, with only a dash of humor thrown in at appropriate moments to lighten the mood. And director McG handles the action sequences by letting each play out without too many cut-aways. He also tries to balance the action with the dialogue, although personally I'd like to have chopped out some of the dialogue in favor of more man/woman on robot fight scenes.

For the most part Terminator Salvation does exactly what it set out to do. It advances the story by taking an in-depth look at a part of the Terminator mythology that hadn't yet been explored. It also sets up future sequels and helps to wipe away the bad feelings left by Terminator 3.

Hitting theaters during one of the best summer movie seasons in decades, Terminator Salvation deserves a shot at box office success. It's one of the better action films of 2009 and, even without Arnold, this Terminator puts the series back on track.

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE REVIEW

2009-11-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

Spike Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers had the daunting task of taking an award-winning children's book that contained just ten sentences, expand it into a full length feature film, and remain faithful to the spirit and the tone of the source material. Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are has been capturing the attention of kids since it was first published in 1963. It's a gorgeous piece of work and one that seemed destined to live on only in print.

But Jonze and Eggers performed the near impossible, and Where the Wild Things Are - the film version - is a captivating, visually stunning production that fleshes out Sendak's universe while remaining completely faithful to the book.

Sendak's rich fantasy world of Where the Wild Things Are makes the leap to the big screen with its wondrous creatures looking exactly as they did on the pages of Sendak's book. Jonze opted to go with actors in oversized costumes rather than CGI creatures, and it's a decision all Where the Wild Things Are fans should be thankful for. Max, the lead human character, can interact with the creatures, lean on them, even ride on top of one, and it wouldn't have looked as true and genuine had Jonze opted for CGI all the way. Instead, Jonze blended live-action state-of-the art puppetry with computer animation, digitally enhancing each creatures face to make each more expressive, and make the facial movements closer to human reactions. Seeing Sendak's illustrations spring to life with real personalities is just breathtaking to watch and incredibly moving.

Douglas (voiced by Chris Cooper), Max Records, and KW (voiced by Lauren Ambrose).

The Story

Max (Max Records) is a nine year old boy with a vivid imagination who's going through a rough time at home. He's ignored by his sister, picked on by her friends, and even his overworked mom (Catherine Keener) loses patience with him when he acts like a beast while wearing his wolf suit. Max thinks no one is on his side after he's sent to bed without any dinner, and, without putting any thought into it, he runs away from home in the black of night.

After sailing across a storm-tossed sea and climbing a steep cliff, Max finds himself in a forest filled with strange creatures. These huge beasts are intensely emotional, completely unpredictable, and Max finds them totally irresistible. The Wild Things need a leader and Max, a sharp boy for only being nine years old, proclaims himself a Viking king. The creatures immediately crown him their king, and Max feels as though he belongs with this bizarre tribe of towering beasts more so than he belongs with his human family. His family ignores him, misunderstands his intentions, but these Wild Things consider him a like-minded fellow. But after time spent with his new adopted family, Max begins to understand that being a king is hard work and that dealing with his new family is just as difficult as figuring out his relationships with his mom and older sister.

The Cast

Each Wild Thing has been given a unique personality by Jonze and Eggers, and each Wild Thing's voice perfectly matches that personality. Carol (James Gandolfini) destroys things, changes his emotional state on a dime, and is the de-facto leader of the group. Douglas (Chris Cooper) is Carol's helpful and friendly rooster sidekick. Alexander (Paul Dano) is a goat no one ever listens to, and K.W. (Lauren Ambrose) is gentle, caring, and seen as a rebel because she is open to exploring her universe and doing things with creatures outside of her own group. Judith (Catherine O'Hara) is an eternal pessimist, the group's naysayer who's viewed as a real drag. Her partner, Ira (Forest Whitaker), is much more easygoing though he loves to punch holes in trees with his bulbous nose. Each creature represents someone in Max's life (or Max himself), and each Wild Thing is beautifully brought to life by the actors inside the suits and the ones who lend their voices to the characters.

Max Records in 'Where the Wild Things Are.'

Catherine Keener is terrific though little seen as Max's hardworking, single mom. But it's on young Max Records' shoulders that this film lies, and the kid superbly handles the load. Records could quite possibly be the best young actor to come along in years. He's able to convey complex emotions without overplaying his hand. It's just a fantastic performance from this newcomer to feature films.

The Bottom Line

Where the Wild Things Are is only Spike Jonze's third film. With this and his previous two films, Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, Jonze has shown he has a unique style and vision, one that stands out from the pack.

Jonze has done what most people assumed was impossible: He brought Sendak's Where the Wild Things to the screen in such a faithful adaptation that Sendak has fully endorsed the final cut. And if the author believes Jonze did justice to his book, then who are we to argue?

YEAR ONE MOVIE REVIEW

2009-11-13T07:45:00.000-08:00

If you consider poop eating and penis jokes the height of humor, then Year One was made with you in mind. Everyone else should take a pass on this gross, disappointing, disjointed, unimpressive attempt at comedy.

Aside from the fact the jokes are strictly sophomoric, the film has been cobbled together with what seems to have been no regard for how individual scenes play out. Year One jumps around, leaving potentially funny scenes before they're finished. What might have worked years ago on a comedy/variety show - putting together a series of sketches based on a central theme - doesn't work in this feature film.

The Story

Zed (Jack Black) is a hunter. Oh (Michael Cera) is a gatherer. Neither is very good at their assigned tasks, and everyone in their village thinks they'd be better off without Zed and Oh as part of their clan. Kicked out, Zed and Oh head out on a series of adventures which could lead to much merry-making and mayhem, but instead lead to an hour and 30 minutes of lame jokes.

Jack Black and Michael Cera in 'Year One.'

Zed and Oh meet up with fighting brothers, Cain (David Cross) and Abel (Paul Rudd), stop Abraham from sacrificing his son, and eventually enter Sodom where they are taken prisoner while attempting to save the women from their village from slavery and stop virgins from being tossed into the fire in an offering to the gods to end the drought.

The Bottom Line

Even the worst comedies can manage to sneak in a few chuckle-worthy jokes, and Year One has one or two scenes that show brief flashes of genuinely funny moments. But screenwriters Harold Ramis (who also directed Year One), Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg take the low road whenever possible in order to gross out the audience, and in doing so rip away any joy to be had from the few jokes that actually do work.

Ramis, Stupnitsky and Eisenberg appear to subscribe to the 'if it sort of works once, let's beat the audience over the head with it until we've driven the life out of the joke' philosophy. Circumcision, if you're not the one undergoing the procedure, can be humorous, but a running stream of jokes based on that theme just seems lazy when you've got these guys messing around in Sodom. There's so much more that could have been done with their arrival in Sodom, but the writers aim for a 10-13 year old audience with their jokes and so it's all about peeing and body hair.

Michael Cera, Jack Black and David Cross in 'Year One.'

As for the cast, Jack Black is doing Jack Black. Michael Cera is doing Michael Cera. Everyone else - Hank Azaria, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Oliver Platt, David Cross, and Paul Rudd - is either annoying and/or wasted.

X-MEN ORIGINS WOLVERINE REVIEW

2009-11-13T07:35:00.000-08:00

X-Men Origins: Wolverine kicks off the summer of 2009 not with a bang, but a semi-enthusiastic, 'could have been better but it's okay enough for an action film if that's all it aspires to be' whimper. Whimper's not exactly the right word as that implies Wolverine completely sucks. It doesn't. The action is eye-popping and in your face and the acting is spot on. Hugh Jackman does everything possible to make this fourth X-Men movie sparkle, but the story lets our mutant hero down.

It's not the fact this is an origin story that makes it a lot less fun to sit through than the first two X-Men movies. The idea of bringing one of the audience's favorite characters completely into the spotlight in a solo film is good in theory. We love Wolverine. We love Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine. Give audiences more of what they already adore and 20th Century Fox should have been good to go. But a story of the coherent and compelling variety is important and while Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Iron Man got it right on all counts, Wolverine takes a step backwards in comic book-inspired movie storytelling. It fails to provide a strong plot to go along with all the incredibly intense action scenes.

The Story

As is spelled out in the title, this is the story of how Wolverine became Wolverine. Not where he got his mutant powers to begin with, but how the man Logan became a mutant who uses his extra special abilities - and steely claws - to fight the good fight. Wolverine's all about doing what's right despite his upbringing and early association with a brother who doesn't follow the same moral code.

We first meet Logan and Victor as kids in the 1800s then quickly follow them as they fight alongside fellow patriots (of the non-mutant variety) in a succession of wars (WWI, WWII, the Civil War, Vietnam...) until finally after surviving a hail of bullets from a firing squad, they're locked away. Even the least observant person on the planet would know there's something wrong with anyone who miraculously heals after being shot dozens of times at close range.

Hugh Jackman and Taylor Kitsch in 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine.'

It's in their military jail cell they first encounter Stryker. Stryker not only understands who they are but embraces what makes them different. He has big plans for Logan and Victor (who's just as lethal as his brother as his mutant name Sabretooth implies). Stryker has a group of mutants working for him on a secret project, the mysterious Weapon X program, and for a while Logan and Victor work side by side on Stryker's team. But killing innocent people isn't in Logan's makeup so he quits and leaves everyone behind, including his brother.

Years later (sometime in the '70s) Logan's quiet life in Canada is interrupted by the appearance of Victor who's sole goal is to kill his brother. Logan's been living a quiet life with his schoolteacher girlfriend Kayla Silverfox, but when the love of his life is taken away from him by his brother, the claws - literally - come out. Revenge is the only thing on his mind and if that means he has to work with Stryker, then that's what Logan does. But Stryker's a lying, conniving, snake in the grass - something Logan learns way too late.

The Cast

Jackman is Wolverine. He knows this character now inside and out, and even though it's his fourth time as the lethal yet humane mutant, his performance doesn't feel any less fresh than it did in the original X-Men. Stepping back in time to fill in Wolverine's backstory, Jackman's called upon to perform even more aggressive, heart-pounding action scenes in Wolverine than in previous editions. And although it's been nearly a dozen years since the first X-Men, Jackman hasn't slowed down one bit. He looks like he's in better shape now than back in 2000, and he handles all the physical demands of the role perfectly.

Liev Schreiber isn't known for action films but he's terrific and terrifying as the vicious Sabretooth. Danny Huston is convincingly menacing as Stryker. Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson (the wise-cracking expert swordsman who enjoys his job as a mercenary), Taylor Kitsch as Gambit (a card playing mutant from New Orleans who can explode items), Kevin Durand as The Blob (a disgustingly obese indestructible mutant), Lynn Collins as Kayla (Wolverine's seemingly sweet and innocent love interest), and will.i.am as John Wraith (a mutant with the ability to teleport) all put in appearances - some far too briefly - and add a little flair to the film with their performances.

The Bottom Line

Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber in 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine.'

Those familiar with the X-Men comics will have a very different viewing experience from those, like myself, who only know X-Men from the films. Reactions from critics I sat with varied depending on their level of X-Men knowledge. The couple who knew their comics approved of the first half of the film but intensely disliked - on the verge of hated - the second. Coming from an X-Men rookie point of view, I understood the story and loved the action scenes, but wasn't blown away by any of it.

My initial reaction to Wolverine is that it was okay - just okay - and that's stuck with me in the days since the screening. The action scenes were pretty spectacular, in particular one involving a helicopter, some Humvees and Wolverine on a motorcycle. I actually felt a little winded after it was over, that's how well it drew me in. And there's absolutely nothing bad to say about any of the performances. But, overall, X-Men Origins: Wolverine didn't do much for me one way or the other.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a forgettable summer popcorn flick with a few good one-liners, Jackman looking incredibly studly with his layers of rippling muscles, and a couple of really interesting new characters who we didn't get to see enough of at all. Gambit, John Wraith, The Blob, and Wade Wilson are in and out way, way too quickly which is a shame because Wolverine was a lot of fun - albeit bloody and violent fun - and more interesting when Wade Wilson and the crew were wreaking havoc on the screen.

TRANSFORMERS: Revenge Of The Fallen REVIEW

2009-10-21T01:21:00.000-07:00

More so than the first film, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is all about the robots. Yes, there are lots of scenes with flesh and blood actors, but really, who cares about them when you've got cars and trucks and planes and kitchen appliances changing into machines whose sole purpose appears to be to fight with other metallic objects? Even Megan Fox in all of her pouting, posing glory is no match for Megatron and Optimus Prime doing battle.
And oh yes, Michael Bay does put Megan Fox's physical assets to use in this Transformers film. Clad in leather biker gear or shorts and skimpy tops, Bay must have given Fox just one simple direction: "Don't bother acting, just look sexy." And if that's what sets your engine revving, then fine. Bay fulfills fanboys' fantasies by making Fox's Mikaela into a pin-up girl who talks but doesn't say anything interesting. Her character's only purpose in the film - aside from providing eye candy - is to try and get Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky to say he loves her. Even one of the lessor Transformers points out Mikaela's lack of intellect, saying, "You're hot, but you're not too bright."
Nice work there, Bay. As if most of your female audience wasn't already offended by your film's only female character's (outside of the supporting performance by Julie White as Sam Witwicky's pot brownie-eating mom) one-dimensional personality. Personally, I could have done with less Fox and more robots. I'd have even settled for more John Turturro or the tag team of Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson over the silly 'romantic' scenes in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen between Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox.

The Story

2007's Transformers set up the story of the Autobots versus Decepticons for Transformers newbies like myself, and then served up a semi-decent plot along with a whole lot of action. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen doesn't even really attempt to follow more than the most threadbare of storylines. The Decepticons want to blow up our sun, the Autobots want to protect us, the Army guys are fully behind the Autobots, Sam Witwicky is at the heart of the problem/solution, and there's a government idiot who tries to block the good guys from helping us fight the bad guys. Nutshell, meet Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

The Bottom Line

Michael Bay ups the ante this time, bringing in bigger robots, bigger explosions, and longer fight scenes taking place in more exotic locations. It's Transformers on steroids. Even the humor of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is bigger, with Sam Witwicky's parents doing an empty nest syndrome display of emotions taken to the nth degree. Bay even throws in 'twin' transformers with personalities lifted straight from badly written urban sitcoms. You'll either find these two characters offensive or flat-out funny; there will be no middle of the road reaction to Skids and Mudflap. And, of course, Turturro can be counted on for a laugh or two or three or four. Remember, everything is bigger in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - even Turturro.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is what it is: a big-budget spectacle with an incredible amount of action, a frivolous plot, and one hot chick. The robot on robot fight scenes are fantastic (even if you can't tell who is who), the visual effects are absolutely terrific, and the sound effects will nearly have you bouncing out of your seat.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen goes on too long (at least a half an hour too long), but it never attempts to be anything other than what it is - a big, bombastic, brainless summer action movie. If it's wit and depth and gritty performances you're looking for, then you're looking in the wrong place. But if all you want is to spend a few hours in a theater getting your ears pummeled and feasting your eyes on over-the-top but totally entertaining fight scenes, then Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is like Christmas or Hanukkah (or whatever winter holiday you celebrate) in June.

JENNIFER'S BODY MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-21T01:02:00.000-07:00

Megan Fox is no Ellen Page, and Jennifer's Body is no Juno. The crisp, biting dialogue screenwriter Diablo Cody wrote and Page so effectively delivered in Juno won that film numerous accolades, including the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. Cody tries to replicate the hip, 'I've got a comeback for everything' lines she crafted for Page as an independent, outspoken, pregnant high school student in Juno in Jennifer's Body, her first attempt at a horror film. But this time around those same sort of lines trip awkwardly out of Fox's pouty mouth. They're in no way believable.
Not one line of dialogue sounds as though it came from Fox's brain. Cody's script and Fox's inability to act the part combine to make Jennifer's Body DOA.
A chief complaint of Juno's detractors was that the dialogue was so stylized, so tight, that no normal teens who didn't have a camera turned their way would ever engage in the conversations Cody concocted. I actually loved the script, the acting, the directing, and just about everything else about Juno. Sure, the dialogue was too smart, but it worked because all the elements of the piece melded and merged, combining to make it one of the most entertaining films of 2007. Screw with any one ingredient and Juno would have snuck quietly and quickly in and out of theaters. It needed the complete package to be firing on all cylinders. Meanwhile Cody's follow-up project, Jennifer's Body, is a misfire from the get-go. Wrong lead actress, a tone that's all over the place, and a plot that's so simplistic and silly as to be completely laughable - except in the parts where it was meant to be humorous.
A 'horror' film without any scares, Jennifer's Body is a female-centric piece (starring, written by, and directed by females) that does nothing to move women-driven forward. I expected more from Cody's script. Jennifer's Body is too self-consciously clever and tries too hard to impress.

The Story

Narcissistic cheerleader/all around witch Jennifer wants to go to a concert to see some pretty boys playing their instruments while wearing guy-liner and gothic duds. Dragging her nerdy best friend Needy (you can tell she's a nerd because she wears glasses) along to a roadhouse, Jennifer venomously attacks anyone who dares to approach her - if they're not with the band.
Of course the guys in the band notice her, and of course they're interested. But what Jennifer doesn't know is that these guys are looking for a virgin to sacrifice in order to became famous musicians. When they ask if she's had sex, she thinks it'll turn them off if she says yes so she claims to be untouched - exactly the wrong thing to say in this particular instance. Sacrificing a non-virgin to whatever dark force they're trying to get in good with only leads to their victim turning into a demon. In this case, a demon who likes to eat high school boys.
Meanwhile Needy slowly realizes there's something seriously wrong with her BFF. Hello! She spits up black fluid and looks like death warmed over when she hasn't feasted on her new favorite food. Why does it take her so long to put two and two together? Don't glasses on teenage girls in Hollywood movies signify intelligence as well as nerdiness? Anyway, she figures it out and then has to come up with a way to stop Jennifer from off'ing any more members of the opposite sex.

The Cast

At no time during Jennifer's Body do you ever forget this is Megan Fox and believe she's a real high school student who just happens to have been taken over by a demon. Pouting and posing your way through scenes is not acting, and Karyn Kusama's direction requires little more of Fox than just that. We get it - she's hot. But come on now...adding a little umph to scenes by relying on something other than looks would have gone a long way in making Jennifer's Body at least sufferable. The contrast between what Fox does with a scene and what her 'ugly duckling' co-star Amanda Seyfried is able to do with the same material is like night and day. Seyfried's dialogue and storyline is no better written or fleshed out than Fox's, yet Seyfried brings her best to the game, elevating the acting from junior high talent show level.

The Bottom Line

Too forced, too trite, too everything, Jennifer's Body doesn't have a clue what it wants to be. Or, wait, maybe there was a goal in place at the beginning, but it was lost somewhere between the initial concept and hiring on the cast and director. What's this movie supposed to be? Whatever it was aiming for, it fell far short of its target. There's hardly any scares, very few laughs, and a gratuitous kissing scene between Fox and Seyfried that's not as hot as you'd imagine and feels like it was forced into the story just to make some fanboys happy. Jennifer's Body is pretty to look at, but there's nothing of substance there. Other than Fox's good looks (and no, she doesn't get naked), there's nothing to see in Jennifer's Body.

WATCHMEN MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-06T05:03:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've read Watchmen. And yes, I do believe it is one of the most interesting, involving, thought-provoking, mind-blowing books I've ever read of any genre. Anyone who's read my reviews of comic book-inspired movies knows I've never claimed to be a comic book fan. I usually steer clear of the medium, but Watchmen was a must-read (actually a must-read over and over). And being a Watchmen fan going into Warner Bros Pictures' and Zack Snyder's film adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' critically acclaimed work, I had high hopes for this feature film based on what's widely regarded as unfilmable source material.
Did Snyder's cinematic vision live up to expectations? Absolutely. Snyder and writers David Hayter and Alex Tse had to lose portions of the graphic novel (which first appeared as a comic book series in the mid-1980s) in order to condense the story into a reasonable running time and comprehensible narrative. They also had the difficult task of making the film accessible to those who haven't read Watchmen without trampling on the dreams of Watchmen fans who've been waiting decades for a movie based on Moore and Gibbons' characters.
Watchmen fans must realize going in that this is not a panel by panel adaptation in the vein of 300. That would have been an impossible endeavor given the richness and sheer depth of the graphic novel. As such, important portions of Watchmen have been left out. Failing to make the cut in the feature film are any mentions of Tales of the Black Freighter (an animated short is being released separately on DVD) and Hollis Mason's Under the Hood. And Watchmen the movie relegates the past members of the Minutemen to mere fleeting glimpses in the film's marvelously inventive opening credits (one of the best lead-ins to a film I can recall). The ending's also been drastically tweaked. But all that aside, most importantly, the message, the tone, and the six central characters have made the leap to the big screen nearly completely intact.

The Set-Up
Alan Moore used Watchmen as a way to deconstruct the superhero genre while at the same time reflecting on world issues. What sacrifices would we be willing to make in order to save the world from itself? Does the end justify the means, if it entails the loss of life in order to stop a nuclear war?
Watchmen is set in an alternate 1980's reality in which presidential term limits are no longer enforced and the Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to striking midnight as the United States and Russia move toward nuclear war. In this twisted world, costumed vigilantes once worked side by side with law enforcement. Known as the Minutemen, these crime-fighters didn't have any special powers, just the desire to clean up the streets. As the original group aged and moved on, a new wave of costumed crime-fighters popped up. This new group (the Crimebusters) followed in the footsteps of the Minuteman, rounding up bank robbers and murderers, all without the backing of the power of a badge. But the tide eventually turned and costume-wearing vigilantes were forced into retirement with the passage of the Keene Act (the film glosses over this part of the story).
It's important to note the only member of this elite group with actual superhero powers is Dr. Manhattan, a former physicist named Jon Osterman who was tragically and traumatically transformed into an omnipotent blue being with the power to be anywhere at any moment and the ability to reshape particles. His existence helped the United States win the Vietnam War and has our enemies, particularly the Soviet Union, on edge.
After the passage of the Keene Act, Dr Manhattan and The Comedian, a ruthless, morally bankrupt, cold-blooded killer, are allowed to continue to work with/work for the government. Rorschach, another member of the team, continues to hunt down villains but does so unofficially, outside the confines of the law.

The Story
Although Snyder and company serve up backstories by way of flashbacks, most of the action in the movie Watchmen takes place following the murder of The Comedian. Rorschach becomes driven to find the truth behind who killed The Comedian (someone he holds in high regard despite his despicable acts). In order to ferret out the killer and find out if whoever it is is targeting costumed vigilantes and for what purpose, Rorschach pulls his old crime-fighting compadres out of retirement. As Rorschach, Nite Owl II, and Silk Spectre II dig into this plot to kill all 'superheroes', they uncover a conspiracy the depths of which they never anticipated upon hearing the news of The Comedian's murder.

The Cast
Watchmen is an ensemble piece brought to life by actors who aren't big name movie stars, a fact which works in its favor as no one actor overshadows any of the others. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Grey's Anatomy, Supernatural) embraces the role of a cigar chomping slayer who doesn't view violence as an option but rather as a necessity to keeping the peace. The Comedian's an emotionally damaged man, and Morgan plays him with a nasty twinkle in his eye that's something to behold.

Billy Crudup's all but unrecognizable once he transforms from Jon Osterman into Dr. Manhattan. Crudup wore a performance capture suit (which caused him to be the source of many laughs on the set) to play Dr Manhattan and it's his face and voice that give life to the huge, floating blue presence in Watchmen. Using a carefully modulated speech pattern, Crudup wholly conveys Dr Manhattan's detachment from the world around him. A side note: the big blue penis isn't Crudup's.
Patrick Wilson dons the costume of the crime-fighting bird lover Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II who can't get it up without getting the costume on. Rich and retired, Dan let himself go physically, and Wilson, who normally looks fit enough to star in ads for exercise equipment, totally transformed into this guy. Nite Owl II really is a heroic figure, a good and decent man who truly believed what the masked crime-fighters did helped innocent people. Dan's got a strong sense of right and wrong, and Wilson does a terrific job of making the audience connect with this guy who's lost without his costumed alter-ego.
Malin Akerman carries the load for women, representing females in Watchmen's male-dominated alternate reality. Carla Gugino shows up in a few brief but pivotal scenes as Akerman's character's retired crime-fighting mom – the original Silk Spectre – but for the most part it's up to Akerman as Laurie Jupiter/Silk Spectre II to provide the female perspective. Silk Spectre II has a rocky relationship with her mother (who was raped by The Comedian) and she's torn between two men and torn apart by the knowledge of who her father might be. Yet she's still a strong woman. And physically she's just as capable of kicking ass as her male cohorts. Akerman's not known for action roles, but she handles the fight scenes well and definitely heats up the screen during her love scenes with Wilson and Crudup. Plus, she looks gorgeous in latex.
Matthew Goode has one of the more difficult tasks in the film, giving life to the one main character who doesn't get as much screen time as the rest of the group. Goode plays Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias as a slightly effeminate admirer of Alexander the Great who speaks with the barest whisp of a German accent. Considered the smartest human being on the planet, Adrian Veidt is a puppet master and Goode plays him as though he possesses many secrets behind his smug, holier than thou smile.
If there's one actor who steals scenes in Watchmen it's Jackie Earle Haley as Walter Kovacs/Rorschach. Hidden behind a mask for the majority of the film, Haley brings Rorschach to life on the screen exactly how he was written in Watchmen. It's a perfect, flawless match between actor and character.

The Bottom Line
The film opens with the death of The Comedian quickly followed by a six-minute opening credits sequence that's absolutely breathtaking. Backed by a lengthened version of Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin', this unforgettable montage of scenes plunges us into the universe of Watchmen as it moves through the past exposing the history of the costumed vigilantes leading up to the film's present day. Watchmen fans will either be dismayed by how Snyder condensed so much from the graphic novel into that opening or will embrace the fact he was able to get as much as he did into such a short segment and still add his own touches to specific characters backstories. I embraced it (particularly the bit on the grassy knoll in Dallas) and felt it set the perfect tone for the remaining two hours and 40ish minutes.
Now, Watchmen does have its flaws. I missed the interaction at the newsstand that was in the graphic novel, and I would have liked to see more of the original Minutemen. But I've got to say that without making a five-hour long movie, I'm not sure there was a way to make a better Watchmen movie. The production design is incredible, the effects are absolutely first-rate, the acting is top-notch, and Snyder chose exactly the right songs for crucial moments in the film.
Watchmen is not a film for everyone and it won't connect with audiences looking for the standard superhero genre flick. Watchmen is unflinchingly violent, there's nudity (Dr Manhattan's penis is right there in your face – even if you blink, you won't miss it), raw sex, and there's none of the lighthearted superhero-type moments in this that we've come to expect from major motion picture adaptations of comic books. Watchmen presents a world in which actions have real consequences and they're not necessarily pretty, and if people were in fact superheroes, they'd be warped and in desperate need of some serious therapy. This film's gritty and nasty and you want to wash your hands when you're done watching it. But I'm betting after just one screening of the film, you'll think more about Watchmen than any other comic book/graphic novel-inspired movie you've ever witnessed.

UP MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:59:00.000-07:00

How does Pixar continue to do it? 'It' being put out quality films that spring from simple, straightforward stories that are designed to engage all age groups, aren't offensive, are entertaining, gorgeous to behold, and don't disappear from your memory 10 minutes after you exit the theater. With each new release Pixar manages to best itself even when it seems doing so would be an impossibility. Pixar's ninth film, WALL-E, set the bar high but somehow, someway, Up manages to top it - a task I personally never thought they'd be able to accomplish.
I mean come on! Up's the story of an old man who ties balloons to his house. He looks grumpy, I can't relate to him, and just an old guy floating off in space isn't exactly the most compelling premise I can think of for an animated movie. Yet within 5 minutes, maybe even less, Up pulled me in and I never wanted the movie to end. The same thing happened with WALL-E. A lonely robot left on the planet has to clean up garbage and that's supposed to be entertaining? I said, "That'll never work." Yes, I ate those words. I'll happily munch on some more after doubting Pixar could make me like a grouchy senior citizen who dreams of adventures in a far-off land.

The Story
We first meet up with Carl Fredericksen as a young boy who dreams of being an adventurer as he watches newsreel footage of explorer Charles Muntz. Carl's quiet and sort of shy, but his love of Muntz leads him to Ellie, a sassy little girl who is as outgoing as Carl is introverted. They make for a great team and in fact will go on to share their lives together. From elementary school through high school and on up into adulthood, Carl and Ellie are inseparable, sharing every moment of joy and sadness together while dreaming of a time when they can actually take off on an adventure in the wilds of South America just like their hero, Muntz. But jobs and health issues and whatnot have a way of intruding on dreams, and Carl and Ellie grow old never having visited the South American jungles. And then, sadly, Carl becomes a widower with just his lovely little house and his beautiful memories of Ellie to keep him company.
Writer/directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson tell us all this in no more than the first 20 minutes of Up. So much backstory crammed into such a small time frame - they should teach other filmmakers how to accomplish this with as much integrity and finesse as they display here.
Unfortunately, Carl's home is right in the path of new construction. Unable to stand up legally to those who want to level his house, Carl finds the perfect way to keep his home intact. He'll kill two birds with one stone. He wants to visit South America before it's too late and he needs to remove his house from its current location. The solution: ties thousands of helium-filled balloons to his roof and float away. He's even rigged up a way to steer.
But Carl fails to take into consideration the persistent presence of an overly helpful Wilderness Explorer scout named Russell. Russell didn't know of Carl's planned getaway and was on the porch when Carl's house lifted off. With no way to put the house down and South America set as his goal, Carl and Russell become unlikely traveling companions. Touching down just short of his target landing spot - Paradise Falls - Carl and Russell must walk the house (with balloons still attached) a mile or two to the perfect spot.
On the way to the house's final resting spot they meet up with a huge exotic bird Russell names Kevin (why? who knows) and a super friendly dog named Dug (not Doug). Dug's wearing a fancy collar that allows his thoughts to be translated into English, a plot device that's so incredibly funny that Dug deserves a film all to himself. Dug's mind works about how you'd expect a canine's thought process to, with lots of happy thoughts interrupted often by shouts of Squirrel!
So, now they're in South America and all is as it's supposed to be, right? Nope. There's danger lurking around every corner for poor Kevin, and it's up to Carl, Russell, and Dug to keep the rare bird safe.

The Bottom Line
What can be said of Pixar's animation that hasn't already been said time and time again? It's dazzling, simply stunning to take in, and so incredibly beautiful you forget you're watching an animated film and instead just lose yourself in an amazing adventure. From dog hair to bird feathers to the humans in Up to the 10,000 balloons that hold up Carl's home, Up animators have surprised us once again by surpassing the quality and beauty of every previous Pixar film. And let's face it, Pixar is the standard bearer for this medium. They do it better than every other studio out there, and that's because they never sacrifice character development for cute/fancy animated tricks. They don't play down to kids, they don't take shortcuts in plot development, and they are able to get you emotionally involved and invested in animated characters in a way their competitors have never been able to duplicate.
Up plays on your heartstrings and there are one or two scenes which may have you grabbing for a tissue. I'm not joking about that. It got to me and I don't get emotional about a film unless an animal dies (no, that's not what happens in Up). And speaking of animals, dog lovers are going to go crazy over Dug. He's an adorable little guy who's brave and loyal and is sure to remind you of your own furry best friend.
Up is storytelling at its best. The adventure film takes audiences through the full spectrum of emotions, with action and thrills mixed with comedy and suspense. A sure lock on an animated film Oscar nod, Up delivers a wondrous world filled with people and creatures you'll fall head over heels in love with. Up earns a spot as one of the best films of the year, and not just in the animated category.

PUBLIC ENEMIES MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:54:00.000-07:00

Leave it to Michael Mann to usher in a new, beautiful, in your face way to approach gangster films. Shot in high-def digital, Universal Pictures' Public Enemies is stunningly gorgeous and absolutely breathtaking, a moving piece of art that breathes fresh life into a bygone era.
During this 2009 summer season when brainless entertainment (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen), a Pixar masterpiece (Up), and a hysterical R-rated buddy comedy (The Hangover) are ruling the roost, plopping one of the better dramas Hollywood's put together in years into theaters is a risky move. Audiences are avoiding dramas as though they were the cause of swine flu, but Public Enemies does have three important ingredients working in its favor: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Michael Mann. This fearsome, fearless threesome could sway adults looking for an escape from the usual summer fare into taking a risk on something more intense. And it's most definitely a risk worth taking. Public Enemies is violent and graceful, and filled with dazzling performances from a cast hitting on all cylinders led by a man who pays attention to the most minute detail.

The Story
Public Enemies is based on the book Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34, a meticulously researched examination of American history at a time when a motley collection of Depression era gangsters had law enforcement agencies spinning their wheels. While Bryan Burrough's book traced the criminal careers of Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, Alvin Karpis and the Barker family, Mann and fellow screenwriters Ann Biderman and Ronan Bennett chose to concentrate on the fascinating Dillinger (played by Depp).
Dubbed Public Enemy Number One by FBI Chief J Edgar Hoover (played by Billy Crudup in a terrific supporting performance), Dillinger was viewed as a Robin Hood-type hero by the American populace. Dillinger robbed banks but never took money from the hard-working men and women who happened to be doing business in those banks at the time of his robberies. With much of the population barely scraping by during those hard times, Dillinger - a good-looking, charismatic Indiana farm boy - captivated Americans and had them rooting for the bad guy rather than the police, a fact which rankled Hoover to no end. The FBI was just emerging as a law enforcement agency to be reckoned with and Hoover, who had his fair share of detractors, used Dillinger and his notoriety as a way to push the bureau and his War on Crime more prominently into the spotlight. Hoover devoted all of his resources to putting an end to Dillinger's criminal career, promoting FBI Agent Melvin Purvis (played by Christian Bale) to the head of the Chicago office and placing him in charge of taking down Dillinger.
Mann's Public Enemies narrows the focus to the latter part of Dillinger's life, skipping over how and why he became a bank robber. Instead of showing his formative years, Mann chose to pick up Dillinger's story in the middle of the action, beginning the film with Dillinger and his right-hand man, Red (played by a scene-stealing Jason Clarke), springing Walter Dietrich from prison. Later we see Dillinger arrested and his own daring escape from prison while using a fake gun (a true story). Public Enemies also shows Dillinger doing what he did best, robbing banks. Calm, cool and collected, Dillinger would leap over teller counters while brandishing his tommy gun and a smile. Courteous and charming to the women bank employees, even the ones he used as human shields during getaways, Dillinger and his gang were always one step ahead of the police and the FBI. How could they not be when they had the fastest cars, the most powerful guns, and although Dillinger would deny ever doing so, they weren't afraid of killing those who stood in their way. Plus, as Dillinger says to his lady love, coat check girl Billie Frechette (played by Marion Cotillard), they could hit any bank at any time while the police had to be on the look-out at every bank every day.
Dillinger and his cohorts knew they weren't long for this world, living a lifestyle that all but guaranteed a short lifespan. But it was ultimately Dillinger's love of Hollywood and the movies that did him in. Betrayed by the infamous Woman in Red (she really wore orange), Dillinger was gunned down by a team of FBI agents and ex-Texas Rangers headed up by Melvin Purvis outside of the Biograph Theater in Chicago in 1934.

The Cast
Even though we know this is how the story ends - it's an indisputable fact - just like Dillinger's contemporaries, the Public Enemies audience is rooting for Johnny Depp as Dillinger to somehow escape the trap, take off to some exotic locale, and live out a long life with Billie Frechette at his side. Depp's captivatingly charming portrayal of Dillinger cries out for a happier ending. Depp's Dillinger is a likable guy, smooth and smart, who just happens to be a bank robber. He could be violent, but it's his softer side as he falls deeply in love with Billie Frechette that makes Depp's Dillinger so engrossing. This Dillinger's a foolish romantic first, gangster second.
As Dillinger's one true love, Oscar winner Marion Cotillard (La vie en rose) is simply incredible. She and Depp have fantastic chemistry, and Michael Mann allows their intimate moments to linger on screen, making the relationship feel more immediate and real.
Christian Bale plays it smooth as Melvin Purvis, an agent who used his brains and new investigative techniques to try and outsmart Public Enemy Number One. Bale delivers a real grounded performance and his icy demeanor is the perfect counterpart to Depp's more engaging Dillinger.

The Bottom Line
The meticulous attention paid to every little detail, including Mann's choice to film as much as possible at the actual locations where Dillinger hid out and where he died, makes the 1930s not only come alive but fairly jump off the screen. The cinematography is first rate and I was blown away - almost literally - by the sound design. Mann also does a great job with the shoot-outs, especially the Little Bohemia showdown. The gun battle doesn't look choreographed at all. As the bullets fly and chaos erupts, viewers are brought into the fight as though we're there running alongside the fleeing Dillinger and Red.
Johnny Depp proves why he's considered one of the best actors working in films today and under the guidance of Michael Mann, Depp delivers a performance that'll stand the test of time. Public Enemies is a riveting, carefully paced character-driven piece that's a fascinating trip into American history. It's Michael Mann at his best.

THE INFORMANT MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:49:00.000-07:00

Matt Damon packed on 30 pounds to play a wacky, delusional corporate whistle-blower in The Informant!, a comedy which reunites the actor with his Ocean's 11, 12 and 13 director Steven Soderbergh. One of the most entertaining, well-written and funny movies of 2009, The Informant! was worth the weight gain for Damon as he delivers what's easily his best performance to date.
Damon is absolutely hysterical as a pudgy corporate semi-bigwig who agrees to cooperate with the FBI. Director Soderbergh shows a steady hand at the helm, letting scenes build and Damon shine as this bizarrely engaging nerdy guy with an inflated belief in his place in the world.
Giving more than the most rudimentary details of the plot away would be spoiling the fun of watching The Informant! slowly reveal its true colors. Damon plays Mark Whitacre, VP at agri-industry giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Mark makes contact with the FBI on a minor matter that soon escalates into an major agency investigation of international price fixing. The more the FBI relies on Whitacre to get the goods on his higher-ups, the more of a loose cannon Whitacre becomes. He believes he's a James Bond of the corporate world, when he's really more like the klutzy Inspector Clouseau. Fumbling, bumbling, and stumbling his way through secret meetings, Mark does everything wrong yet not one corporate exec catches on.

I'm not always a fan of voice-over narration - I find it distracting and in some cases just lazy storytelling - but The Informant! makes the most of this creative device, and I can't imagine this tale unfolding without its use. As Whitacre, Damon's voice-over provides us with real insight into just how unstable and messed up this guy really is. Whitacre really believed that after turning in his bosses, he'd be handed the reins to run the company. It's so ludicrous yet this crazy guy, who has a closet full of disturbing secrets, thought he would come out smelling like a rose after the FBI wrapped up its case and those involved in price fixing were hauled away.
The story of Mark's cloak and dagger escapades would be ridiculously unbelievable if it weren't for the fact this film is based on true events. Adapted by Scott Z Burns (The Bourne Ultimatum) from Kurt Eichenwald's bestseller, The Informant! is weird, wacky and totally engaging. And it just gets more and more bizarre as the film goes on - don't go out for popcorn and/or a soda, you'll miss something important.

Damon's brilliant, Soderbergh's at the top of his game, and the entire cast of supporting players - led by Scott Bakula and Joel McHale as special agents assigned to work with Whitacre and Melanie Lynskey as Mark's wife - are absolutely terrific. The Informant! deserves its exclamation point.

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRIENCE REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:42:00.000-07:00

The battle between good and evil almost takes a backseat to the angst of young love in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth film of the Harry Potter series. These are dark times in the wizarding world, but for our young heroes it's also a time for flirting, a little romance, and some harmless snogging. Everyone knows the ultimate showdown between Harry Potter and Voldemort is fast approaching. The face-off between The Chosen One and The Dark Lord is no longer just something whispered about in dark corners or argued about over a butterbeer or two.
The air is thick and foreboding as Voldemort's an unseen, menacing presence hovering over Hogwarts. The Dark Lord's minions are no longer hiding out and instead are openly displaying their hatred for Muggles and those who follow Dumbledore. Much of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince takes place in the calm before the storm, excepting the last whirlwind half hour when events take place that forever alter the lives of our young wizard friends.
Yet even in these sinister days, time must be taken for teens to do what teens do – they explore relationship possibilities. And Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince devotes a good portion of its running time to fleshing out Harry, Ron, and Hermione's burgeoning love lives.

The Story

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince starts off with a rush of activity as the citizens of London come under attack by Death Eaters. Though they can't see the creatures wreaking havoc on the city, they feel the affects of each attack. Millennium Bridge collapses killing untold numbers, however no one outside of the wizarding world understands this is just the beginning of destruction should Voldemort fully return.
Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) knows time is running out and so he seeks out Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) to accompany him on an extremely important visit with Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), a retired Hogwarts potions professor. Buried in Slughorn's memory is a conversation that took place with a teenaged Tom Riddle, a pivotal conversation in young Riddle's life and one that's vitally important to Dumbledore.

Dumbledore plays on Slughorn's vanity, dangling the opportunity to get close to Hogwarts' most famous student as a means to get Slughorn back on staff. Slughorn 'collects' students from prestigious families or ones who've earned their own sort of fame, and the prospect of adding Harry to his elite Slug Club is too much for Slughorn to pass up. With Slughorn installed as the new potions teacher, Dumbledore tasks Harry with getting close to the professor and getting him to reveal the secret he's kept hidden for these long years.
While the forces of good are busy on their quest for knowledge, Voldemort's recruited Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) for a very special mission, a mission Draco's mother, Narcissa (Helen McCrory), and Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) make Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) commit to an unbreakable pledge to assist with. Draco spends his days skulking about, sneaking off into the Room of Requirement and experimenting with a vanishing cabinet, looking nauseated, scared to death, and pissed off at the world all at the same time. It's not a task Draco relishes, but one he has no option but to carry out.
Meanwhile, the romantic yearnings of our favorite threesome of teen wizards provides welcome moments of comic relief. Harry's hot for Ron's younger sister, Ginny (Bonnie Wright), but Ginny's got a boyfriend. Ron's gotten himself involved in a relationship with Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave) and this is driving poor Hermione (Emma Watson) absolutely mad. She's miserable, but Ron either can't or chooses not to see what's so obvious to everyone else.
The relationship between Dumbledore and Harry Potter, built up over the course of five years together at Hogwarts, has reached a point in which the 150+ year old professor has come to rely heavily on his young student. Dumbledore confides more in Harry, sharing the memories he's collected over the years, and even takes Harry on a secret and perilous journey to collect an item hidden away by Voldemort. But when it comes time for a pivotal event in the battle between good and evil, Dumbledore orders Harry to hide and not intervene, leaving Harry to witness a devastating act that sets up the events in the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (which Warner Bros smartly chose to break into two films).

The Acting

The acting skills of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint get better with each successive Harry Potter film. It's surreal to go back and watch Sorcerer's Stone and see just how young these guys were when the franchise kicked off back in 2001. It doesn't feel like it was all that long ago that Radcliffe, Watson and Grint first donned the red and gold of Gryffindor house. Now the three will, no matter what they go on to do, forever be associated with one of the biggest movie franchises of all time. Hopefully they'll come out of it in better shape than some actors who've headlined franchises...

rest of the cast is top notch, from Michael Gambon to Jim Broadbent to Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange (I love her in this role - perfect casting). Bonnie Wright and Tom Felton have expanded roles in this franchise entry, and are thoroughly up to the challenge. And as always Alan Rickman makes Snape someone you love to watch onscreen, despite how you actually feel about the character.

The Bottom Line
This is David Yates' second Harry Potter film and he's obviously comfortable in this world of wizards and Death Eaters and magical creatures created by J.K. Rowling. I'm anxious to see what Yates and returning screenwriter Steve Kloves (he only missed Order of the Phoenix) are able to do with Deathly Hallows.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince isn't the most action-packed Harry Potter film, but what it lacks in thrilling scenes of magical maneuverings, it makes up for in character development and emotional depth. The visual effects, while stunning, do not overwhelm and slip unobtrusively into scenes.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban remains my favorite Harry Potter film thus far. But Half-Blood Prince is a worthy addition to the Harry Potter franchise, one that will likely be loved more by those who've read the books than by those who only know the Harry Potter universe from what they've seen onscreen. There are major chunks of Rowling's sixth book that didn't make the transition to the big screen, but what's there is perfectly in keeping with the tone and themes expressed in the Half-Blood Prince the book.

THE COLLECTOR MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:36:00.000-07:00

WHAT IT’S ABOUT?

Sleepy-eyed Arkin is a petty thief who uses his legit job as a day-laborer for a remodeling company to case potential targets. Desperate to raise the cash necessary to settle a debt with his ex-wife, who herself is in deep with some nasty loansharks, he goes for one last score by raiding the bucolic home of his most recent employer, a wealthy family that’s just left town on vacation. But when he arrives at the house to do the job, Arkin quickly realizes that the family never left; they became captives of Jigsaw — errr, the Collector — a masked maniac who’s gone a step beyond the standard torture routine by rigging the entire house with a series of elaborate booby traps to ensure that anyone attempting to escape is met with an excruciating end. It’s that latter detail that helps convince Arkin to stay and try to put a stop to the Collector’s evil ambitions.

WHO’S IN IT?

In the grand low-budget horror tradition, The Collector's cast is stocked with a group of attractive, little-known, modestly talented actors working presumably for scale, led by Josh Stewart (episodes of CSI: Miami and Criminal Minds), Andrea Roth (Rescue Me, one episode of Lost), Madeline Zima (Californication, an episode of Grey’s Anatomy), Daniella Alonso (one episode each on CSI, Knight Rider and Without a Trace) and ... honestly, does it really matter who the rest of the cast members are? Most of them are drenched in blood and virtually unrecognizable for the most part, anyway.

WHAT’S GOOD?

Could there be a less appealing tagline to a movie than “from the writers of Saw IV, V and VI?” The phrase essentially means, if we’re lucky, The Collector has a chance at being just as lame and played-out as those flicks have become. Huzzah! As you might expect from the pedigree of its filmmakers, Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, The Collector’s plot involves a sadistic madman subjecting assorted victims to various grisly, surprisingly imaginative forms of torture. But unlike the latter Saw flicks, The Collector manages to introduce some new elements that add a solid degree of suspense those films have increasingly lacked. In short, it’s actually scary — in the beginning, at least.

WHAT’S BAD?

The acting, not surprisingly, ranges from average to distractingly poor. But that’s par for the course for films of this ilk. What’s most unfortunate about The Collector is that it gradually dispenses with the horror and substitutes torture in its place, its tone transitioning disappointingly from frightening to repulsive during the second act. Then, as if to emphasize the change, the final third of the film is littered with one gruesome money shot after another. There’s nary a sensitive body part that doesn’t get punctured, torn, sliced or straight-up lopped off by the closing credits.

FAVORITE SCENE?

When Arkin first enters the house, director Marcus Dunstan pieces together a gripping cat-and-mouse chase as the Collector slowly stalks his uninvited guest. As the would-be thief encounters one disturbing trap after another in his vain effort to escape, Dunstan raises the tension to a fever pitch by blending tried-and-true horror devices (the creaky stairwell, et al.) with expert timing and camera work.

PARTING SHOT

The Collector is like the MacGyver of horror villains, jury-rigging his adopted lair with enough ghastly booby traps — all made with common household items, no less — to impress the Viet Cong. The place is like Disneyland for murdurous sociopaths.

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS REVIEW

2009-10-06T04:27:00.000-07:00

WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

Based on the beloved children’s book by Judi and Ron Barrett, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs tells the tale of Flint Lockwood, an eccentric young inventor who spends his days in a makeshift laboratory, building monkey-thought translators, spray-on shoes, “hair unbalder” serums and other strange creations. Regarded as a troublemaker and a nuisance by the residents of the small town of Swallow Falls, Flint dreams of one day making something that will win their respect and earn him a place alongside the Edisons and Da Vincis of the world. Flint thinks his latest invention, a machine that turns ordinary water into gourmet meals at the touch of a button, just might do the trick. But his big unveiling goes predictably awry when his machine launches like a rocket through Swallow Falls, laying waste to the town square before eventually disappearing into the stratosphere. Just when it appears that the townsfolk have finally had enough of Flint’s antics, salvation arrives in the form of cheeseburgers raining from the sky, thrilling the throngs of hungry people below. Success! Flint’s machine actually works — albeit not quite in the manner he originally intended.

WHO’S IN IT?

Lending his voice to the character of Flint is Bill Hader, a Saturday Night Live regular who’s appeared in small roles in a ton of high-profile comedies, including Tropic Thunder, Pineapple Express and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. Anna Faris (The House Bunny) co-stars as Sam Sparks, a weathergirl whose bubbly on-screen persona masks a keen intellect she’s terrified to reveal — lest she be branded a “nerd” and shunned by the community of shallow, talking-head news correspondents. Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell voices the sleazy, manipulative Mayor Shelbourne, a wildly ambitious politician who eyes Flint’s invention as his ticket to higher office. James Caan (The Godfather) plays Flint’s well-meaning but emotionally distant father Tim, a blue-collar fisherman who can’t find a way to relate to his brainy offspring. And fans of A-Team and Rocky III will instantly recognize the voice of Mr. T as Earl Devereaux, the tough-minded town cop whose job is devoted primarily to preventing Flint from inadvertently destroying the town. Rounding out the main cast is Neil Patrick Harris (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle) as Flint’s trusted monkey assistant, Steve.

WHAT’S GOOD?

The animation of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is truly a joy to behold. With each successive meal that falls from the sky comes a brilliant new array of patterns and colors, all of which burst from the screening in dazzling 3-D. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller rightly recognize the visual potential of the source material, with its endless variety of colorful food items, and serve up a delicious buffet of brilliantly-rendered set pieces. But the film isn’t just a bundle of digital eye candy. Perhaps most pleasantly surprising about the film is the script’s sharp wit and clever observations, which help make the experience enjoyable on a cerebral as well as visceral level.

WHAT’S BAD?

Lord and Miller, who also co-wrote the adapted screenplay, did a generally solid job expanding the relatively thin source material for the big screen, but the story still feels weak at times. It’s just engaging enough to keep you interested, but not quite enough to make a lasting impression.

PARTING SHOT

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is something of a culinary rollercoaster. As food first begins to fall from the sky, you might find yourself feeling a bit hungry. But as the plot progresses and Flint’s machine starts to spin out of control, bombarding the town with every kind of slop imaginable, don’t be surprised if your stomach starts to get a little queasy!

LOVE HAPPENS MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-04T22:56:00.000-07:00

WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

Pity there aren’t more stringent “truth in labeling” laws for movies like Love Happens. From the film’s title and its innumerable ads featuring stars Jennifer Aniston and Aaron Eckhart locked in a smiling embrace, one might reasonably assume Love Happens to be a charming romantic comedy, in which its two attractive leads bicker and flirt for a breezy 85 minutes before finally realizing that they’re meant for each other. That assumption would be catastrophically incorrect, for there isn’t much comedy to be found in Love Happens. Nor is there much romance, for that matter. And come to think about it, there really isn’t a whole lot of Jennifer Aniston, exactly one half of the aforementioned misleading embrace, to be found in the movie either. (Click here for Aniston's take on the matter.)That leaves us with the obvious question: What, then, is Love Happens? It’s a drama centering on the emotional journey of Burke Ryan (Eckhart), a handsome widower who parlays the tragedy of his wife’s untimely death into a bestselling self-help book and a sold-out workshop tour, becoming something like the Tony Robbins of grieving. (He's even aped the walking-on-hot-coals gimmick from the toothy motivational speaker.) Though his adopted career is a smashing success, not much else is well in Burke’s world. Truth be told, he never truly reconciled himself with his wife’s tragic passing, and has heretofore nursed his denial with a steady diet of alcohol and avoidance. That is until he runs into Eloise Chandler (Aniston), a refreshingly blunt free spirit whose own love life is marked by disappointment and heartbreak. Though just a humble florist with no apparent training in psychology, Eloise immediately sees through the confident, upbeat persona that Burke has carefully constructed. They can ease each other's pain, but the healing won’t begin unless both of them are willing to let down their guard and let love -- wait for it -- happen.

WHO’S IN IT?

In addition to Aniston and Eckhart, Love Happens’ cast includes Dan Fogler (Balls of Fury) as Burke’s smarmy agent and former college roommate, Judy Greer (27 Dresses) as (what else?) Eloise’s quirky sidekick, John Carroll Lynch (Zodiac) as one of Burke’s more skeptical workshop attendees, and Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now) as his resentful father-in-law.

WHAT’S GOOD?

Misleading marketing aside, Love Happens writer/director Brandon Camp does make an earnest attempt to explore the grieving process of a man who has experienced unspeakable tragedy. Which is better than a saccharine, formulaic romantic comedy, I guess.

WHAT’S BAD?

For all its serious intentions, Love Happens bears all the hallmarks of a slick studio rom-com, including stereotypical supporting characters (his irreverent wing-man, her goofy confidante), contrived comic relief devices (Sheen plays straight man to a crazy parrot!) and manipulative tugs on the heartstrings (too many to mention). The whole experience comes off as sort of a second-rate Cameron Crowe flick.

PARTING SHOT

The climax of Love Happens includes a dramatic “slow clap,” in which the lead character finally breaks down in a cathartic release of pent-up emotion and is rewarded with a slow-building round of applause from onlookers. That’s pretty much all you need to know about this movie.

SURROGATES MOVIE REVIEW

2009-10-04T22:51:00.000-07:00

WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

Set sometime in the near future, Surrogates imagines a world in which 99% of its inhabitants live their lives vicariously through “surrogates,” robotic avatars who brave the hazards of the physical world while their schlubby owners sit safely at home in computerized cocoons, experiencing it all via neural sensors affixed to their heads. Think of it as a flesh-and-blood version of World of Warcraft. Or Facebook. Or The Sims. Potential present-day analogies are practically infinite. As a consequence of mankind’s virtualized existence, violent crime has dropped to an all-time low, since any harm inflicted on a surrogate results in no such injury to its host. Folks are free to go about their increasingly decadent business without fear of the inevitable drawbacks that come with high-risk lifestyles. If their robotic counterpart happens to incur damage, or cease functioning altogether, owners can simply order a replacement from VSI, the suitably dubious mega-corporation in Surrogates that manufactures and markets the robots. Not everyone is eager to embrace this new world order, of course, and a determined group of quasi-religious luddites, led by a dreadlocked guru aptly named “The Prophet” (Ving Rhames), has assembled in major cities around the world. Eschewing most modern technology, they toil like the Amish in shabby communes as their Prophet regales them with apocalyptic diatribes. Back in the civilized world, cracks in the utopian edifice form when a pair of surrogate murders result in the deaths of their respective hosts, something heretofore considered impossible. Called in to investigate the first homicides in years, FBI agents Greer (Bruce Willis) and Peters (Radha Mitchell), discover that one of the victims is the son of Canter (James Cromwell), the very man who first invented robotic surrogates. Greer and Peters naturally assume the Prophet and his acolytes to be at the core of the conspiracy, but a nagging question remains: How could they gain access to the advanced technology necessary to create a weapon capable of killing both a surrogate and its host?

WHAT’S GOOD?

Clocking in at a breezy 88 minutes, Surrogates spares its audience the troubling metaphysical questions that so often characterize more ambitious sci-fi projects. Much like the robots at the heart of its story, director Jonathan Mostow’s (Terminator 3) film may be shallow and synthetic, but it sure is pretty to look at. Expect to spend more time contemplating Willis’ absurd blonde wig or Mitchell’s remarkable robotic rack than the implications of society’s increasing disconnect from itself.

WHAT’S BAD?

With its all-too-thin storyline and derivative characters, Surrogates makes for a forgettable, if occasionally entertaining, experience. A subplot involving the increasingly strained relationship between agent Greer and his wife (played by Rosamund Pike), presumably meant to add depth to Willis’ character, feels tedious and unnecessary. A monotonous score telegraphs every decisive moment in the film, ensuring that even the most oblivious viewer is aware that something important is about to happen. And despite director Mostow’s obvious proficiency with visual effects — both practical and digital — some set pieces look cheaply rendered.

PARTING SHOT

There are dozens — dozens — of car crashes in Surrogates, yet not a single airbag deploys. The future, it seems, has no place for proper automobile safety

ZOMBIELAND REVIEW

2009-10-04T22:47:00.000-07:00

WHAT’S IT ABOUT?

An American wasteland overrun by undead monsters provides the ideal setting for outrageous comedy in Zombieland, the debut feature from writer/director Ruben Fleischer. Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg play two human survivors who employ contrasting approaches to staving off the pesky flesh-eaters. Eisenberg’s Columbus is a neurotic worry-wart with a distinct obsessive-compulsive streak and a nagging case of irritable bowel syndrome who survives in Zombieland by adhering to a strict set of rules. Harrelson’s Tallahassee, on the other hand, is a whiskey-swilling cowboy who has no apparent rules of any kind, only a vast arsenal of weapons and an insatiable craving for Twinkies. After encountering each other on a deserted highway, the two opposites decide to join forces, if only to stave off the maddening solitude of Zombieland. But their numbers soon double when, during an abortive Twinkies expedition at an abandoned supermarket, they’re surprised to find a pair of enterprising young girls, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), hiding out in the stockroom. (All the characters are named after their hometowns, if you haven’t figured that out already.) Though their relationship gets off to a rough start (the seemingly innocent girls rob the gullible boys not once, but twice), the unlikely quartet become fast friends, and together embark on the perilous journey out west — to an abandoned theme park thought to be the only zombie-free sanctuary left on the planet.

THE VERDICT

It may be tempting to compare Zombieland to Shaun of the Dead, thus far the most successful zombie-themed horror-comedy to date, but Fleischer’s film bears little resemblance to UK director Edgar Wright’s indie classic. At its core, Zombieland is really a road-trip comedy in the vein of Vacation, Dumb and Dumber or, well, Road Trip, in which our heroes travel cross-country on a quest, encountering various obstacles along the way. In this case, the obstacles happen to be ravenous, cannibalistic zombies. And it works, thanks largely the charisma and chemistry of its lead actors and the irreverent wit of Fleischer, who proves that there are still plenty of laughs to be gleaned from the increasingly well-worn zombie oeuvre. The real hero of Zombieland, however, is Bill Murray. Just when the film exhausts its momentum and starts to meander, the legendary star of Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day arrives unexpectedly on the scene, delivering what is bound to be the most talked-about surprise cameo since Will Ferrell showed up at the end of Wedding Crashers. The presence of Murray and his trademark acerbic, deadpan style injects Zombieland with a welcome jolt of energy, giving it just enough gas to carry us through to the closing credits. (FYI: This is hardly a spoiler — Murray’s cameo is listed on IMDB.)

PARTING SHOT

Zombieland isn’t concerned about messages or metaphors or stern warnings about the future in which society is headed; it just wants to make you laugh and have a good time. In that sense, it’s an unqualified success.

THE HANGOVER REVIEW

2009-09-23T03:45:00.000-07:00

I have no one but myself to blame for spoiling part of The Hangover experience by watching too many clips and trailers before seeing the film. If you haven't yet seen every clip out there, I strongly suggest you hold off until after watching the movie. Although the trailer and clips don't completely ruin the experience, The Hangover's one of those comedy's where it's best to go in knowing as little as possible. That way the surprises are bigger, the pay-offs are much more hilarious, and the 'what the hell oh no they didn't' moments - which there are a ton of - work on a grander scale.

The basic premise is a tried and true one. Guys take off for a rowdy weekend to celebrate the impending end of their buddy's life as a single dude. But The Hangover explores everything that could possibly go wrong in such a completely riotous way that even what's old feels new again. And even the jokes that don't quite work are at least played out to the full extent. Nothing's held back and no subject matter is off limits. And if you stay for the credits, you'll see some things you may never have seen before in a big studio feature film. I'm not saying it's stuff you'd necessarily want to ever, ever see again. It's just different and even kind of envelope-pushing.

The Story

Junior high school teacher Phil (Bradley Cooper), dentist Stu (Ed Helms) and the wacky man-child Alan (Zach Galifianakis) join Doug (Justin Bartha) for a roadtrip to Vegas a couple of days before his wedding. Phil's the unofficial leader of the group, Stu is the voice of reason, and Alan...well, he's just plain weird. So this motley group checks in to Caesar's Palace and makes their way to the roof for a toast to the impending loss of Doug's bachelorhood. Flash forward eight or so hours and it appears as though all hell has broken loose in their hotel suite.

Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper in 'The Hangover.'

Stu comes to on the floor next to a chicken (why? we'll never know) missing a tooth and without a single memory of how he spent last night. Same goes for Alan who, clad only in his undies, stumbles into the bathroom only to be forced into a fully awakened state by the appearance of a tiger. Phil's in no better shape, although he does escape having a startling encounter with an animal as his first conscious thought after coming to. A chair is smoldering away, the place looks like a tornado blasted through it, Doug's nowhere to be found, and there's a baby - yes, a baby - in a closet. And not one of these guys remembers anything.

And so The Hangover takes off from there. Retracing their steps, the guys discover their time in Vegas was loaded with some of the most bizarre encounters and events imaginable. And if you haven't seen the trailer, I'm not going to blow any surprises for you here by going into all the juicy details of their night on the town. Suffice it to say, their exploits symbolize what makes 'what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas' such a powerfully important edict.

The Cast

You know, there's not a bad apple in the The Hangover bunch. Bradley Cooper's usually the best friend or part of the ensemble and although this is also an ensemble piece, Cooper's given more to work with here than in most of his previous films. Cooper takes full advantage of the opportunity, fully embracing the role of a married teacher who may look like a player on the prowl but who really is a dedicated family man just out for one night of unadulterated fun. Zach Galifianakis is annoyingly funny as a clueless guy with a surprisingly good heart hidden under layers of social ineptness. And The Office's scene-stealing Ed Helms is terrific as Stu the dentist, a guy who finds his orderly world turned on its head when he wakes up without an incisor and wed to a stripper. Of all the characters in The Hangover, it's really Stu you're empathizing and connecting with. You want him to grow a pair and get rid of his harpy girlfriend (played by Rachael Harris), and you root for him to come out of this weekend nightmare stronger for having gone through the experience.

The Hangover also benefits from some strong comedic performances in supporting roles including Bartha as the missing for most of the film groom-to-be, Heather Graham as Stu's stripper wife, Ken Jeong (seen naked in the trailer) as the film's villain, and Mike Tyson as Mike Tyson. Who knew the heavyweight had a sense of humor and enough acting ability to not make a fool of himself onscreen?

The Bottom Line

Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms in 'The Hangover.'

The Hangover has a Judd Apatow-esque style to it and blends well the raunchy comedy with screwball antics and a little heart (contributed by Helms' character, Stu). It's also got some surprisingly difficult and hilarious action scenes that you wouldn't expect from a comedy about three hungover guys in Vegas.

A baby, a tiger, a chicken, and Mike Tyson (no, that's not the beginning of a 'So, a...walked into a bar' joke) contribute a lot of absurdity and laughs to this over-the-top R-rated comedy directed by the guy who brought us Old School. The Hangover's nutty, naughty fun that never takes itself the least bit seriously.

GHOSTS OF GIRL FRIENDS PAST REVIEW

2009-09-23T03:42:00.001-07:00

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a spirited twist on the Dickens story A Christmas Carol that had me laughing more than any other comedy released (thus far) in 2009. It's smart, charming, sticky sweet in places, and it's got a bit more of a bite to it than most romantic comedies. Plus, it has Matthew McConaughey playing a total cad, a role which the rom com veteran was able to slip into quite nicely.

Definitely one just for the ladies, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past hits theaters the same day as Hugh Jackman's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a good, strategic move to place Ghosts opposite a film that skews toward the men as women won't feel bad about leaving their males to fend for themselves while they take in this above average chick flick.

The Story

Connor Mead is a professional photographer who likes his women beautiful, easy, and not too clingy. Connor's got no desire whatsoever to settle down having learned at a young age from his now deceased playboy uncle, Wayne (Michael Douglas), that there's no need to settle for one fish when there's so many in the sea to choose from. Connor's a one night stand kind of guy who has no intention of changing.

Emma Stone and Matthew McConaughey in 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.'

But as in A Christmas Carol, someone needs to learn a hard lesson and in this rendition of the classic Dickens story it's Connor's turn to take a romp through his past, get a peak at the present without anyone knowing he's there, and see what the future holds in store for him if he doesn't change his ways. All this happens after he gives his baby brother one of the worst rehearsal dinner toasts ever uttered by a human being. Uncle Wayne appears, tells him to pay attention to three spectral visitors, and wise up before it's too late. Uncle Wayne was a party animal to the end, which Connor appreciates and emulates, but he died a lonely man because he never found love. Wayne doesn't want that to happen to his nephew and is willing to go to great lengths to make sure Connor's eyes are opened to the possibility of romance and true love.

The Cast

Matthew McConaughey has done his share of romantic comedies, most recently a generic rom com that didn't sit well with audiences (the disappointing Fool's Gold). But Ghosts of Girlfriends Past steps outside the cookie cutter mold and lets McConaughey pour all of his considerable charm into the role of a player who, despite his raffish behavior, is deep down a guy who wants to be in a relationship - although it takes three ghosts to get him to recognize the fact.

Jennifer Garner, also a veteran of the genre, is the perfect yin to McConaughey's yang. Garner's Jenny (the only woman Connor ever lasted more than a few days dating) is solid and responsible. McConaughey's Connor's got a devil may care attitude and is completely unreliable. Both actors fit snugly in these roles which seem taylor made for their talents. And they have a surprising amount of chemistry - I would never have pictured these two together prior to Ghosts but it actually works well.

The supporting cast includes Breckin Meyer as McConaughey's monogamist brother who is the only one that wants Connor around for the wedding, Lacey Chabert as Meyer's bride-to-be who gets into bridezilla mode as Connor screws up the wedding plans, and Noureen DeWulf as Connor's patient, long-suffering assistant - the one female who doesn't succumb to Connor's charms. All are given their moments to shine, but it's Emma Stone as the Ghost of Girlfriends Past who absolutely steals this film away from everyone, including McConaughey and Garner. When Stone's on the screen, Ghosts is at its brightest and funniest. As an over-the-top, lost in the '80s dynamo, Stone chews up the scenery and makes the best of every single second of her screen time.

The Bottom Line

Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner in 'Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.'

Timing-wise, the beginning of May isn't a bad time to drop a romantic comedy into theaters. But it is a little strange that this one has Christmas release written all over it and yet we're seeing it at the start of summer. The snowy setting is understandable as it's a take off on A Christmas Carol and in fact one of the most memorable lines from the film involves McConaughey waking up after his ghostly visits, throwing open his window and yelling down to a boy shoveling snow - a scene lifted from A Christmas Carol - but the boy's response is priceless and unique to Ghosts.

Yes, this is a boy meets girl, boy loses girl (actually boy leaves girl), and boy tries his best to get girl back story. But there's more to it than that. The writing is impressive and snappy, and McConaughey and Garner make for quite an onscreen team. Director Mark Waters (Freaky Friday, Mean Girls) keeps the tone light even when the subject matter turns heavy. Waters doesn't let Ghosts of Girlfriends Past take itself too seriously, while at the same time he never plays down to his target audience. We don't see McConaughey roaming around needlessly shirtless. The jokes aren't cheap and don't come at the expense of a generic romantic comedy supporting player.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past goes from lightheartedly fluffy comedy to a bittersweet tale of love lost and love found without ever turning sappy. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is fun, fast-paced, and a refreshingly different sort of romantic comedy.

FIGHTING

2009-09-13T05:15:00.003-07:00

See Fighting for the fight scenes and you're bound to be disappointed. A better title might have been Talking as fighting plays second fiddle, maybe even third fiddle, in this gritty tale set in the world of New York street fighting. Written and directed by Dito Montiel and starring Channing Tatum - their second collaboration (the first being A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints) - Fighting is more interested in who its characters are and their motivation for taking to the streets, than it is in living up to the audience's expectation of action.

While fighting dominates Fighting's trailer, it is not the focal point of the film itself. This one's more about the struggles of two troubled men, and that may make those who came just for the action sequences impatient and antsy. Montiel doesn't rush through the story and those wanting basically a MMA match onscreen are barking up the wrong tree - actually, they'll find themselves sitting in the wrong theater.

The Story

Tatum plays Shawn MacArthur, a recent transplant from Alabama to New York who gets by selling questionable items at a make-shift stand on a NY street. Terrence Howard is a much more street-wise and savvy hustler named Harvey who sets his pack of no-gooders on Shawn, snatching up the small amount of money he earned and sending potential customers scurrying away. Shawn doesn't take this invasion of his sales space lying down, and delivers a beating on Harvey's young cohorts that sets Harvey's mind to spinning. It's easy to see Shawn's got fighting skills and this makes Harvey think twice about the kid they just robbed.

Channing Tatum and Zulay Henao in 'Fighting.'

Sure that Shawn has a future in the underground world of high stakes street fighting, Harvey - fairly easily - convinces Shawn to let him set up some fights so they both can earn some decent cash. The catch: the loser of these fights walks away with nothing but a broken body. Only the winner is paid off, but that pay-off can be huge. Shawn goes for it as he's desperately in need of lots of money. Why? we're never really let in on that answer.Although Shawn's a bit of a hot head with father issues, he's also got a softer side to him which is revealed in his courting of Zulay (played by Zulay Henao). Shawn acts the gentleman, even dealing with an overprotective grandmother (the scene-stealing Altagracia Guzman) who doesn't want a guy who looks like a hoodlum anywhere near her pretty granddaughter. But when he's fighting, Shawn's single-mindedly focused on pummeling his opponent, using mixed martial arts moves and any available handy object that could inflict some damage.

Harvey sets up fights, Shawn does his thing, and they're both on their way to the biggest payday of their lives. But of course there are obstacles blocking their path to the fight of Shawn's life. Some obstacles present themselves in the form of managers of their opponents; some are inner demons they have yet to face down. And because this isn't just about fighting, there's a lot of talking that has to be done and a lot of deep thought must take place before the big showdown can occur.

The Bottom Line

Channing Tatum and Terrence Howard are a formidable onscreen team, and Zulay Henao isn't just a pretty face in the male-dominated production. Montiel gets the best out of Henao and Tatum (Saints is still Tatum's best work to date), but it's Howard that holds this film together with his performance. Howard's Harvey is a hustler who knows his limits and a guy who lives by an interesting code of ethics. Howard is quietly contemplative in moments where other's would have taken the character big, and in that restraint Howard shows just how talented he is.There's a natural flow to the dialogue that suggests most of what's spoken on screen was improvised. Conversations sound like real conversations. There are mistakes in wording, moments of silence as characters collect their thoughts, and some lines are stumbled over and mumbled through. The quieter moments in which Shawn talks with Harvey about his background and his needs, or when Shawn tries to work his way into Zulay's life by playing nice with her grandmother, make it feel as though we're flies on the wall in apartments of real people. Nothing's rushed. The dialogue isn't there just to feed the way into another action scene.

Terrence Howard and Channing Tatum in 'Fighting.'

While the dialogue was stellar and the acting was terrific, the actual storyline left a lot to be desired. There are gaps in logic throughout the film that are never plugged. When does Shawn work out? He looks cut, but the only time we see him do anything to get in shape is a brief segment on a deserted train in which he does a few minutes of exercise. Also, the first fight scene is more like a dance than hand-to-hand combat and it looks staged. On the other hand, the final fight is down and dirty and ruthlessly violent and almost painful to watch. The contrast between the two is astonishing, and Fighting would have been a better film had Montiel captured all the action the way he did in the film's big action showdown.

FRIED UP

2009-09-13T05:15:00.002-07:00

About halfway through Fired Up, the totally inept cheerleading comedy directed by Will Gluck, the characters in the film sit down for a screening of Bring It On!. They know all the words and repeat them in a reverent whisper as they worship at the altar of arguably the best teen cheerleading comedy. As the camera pans back and forth between Bring It On! and the Fired Up crowd, sitting in a darkened theater surrounded by actual high school cheerleaders it was impossible for me not to wish for the ability to stop the camera from ever returning to Fired Up.

Oh, the wicked sense of humor first time feature film director Gluck and screenwriter Freedom Jones have! Surely they laughed manically after putting together the film knowing full well how painful it was going to be for the audience to be teased with that glimpse of a much, much better film of the genre and then slammed back into the madness and mess that is Fired Up.I actually was under the mistaken belief going into the screening of Fired Up that this film with the flimsiest of plots (think Wedding Crashers but without the laughs) was about college students. I must have just tuned out the part of the trailers that stressed this was a movie about high schoolers. Maybe it was the fact the lead actors, Eric Christian Olsen and Nicholas D'Agosto, are way out of their teen years that threw me off. Olsen is 31. D'Agosto is 28, but could maybe pass for a high school senior in a pinch if there weren't any teen actors out there capable of tackling a starring role in Fired Up. But, based on what I saw onscreen, anyone who'd ever graced the stage in a high school production could have handled his part. It wouldn't have mattered. The dialogue and direction sabotaged any chance any actor would have had in making this movie work.

The Story

Olsen and D'Agosto play Nick and Shawn, two horndog football players who decide to pass on football training camp in the hot desert and attend cheerleading camp instead. There will be hotties galore, plenty of opportunities to score, and they won't have to put up with a football coach who says sh*t so often that he's a walking drinking game.

Sarah Roemer (center) in 'Fired Up.'

So they make it to cheerleader camp after convincing their school's squad that by golly they DO like handsprings and splits and basket tosses more than tossing around the pigskin and getting hammered by big guys in shoulder pads. The only one not really buying into their act is Carly (Sarah Roemer, Disturbia). Carly's the head cheerleader and even though her squad sucks – they always finish dead last in competition – she's leery about Nick and Shawn's motives.Because Fired Up does nothing to break out of its totally generic plot bubble, Shawn falls for Carly who, despite being the smartest girl at the cheerleading camp, has a douchebag for a boyfriend. 'Dr. Rick' as he calls himself because he's in med school (yes, that's the level of jokes in Fired Up) is blatantly obnoxious and using Carly (even a toddler could figure that out), but she is blind to his faults. Meanwhile, Nick's hot for teacher. And then it all wraps up with people learning lessons and everyone competing in the big cheerleading competition, which, by the way, is horribly shot so even that aspect of the film is totally unsatisfying.

The Cast

Olsen and D'Agosto can't rise above the script, although they do at least seem to have tried their best to bring this turkey to life. Both have great comedic timing and as a buddy team, they would do well in a film that actually allowed them to be real people rather than just caricatures of teen movie types. Roemer's fine though she doesn't have much to do. John Michael Higgins' funny performance as the head of the cheerleading camp is just wasted in this mess. And Molly Sims, as Higgins' wife and the teacher who Nick sets his sights on, is not given anything to do other than look pretty. No one else in the cast makes enough of an impression to deserve a mention.

The Bottom Line

This film's full of quips and lines obviously written down and recited on cue. There's not a natural bit of dialogue in Fired Up. It's also loaded with pretty young girls with perfect bodies who apparently sleep with any member of the opposite sex who hands them a line. Fired Up is definitely not about female empowerment. And as if making all the female characters look like easy bimbos wasn't bad enough, Fired Up shows us that these cheerleaders have no self-esteem, no winning attitude, and are totally lost without two football players moving in on their turf and turning their lives around.

Nicholas D'Agosto and Sarah Roemer in 'Fired Up.'

And I just have to get back to this age issue one more time because it bothered me while I was suffering through the screening. At least twice Olsen makes cracks about Molly Sims' age. In reality, they are just a couple of years apart. Making it worse, Olsen and Sims look the same age onscreen. It's just bizarre to me that after hiring Olsen for the role, the age jokes weren't just cut out of the script.Because it's 'cute', the cheerleaders repeatedly chant FU and that's supposed to be funny. It's also supposed to be funny that all male cheerleaders - except the two football players masquerading as cheerleaders - are gay. And a coach who cusses (but doesn't use the f-word – this is only a PG-13 film) is also the height of hilarity. Are we really this hard up for comedy that Fired Up's tired jokes make us laugh? Please let the answer be no. Avoid Fired Up and rent Bring It On!. You'll save yourself a headache.

FAST AND FURIOUS

2009-09-13T05:08:00.003-07:00

Fast and Furious features the foursome who starred in the first film of the car-crazy franchise, The Fast and the Furious, back together again for the first time since that 2001 hit. But the fact Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster reunite for this third sequel isn't enough to make this latest Fast movie outgun the previous three films. Unfortunately for Fast fans, this one runs out of gas early on, hits speed bump after speed bump in its mid-section, and then stalls itself out way before reaching the finish line.

The Story

Dom (Diesel) is still wanted by the law when we catch up with him and Letty (Rodriguez) at the beginning of Fast and Furious. Fugitives from justice, Dom and his main squeeze/accomplice are hiding out in the Dominican Republic, hanging with a new gang and make a living outside the law. But when Dom gets word the cops are closing in on his illegal operation, he hightails it out of there – and out of Letty's life – so that his girl and his buddies won't be sucked down with him.

Michelle Rodriguez in 'Fast and Furious.'

Of course leaving your girl behind and sneaking off in the middle of the night without even saying good-bye is never a good idea. When Dom leaves, Letty heads back to the U.S. and that's what ultimately prompts Dom to return home, despite the fact he's still a wanted man. Something drastic occurs (no spoilers here) and Dom's sister Mia (Brewster) needs her brother by her side. And once Dom's back on United States turf he quickly discovers he has the same goal as his old nemesis, FBI Agent Brian O'Conner (Walker). That leads to lots of posturing, angry exchanges, and zooming around in fast cars for the most ludicrous of reasons.

The Bottom Line

There's not a single member of the large ensemble cast who's able to rise above what they were given with the Fast and Furious script. And although it should be fun to see Walker and Diesel square off, that joy is ruined by an absurd plot that makes little or no sense.

Paul Walker and Jordana Brewster share a quiet moment in 'Fast and Furious.'

It would be sort of okay to forget about applying a logical storyline to Fast and Furious given that most people who pay for a ticket to a film of The Fast and the Furious franchise aren't doing so to watch Shakespeare performed onscreen. No, you buy your ticket, you expect some fantastic, white-knuckle car chases. Toss a few scantily clad women into the background of a scene and then let the engines rev and the tires burn rubber. That's what Fast fans are really after, but too little of that is delivered in Fast and Furious.

EXTRACT

2009-09-13T05:08:00.002-07:00

Writer/director Mike Judge's latest film, Extract, is loaded with unlikeable characters doing silly, irresponsible things. However, if Extract was half as funny as Judge's Office Space, I could forgive its characters' shortcomings and its lame plot. But Extract can't hold a candle to Office Space. People still quote Office Space today, 10 years after that film's release. Odds are moviegoers won't remember a single line from Extract upon exiting the theater.

The Story

Jason Bateman plays Joel Reynolds, owner of an extract factory where incompetence is the norm and where employees apparently must flunk aptitude tests in order to be hired. The main players in this factory world are Mary (Beth Grant), a harpy who complains about everything, Rory (TJ Miller), a wannabe rocker who should be the last person on earth allowed to drive a forklift, and Step (Clifton Collins Jr), a hard-working simpleton whose goal in life is to be placed in charge of the factory's floor.By the time we meet Joel, he's ready to hand over his company and its collection of idiots to a big corporation. General Mills wants to buy him out, and Joel's overjoyed by the prospect of saying adios to the world of extracts. But Joel's plans of an early retirement are put in jeopary when Rory and Mary disobey every workplace safety regulation and cause poor Step to lose a testicle.

Now Step, being the good ol' boy that he is, only wants the insurance pay-out and to get back to work. But no, into the picture pops con artist cutie, Cindy (Mila Kunis). Cindy weasels her way into a temp job at the factory and into Step's life, scamming to get rich quick by convincing Step to sue Joel. If Step gets paid, then Cindy figures she'll get paid too by convincing Step she's the love of his life.

Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig play a married couple with relationship issues.

Of course, Joel, being married to a woman who won't have sex often and never past 8pm, falls for Cindy without knowing what she's up to. And Joel's best friend, Dean (Ben Affleck looking all scruffy), is about as big an idiot as anyone on Joel's staff, so the solution he comes up with involves hiring a gigolo (Dustin Milligan) to seduce Joel's wife - and taking drugs. All sorts of drugs, some in massive quantities.

The Bottom Line

Getting stoned by way of a really big bong is always funny, right? Umm, no. And repeating the same set-up over and over again because it's bound to pay off at least once is the way to win over audiences, right? No again. And limiting the two funniest characters to sporadic appearances and too-short scenes is the way to really elicit laughs, right? You get the point here by now. Extract is guilty of pushing what doesn't work too far while veering sharply away from anything that looks like it might have actually gone somewhere interesting.

I wanted to laugh. I was ready to laugh, but Extract let me down. It also let down the cast of usually very funny actors, in particular Kristen Wiig as Bateman's 'once the sweatpants are on, there's no chance in hell of sex' wife. She's wasted here. Same can be said of J.K. Simmons as Bateman's business partner. The only actor who makes an impression, and it's because his character is annoying - and relatable - is David Koechner. Koechner plays Nathan, Joel's stalker-ish neighbor who, on a nightly basis, waylays Joel and prevents him from making it home by the 8pm sex curfew.

Ben Affleck and Jason Bateman

The further into the realm of ridiculousness Extract pushes, the less funny it gets. Even the ever-charming and usually dependable Jason Bateman winds up a victim of a thin plot and jokes that lack a real punch. For a movie set in a food flavoring factory, Extract's half-baked comedy is bland and unappetizing.

DUPLICITY

2009-09-13T05:03:00.003-07:00

If you feel the need to grab a pen and paper and chart out what's happening onscreen while watching Duplicity, you're not alone. This is a film that demands you pay attention – forget the bathroom, soda and popcorn breaks – for its entirety. Duplicity, the latest adult drama from Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), is a crazy spy vs spy tale of intrigue and corporate espionage that works well due mostly to the chemistry of its two leads – Clive Owen and Julia Roberts.

Duplicity plays a bait and switch game with its viewers, pushing one plot twist after another at the audience. First it's the story of rival agents, then it's a sophisticated romantic comedy, and finally it flips the story on its head in an attempt to pull off a real ah-ha moment. Which, if you play along and don't analyze or spend time poking holes in the logic, is kind of a fun little twist. But if you're unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt, then you'll feel duped by Duplicity. The film's definitely one which will divide audiences. Either you go along with the playfulness of the plot or you won't like the film.

The Story

Clive Owen in 'Duplicity.'

Paul Giamatti plays Dick Garsik, the head honcho of a company that churns out all sorts of cosmetics and hair products and such. Tom Wilkinson is Howard Tully, the bigwig of a rival company. Since both companies serve the same market, one beating the other to the punch on a new product can mean the difference between a profitable year and a negative one. As the war between the two companies heats up, former MI6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) takes a job at Garsik's company. Meanwhile ex-CIA officer Claire Stenwick (Roberts) has already been working with Tully to make sure his company's secrets don't fall into enemy hands.Backing up a bit, we find out early on that Ray and Claire have a history. He picked her up at a party; she got the upper-hand after a night in bed, drugged him, stole a secret document and left him without saying good-bye. Ray's had it out for Claire ever since. But things are not as they seem. Ray and Claire are both looking to cash in on the rivalry between the multinational corporations, which leads to much double-dealing, double-crossing, and some juicy romantic encounters.

The Cast

In Closer, Clive Owen and Julia Roberts played a married couple with major relationship issues. That film, directed by Mike Nichols, had Owen and Roberts playing angry and suspicious. This film lets the chemistry between Owen and Roberts shine through. Given some real saucy dialogue and a chance to partake in some old school pillow talk, Owen and Roberts are entertaining and engaging.In supporting roles, Giamatti and Wilkinson make for believable ruthless corporate heads who'll stop at nothing to get the drop on their primary competitors. Also helping to sell this tale of rival spies at rival companies are Lisa Roberts Gillan, Dan Daily, Oleg Stefan, Denis O'Hare, Tom McCarthy, and Carrie Preston. Preston (True Blood) steals a scene right from under Julia Roberts in one of the film's funnier moments.

Julia Roberts in 'Duplicity.'

The Bottom Line

The setting could have been banking (but Owen just did that in The International) or any other milieu in which major corporations play high-stakes games of one-upmanship. The fact Duplicity is set in the world of cosmetics only serves to make the set-up that much funnier.Duplicity is fast-paced, a little confusing, but ultimately a decent new entry in the lengthy list of con-man films.

DEFIANCE

2009-09-13T05:03:00.002-07:00

Daniel Craig will always be associated with the James Bond film franchise having tackled the lead role in two highly successful Bond movies (with a few more on the horizon). Craig's superb as the super-spy and boy can he handle action scenes. But Craig's not just Bond. He's taken on a diverse collection of film roles over the past 15 years, delivering outstanding performances as a killer in Infamous, a member of the Israeli team assembled after the massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich, and a business man never referred to by name whose plans for retirement from the drug trade are put on hold in Layer Cake.

Craig adds yet another exceptional performance to his resume with his starring role in the dramatic thriller, Defiance, set in 1941. Directed by Edward Zwick (Glory, Blood Diamond) and adapted for the screen by Zwick and Clay Frohman from the non-fiction book by Nechama Tec, Defiance tells the true story of three brothers - Tuvia, Zus and Asael Bielski - who beat incredible odds and ultimately kept thousands of Jews safe from being murdered by the Nazis and their supporters.Defiance is an absolutely heartbreaking and heroic tale, and one that hadn't seen the light of day on the big screen prior to this film. The real Bielski brothers never sought fame or recognition for their bravery and so this is one true story that will be new to most moviegoers. And it's definitely one that deserves to be shared with a worldwide audience as the Bielskis accomplished the near-impossible and saved untold lives.

The Story

Tuvia (Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber), and Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell) escaped into the forest surrounding their family's home in Stankevich (now Belarus) after discovering Nazi collaborators had murdered their parents. Farmers by trade, the brothers were capable, resourceful men able to live off the land. But the Bielskis didn't just want to hide out and try to survive the massacre of their fellow Jewish citizens. The brothers wanted to avenge the deaths of their family and friends and did so by saving men, women, children, and the elderly from falling into the hands of the Nazis and their supporters.

Jamie Bell and Liev Schreiber in 'Defiance.'

At the urging (basically under the direct order of) Tuvia, the oldest brother, anyone seeking food and shelter was accepted into the Bielskis' shelter in the forest. Zus initially wasn't a supporter of Tuvia's plan to take in all refugees, believing they would weaken the group's chances at survival. But Tuvia prevailed and the gathering grew into a society of 1,000+ people, all tasked with working to help the group survive. Temporary housing was built, booby traps were set out to protect the camp, and those capable of handling a gun patrolled the settlement's perimeter. The refugees survived by dealing with farmers and other merchants sympathetic to their situation as well as stealing resources meant for the army.Tuvia, the group's leader, did whatever was necessary to keep order in this makeshift community. He had strict rules everyone in the community had to adhere to and punishment for disobeying could be brutal. But whatever Tuvia did, he did for the good of this group which became known as the Bielski otriad. Thousands who would have perished in the Holocaust lived as the direct result of his actions.

The Cast

Surprisingly, the fact Craig, Schreiber, and Bell in no way resemble brothers doesn't distract from the film. Craig and Schreiber play tough as nails men who butt heads but also obviously love and respect each other. Jamie Bell is slight in build and seems slightly out of place, but his presence is strong enough to carry off the part of the younger brother who finds love in this makeshift community.

Mark Feuerstein and Allan Corduner deliver fine performances as intellectuals whose appearances in scenes allow the audience to take a step back from the action and brutality, and to see the situation through the eyes of men who put everything into perspective. And Alexa Davalos, Iben Hjejle, and Mia Wasikowska are each terrific in the film's key female roles.

The Bottom Line

I haven't read Nechama Tec's book, Defiance: The Bielski Partisans, and so I can't say with any certainty how closely Zwick and Frohman stuck to the source material. As with most films based on books, artistic license was probably taken to make the story flow cinematically. In interviews, Craig and Schreiber said in actuality there was much more brutality and killing than is portrayed in the film. And I have to believe Zwick and Frohman added in more romance than Tec's book revealed. But the basic story is supposedly much the same as how it played out back in 1941.

Liev Schreiber and Daniel Craig in 'Defiance.'

It's incredible to me that I knew nothing about this story after all these years and all these tales of heroics by Germans keeping Jewish citizens safe (such as recounted in Schindler's List). Filmed in the forest outside of Vilnius, Lithuania instead of on a soundstage to add as much realism as possible to this retelling of the Bielskis' story, Defiance is a compelling human drama of revenge, honor, hope, and survival. It's also an engaging action film, although the action never overwhelms the story. Craig, Schreiber and Bell give performances that remind us this is above all the story of men making a stand during one of the bleakest moments in history.

DISTRICT 9

2009-09-13T05:02:00.001-07:00

District 9 was made by a first time feature filmmaker, stars a guy no one outside of his family (and hometown) know much about, and was done for a budget of around $30 million. That combination of elements adds up to one of the best sci-fi films of the decade and one of the most entertaining movies of 2009. Writer/director Neill Blomkamp shows talent and imagination as he delivers one of the more intelligent, engaging, and original films to hit theaters in quite a while.

Back in 2006 Neill Blomkamp had been tapped to direct a Halo movie for Universal Studios and 20th Century Fox, with Peter Jackson producing. Blomkamp had only directed commercials and short videos prior to being handed what looked like the opportunity of a lifetime, but before long 20th Century Fox put the Halo film on hold. That move, fortunately for moviegoers, didn't signal the end of a Blomkamp and Jackson collaboration.Jackson asked Blomkamp if he had any other ideas for movies and Blomkamp suggested this story of aliens stranded in Johannesburg. And after watching District 9, you can't help but wish Blomkamp had been allowed to move forward with Halo. What he does with $30 million on District 9 rivals any CG effects film Hollywood's popped out in the last dozen years. And effects aside, District 9 shows real heart and soul, something sorely lacking in most 2009 big-budget summer releases. See Hollywood, this is what can be accomplished for a reasonable budget at the hands of a true storyteller.

The Story

27 years ago an alien spacecraft came to a halt over Johannesburg. Breaking into the ship, it was discovered the extraterrestrial creatures onboard were in horrible shape and had to be evacuated from their ship to a special fenced-in area (detainment camp/ghetto) referred to as District 9. Flash forward to the present and these 'prawns' (a derogatory nickname based on their crustacean-like appearance) are being forced to vacate their camp by the Multi-National United (MNU) corporation, the entity charged with overseeing alien affairs.

A scene from 'District 9.'

Civil unrest has made it no longer safe for the aliens to be in such close proximity to the citizens of Johannesburg. MNU agents - backed by heavily armed security personnel - go door to door informing the aliens they're being moved, obtaining their signatures on eviction forms to prove they've been notified. This operation is led by Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), a by-the-book young man just promoted to the job of overseeing the transfer of the prawns to District 10. Wikus has a loving wife who just happens to be his boss' daughter, an optimistic attitude, and a thorough knowledge of the rules and regulations regarding all things alien. MNU has a vested interest in keeping the aliens close; they want the powerful weapons the creatures brought with them. But thus far they haven't been able to get a weapon to fire when it's held by a human (they're configured to activate only when in contact with an alien).Through documentary-style footage, we hear Wikus' friends and co-workers talking about the man, and we watch as Wikus conducts his campaign of notifying the aliens they're to be relocated. He's proud as punch to uncover weapons stashes, and equally thrilled to show off how to abort alien babies.

But in one shack, Wikus makes a discovery that changes his life forever. Without disclosing any spoilers (the less you know about District 9 going in, the more you'll enjoy the film), suffice it to say Wikus, a corporate yes-man who toed the party line and committed atrocities against these creatures, learns what it's like to be on the receiving end of his company's mistreatment of aliens.

The Acting

Sharlto Copley does a positively amazing job portraying this twitchy, even unlikable, mid-level manager. Copley's performance is riveting, his commitment to his character's strange arc is nothing less than award-worthy. Wikus goes through an emotional and physical transformation and Copley conveys every change completely convincingly. And you would never know watching the film that Copley was most often acting opposite absolutely nothing. Never once does he waver from making this District 9 world feel like reality.

The Bottom Line

Blomkamp chose to shoot much of the film documentary-style, using handheld cameras and telling the story from the filmmaker's point of view. Many scenes have a news scroll on the bottom portion, adding to the film's gritty realism. Blomkamp's visual style makes you believe this aggression between humans and unwanted alien visitors is going down right here, right now.

A 'District 9' alien

Blomkamp shot the film in his native South Africa and of course it's a commentary on apartheid and the oppression of South Africans under that system. You could substitute any oppressed people for the aliens, but this is in no way a preachy, pushy film. It has many layers, but you can accept it just as an entertaining sci-fi film and be fine with that.District 9 contains some of the most incredible CG creatures ever integrated into a film. These aliens speak using a series of groans and clicks, and look like huge ambulatory shrimp, yet Blomkamp manages to infuse them with individual personalities. The lead prawn, Christopher Johnson, is even more relatable and humane than Wikus.

District 9 doesn't skimp on the action, but it also doesn't sacrifice character development. Masterfully done and totally engaging, District 9 is the perfect finishing touch to the summer action movie season.

CORALINE

2009-09-13T04:49:00.003-07:00

The creepy, kooky film Coraline breaks new ground as the first stop motion animated movie to be shot in 3D. Director Henry Selick's no stranger to the art form having already tackled The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach, and Neil Gaiman's Coraline proves to be the perfect canvass for Selick to show off his skills while taking stop motion animation to a whole new level. Definitely not for everyone – and maybe too scary for kids who frighten easily – Coraline is strange and bizarre and undeniably beautiful.

The Story

Coraline Jones (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is a spunky 11 year old girl who moves into a new apartment with her absent-minded mother (Teri Hatcher) and father (John Hodgman). Her parents are busy writing gardening books and don't have much time to talk to or otherwise pay attention to Coraline, so she takes it upon herself to explore her new surroundings. After checking out an abandoned well in the woods, and meeting and sort of making friends with a pesky kid named Wybie (Robert Bailey Jr), Coraline explores the rooms in her new home and discovers a tiny locked door basically hidden from view.Coraline, being an inquisitive child, goes through the doorway and follows a passage to a house that looks strangely just like her own home. There's even a mom – known as Other Mother - and a dad – called Other Father - inhabiting this Other World who are mirror images of her own real parents but with one major difference: Other Mother and Other Father have buttons for eyes. These big black orbs reveal nothing of what's going on within Other Mother and Other Father's heads, but their words and actions indicate they love Coraline. Other Mother and Other Father want Coraline to stay with them in their world where they promise to lavish love and attention on her in ways her own parents have been neglecting to do.

Wybie (voiced by Robert Bailey Jr.) and Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) in the Other World in 'Coraline.'

At first Coraline's absolutely captivated by these strange people with button eyes who feed her delicious full course meals and really listen to her, something her parents haven't done in quite a while. But as she spends more time in this Other World, Coraline sees the evil behind the button eyes and false smiles.

The Bottom Line

When I walked out of the screening my first thought was, "I have no idea who the target audience for this is." But I actually do know who's going to go for Coraline. I loved it and Nightmare fans will love it, as well anyone who enjoys stop motion animation. The problem is that the first 30 minutes or so play to a young audience while the last hour is definitely aimed at more mature adults. But that doesn't mean younger viewers won't be transfixed by this incredibly detailed, incredibly vivid imaginary world of secret passageways leading to evil faux parents. Coraline could inspire a few nightmares involving creatures with button eyes and ghost children trapped in this world, so it's a tough call for parents on whether or not to let anyone younger than 13 check out this film in theaters.

Coraline's all but certain to be one of the finalists in next year's race for the Best Animated Film Oscar. It's gorgeous and visually fascinating, with its vibrant palette of colors showcasing stop motion animation at its very best. It's also one of the best 3D films ever to hit theaters. In fact the effects in the 3D sequences in which Coraline crawls through the tunnel between the two worlds actually made me a little nauseated. Normally, that's not a selling point for a film, but it does illustrate how real the spinning psychedelic tunnel felt to me as I watched Coraline.Neil Gaiman's book was a twisted tale of a brave young girl who wanders into a strange world inhabited by alternate versions of her mother and father. The book was creepy, but writer/director Selick takes Gaiman's tale and ups the ante by adding an even more eerie, otherworldly tone to the subject matter.

Other Mother (voiced by Teri Hatcher)'s creepy true nature is revealed to Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) in 'Coraline.'

Anyone who owns a copy of The Nightmare Before Christmas is going to want to snatch this one up when it hits DVD, although I suggest Nightmare fans see Coraline in theaters first to get the full effect of the 3D animation.

CONFESSIONS OF A SHOPAHOLIC

2009-09-13T04:49:00.002-07:00

So, we're barely into 2009 and already we've had our share of women in love, lust, or some other sort of relationship that doesn't necessarily show the female gender in the most positive light. Bride Wars served up life-long friends who tore each other to pieces after accidently booking the same wedding date. New in Town found a corporate exec looking down her perky nose at the fine folks of Minnesota before ultimately realizing they are actually people – gasp! And then He's Just Not That Into You showed how women tend to be helpless and hopeless when it comes to matters of the heart.

That's a lot of female-driven films to enter theaters just six weeks into 2009. And of course that's not a bad thing – we women deserve to have Hollywood tune into the fact we will buy tickets to movies if they interest us. But we do deserve better than we've been offered thus far this year.Now, opening over Valentine's Day weekend, comes Confessions of a Shopaholic. Based on the bestselling books by Sophie Kinsella, Confessions of a Shopaholic is out of touch with the current financial market and the overall state of the economy. I can't imagine many moviegoers nowadays breaking out in a "You go, girl," chorus as the film's lead character spends, spends, spends without thinking of the consequences. There is sort of a 'credit is bad, don't spend above your limits' lesson in Confessions of a Shopaholic – if you turn your head sideways and squint a little. But in many other ways, Confessions of a Shopaholic actually promotes buying pretty, sparkly items because buying new things makes one a happy person.

There's undeniably a mixed message spouted by this romantic comedy, yet if we are being totally honest with ourselves, not many of us go to the movies (in particular, to a romantic comedy) to learn important life lessons. We go to be entertained, and Confessions of a Shopaholic is entertaining - mostly thanks to the adorable Isla Fisher who could be this generation's Lucille Ball.

The Story

Hugh Dancy and Isla Fisher in 'Confessions of a Shopaholic'

Fisher plays the shopaholic, Rebecca Bloomwood, a vivacious young woman who hears the siren song of mannequins beckoning her to forget all else and succumb to the pleasures of purchasing designer togs. Rebecca goes deeply into debt but she can't help herself – she needs new dresses and boots and gloves and pants, etc. etc. etc - the problem being she doesn't have the financial means to support her habit. So, with an ever-rising stack of credit card bills the elephant in the room she's trying her best to ignore, Rebecca loses her job as a journalist at an outdoor magazine. But never fear – the handsome, serious-minded Luke Brandon (Hugh Dancy) hires her (without checking her background) to write an advice column for his fledgling financial magazine which is struggling to establish its own identity.Of course Rebecca doesn't want to be working at a financial magazine – her dream job is writing for a high fashion magazine – but she takes Luke up on his job offer, despite the fact she's just about the worst person on the planet to be doling out advice on how to stay out of debt. Hounded by a debt collector she explains off by claiming he's an ex-boyfriend stalking her, and knowing all the while she's ill-equipped to dispense financial advice, Rebecca keeps up the pretense of being this 'tell it like it is but in simple terms a 12 year old could understand' guru while longing for a gig writing about fashion. And to complicate Rebecca's already mixed up life, she falls for her boss who has no idea she's $16,000 in debt.

The Cast

Fisher's just fantastic as the shopping addict who hasn't ever encountered a store she didn't like. Fisher can handle the physical gags as well as the quieter moments in Confessions of a Shopaholic. When she tackles scenes we've witnessed time and again in romantic comedies (running around in high heels, enduring that awkward moment when the guy she likes introduces her to his date, disappointing her best friend by being thoughtless), she makes them seem fresh and unique.Dancy's a handsome Brit who has onscreen chemistry with Fisher. He's not called on to stretch any acting muscles, but he does provide adequate support for Fisher to strut her stuff. Joan Cusack (who is only 13 years older than Fisher) and John Goodman are terrific, though under-used, as Fisher's loving parents. Krysten Ritter, a talented actress who seems to be relegated to best friend roles, is perfectly cast as Fisher's – you guessed it – best friend.

Krysten Ritter and Isla Fisher in 'Confessions of a Shopaholic'

The Bottom Line

Yes, Confessions of a Shopaholic's release in theaters seems ill-timed due to the current disastrous financial predicament we find ourselves in. And yes, this shopaholic's wasteful ways would have been better suited for a film released 10 years ago. But Fisher, under the direction of romantic comedy veteran PJ Hogan (Muriel's Wedding,My Best Friend's Wedding), makes us connect with this film that's ultimately about taking responsibility and admitting your faults. But put aside what it's about, forget trying to interpret the message, and just take Confessions of a Shopaholic for what it is – a goofy, likeable enough chick flick.

BRUNO

2009-09-13T04:44:00.001-07:00

I used the word fearless to describe Sacha Baron Cohen and Borat, and that word applies equally as well to Brüno. But Brüno takes everything to an even crazier level. If Borat offended you, Brüno will leave you flabbergasted and morally outraged. If you believe Borat was the funniest film of 2006, then Brüno is a sure bet for one of the top spots on your list in 2009. Controversial, uncomfortable, and hilarious, Brüno enthusiastically attacks prejudices and intolerance, and tosses in jabs at celebrities who'll do anything for attention just for good measure.

Baron Cohen knows how to tap into what makes us squirm while so thoroughly entertaining us we can't look away. With director Larry Charles once again in charge, Baron Cohen vamps it up as gay Austrian fashionista Brüno, the fired host of an Austrian show called Funkyzeit. Left jobless, Brüno wants nothing more than to achieve worldwide fame and he doesn't care why he's famous or who he has to sleep with to get there.Wearing outlandish outfits, this raging egomaniac is ready to take on more than just the fashion world. Brüno and his assistant, Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), come to America to seek fame. Setting up interviews with celebrities to discuss their charitable activities, Brüno gets American Idol host Paula Abdul to sit on a Mexican landscaper positioned to look like a chair. But she does balk at eating sushi off the naked chest of another gardener. Score one point for Abdul. And when the interviewing gig doesn't propel him into the spotlight, he decides making a sex tape with someone famous is the way to go. Enter politician Ron Paul. But when Brüno starts up the sexy music, lights some candles, and begins gyrating his pelvis, Paul flees the room. However, unfortunately for the politician, he does so while raving about Brüno being "queer". Brüno even tries to get a real terrorist - yes, a real terrorist - to kidnap him. Why? Because terrorists release videos of their hostages and those videos are seen worldwide.

Sacha Baron Cohen as Brüno with his adopted son.

Other set-ups include a visit to a National Guard facility, a camping trip with four good old boys from the South that ends with armed hunters ready to use their weapons on a human target once they find out Brüno's gay, and a visit to a Dallas talk show with Brüno's adopted black baby (one he traded for an iPod in Africa). Brüno even attends a straight swingers party and goes through gay deprogramming when he deduces that being gay may be the reason why he hasn't become an international superstar. In a truly bizarre twist, the real evangelical therapist he turns to looks ready to give into Brüno's sexual advance...Each of these segments has a very specific target for its barbed humor, a target Baron Cohen doesn't gently poke and prod but instead subjects to an un-lubricated anal probing. For some reason, people open up around Brüno, as they did Borat, revealing their prejudices with shockingly blunt statements. But I actually think the most interesting and enlightening of all of Brüno's encounters is when he auditions babies to pose for a photo shoot with his adopted son, OJ. Brüno asks the parents questions you'd think any rational mom or dad would be put off by, and instead these stage parents are ready and willing to subject their children to just about any indignity in order for their child to book a modeling job. Lose 10 pounds in a week? No problem. Are they willing to allow their child to push a wheelbarrow with a Jewish baby toward an oven? Sure, why not?

I can't believe the mothers and fathers not only said yes to these questions but didn't even bat an eye, didn't even take a moment to consider the impropriety of these questions. You've got to wonder how the friends and families of these people are going to react if they see the film. It's a given none of the parents interviewed will ever be named mom or dad of the year.

The Bottom Line

Baron Cohen as Brüno places his sexuality front and center and nothing is held back. There are no closed bedroom doors here or shots that leave what's going on in Brüno's love life up to your imagination. From butt bleaching to miming oral sex to full on bondage, Brüno is limit-pushing R-rated comedy. With lots of full frontal male nudity - some would say too much penis - Brüno is unquestionably outrageous. It's also a little more mean-spirited than Borat. Baron Cohen's Borat was a simple, innocent man trying to get by in a world he knew nothing about. There's nothing innocent about Brüno.

Sacha Baron Cohen as Brüno.

Baron Cohen is fabulous as Brüno, and actually he looks gorgeous in character. I know a lot of women who'd kill for skin that smooth and flawless. And, as I said earlier, Baron Cohen is fearless when it comes to putting himself out there to make a point and get a laugh. Of course there's a lot of controversy over this film and Baron Cohen's portrayal of a flamboyantly gay man. And, yes, in a way he does feed into the stereotype. But so what? The audience gets the point and leaves entertained. It works.

BRIDE WAR

2009-09-13T04:39:00.001-07:00

There seems to be a trend forming of wedding comedies starting off the year. If that's the case, I have a request of Hollywood: Please stop now. If you can't come up with a funnier bridal comedy than Bride Wars, leave the subject alone. Please. I'm asking nicely.

The Story

Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson, two pretty adorable women, take on the lead roles in the chick flick Bride Wars. Hathaway and Hudson are Emma and Liv, best friends forever who turn into catty, shrewish monsters when their weddings are accidentally booked on the same day at the same location - the much sought-after Plaza Hotel in New York. Emma and Liv grew up dreaming about their weddings, picturing themselves walking down the aisle at the Plaza Hotel in all their bridal glory. But that dream turns into a nightmare when they both wind up engaged at around the same time and decide to go together to visit a wedding planner (played by Candice Bergen).The wedding planner's soon-to-be-unemployed assistant screws up booking their June dates, and voila! Liv and Emma won't be available to attend the other's wedding as each will be smack dab in the middle of her own ceremony. That is, they'll be unavailable unless one budges off the date and agrees to having the ceremony performed somewhere other than the Plaza.

Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway in 'Bride Wars.'

But let's back up this tale a bit to fill in some needed info… Liv is a high-powered attorney used to getting her way at all times. Emma is a push-over school teacher who never says no. So obviously it has to be Emma who dons her gown and hoofs it down an aisle not at the Plaza, right? No. Emma for once decides to grow a pair and stands up for herself, shocking Liv and leading to some horrible antics. The BFF go at each other in a myriad of silly ways, some of which lead to blue hair, orange tans, and a five pound weight gain. There's also a bizarre dance off at a strip club that barely deserves mentioning... Seriously, a strip-off to see who's the sexiest bride? Really? Hello - did anyone consider the target audience for this movie when planning out that scene?

The Cast

Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway aren't the problems here. That friendship vibe comes across just fine. And both Hudson and Hathaway can handle the physical comedy aspects of Bride Wars. Supporting player Bergen is regal as the premiere wedding planner of New York, and Kristen Johnston is terrific playing an obnoxious, demanding co-worker of Hathaway's. Johnston delivers some of the film's best lines and her character's one of the most entertaining of the bunch. The acting's not what brings Bride Wars down. It's the plot.

The Bottom Line

We barely get to know the two lovely ladies before they sink their claws into each other, but from what we are able to discern from the opening 15 minutes or so of the movie is that these two women definitely love each other. They've been there for one another their entire lives. That's a given from the information we're provided in the beginning of the film. So when they lose sight of their friendship and become obsessed with having their weddings at the Plaza Hotel, it's more sad than funny. There's something wrong with how quickly they turn on each other.Plus, I have problems with movies in which characters are moseying along all nice and sweet and then suddenly out of nowhere become evil just because it helps progress the plot. That happens with the fiancé of Emma. He's loving and supportive and then suddenly it's as if he took an ugly pill. Where did that come from?

Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway in 'Bride Wars.'

Also, Emma's this sweetheart who'll do anything for anybody, yet she doesn't have a real friend outside of Liv. Emma and Liv share friends, but not a single one sides with Emma even though of the two women she makes a better friend. That doesn't make sense.

Bride Wars is loaded with improbable circumstances and silly little twists. And it doesn't speak well of how women treat each other, although of course there is the requisite 'big lesson learned' moment at the end of the film. There are a few laughs scattered throughout this romantic comedy, but Bride Wars is more mean than funny.

ANGELS AND DEMONS

2009-09-13T04:26:00.001-07:00

I'm thinking Dan Brown's Robert Langdon books weren't meant to be made into movies. They're an enjoyable read, but there's so much backstory to digest, so many minute but important details involving the cases Langdon becomes involved in that neither The Da Vinci Code nor Angels and Demons have translated well into feature films. Plus, whether a conscious decision or just one made to make the films flow smoother cinematically, they're a whitewashed version of Brown's controversial swipes at the Catholic Church.

While Angels and Demons is a better movie than The Da Vinci Code (just the fact Tom Hanks' hairdo doesn't look ridiculous in this film, as it did in Da Vinci Code, is an improvement), it's not nearly as entertaining as the source material. Those who've read Brown's books are likely to walk away from this film sadly disappointed. And for those who haven't read Angels and Demons, the experience isn't going to be all that much better.Without giving anything away, much of the power of the ending of the book Angels and Demons is sadly missing from the film adaptation. And one of the more interesting central characters has been completely removed from the film version. It's an action film minus serious thrills, a whodunit that doesn't pull in the audience the way it needs to.

The Story

The Pope passed away and now it's time to elect a new one. Crowds gather in front of the Vatican and the College of Cardinals is prepared to go into seclusion in order to elect the next leader of the Catholic Church. But wait, there's a huge monkey wrench tossed into their plans: there's a bomb on the premises and the four favorites to be elected Pope are suddenly missing.

Armin Mueller-Stahl and Ewan McGregor in 'Angels and Demons.'

Enter Robert Langdon, noted Harvard symbologist and one of the few people on the planet who has studied the secret organization behind the plot to blow up Vatican City. Langdon knows as much as one can about the Illuminati without actually being a member of the renegade group. He'll have help tracking down clues and trying to find the bomb from a gorgeous scientist (played by Ayelet Zurer). She and her father were employed by CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory, and devised a method to create antimatter, a tiny, tiny amount of which was stolen and is set to explode at midnight. And those cardinals that are missing? Well, the Illuminati will execute one an hour leading up to midnight.So, let's recap Langdon's tasks: Find the clues, follow where they lead, try and save each cardinal before he's killed in a horrifying manner, work around the Church's security personnel who don't really believe in the Illuminati or in the fact they will be annihilated at midnight, try and find the bomb, and then figure out the best way to render it harmless. All this must be accomplished in just a matter of hours, including the research necessary to figure out the Illuminati's secret hiding places - something no one has ever done. Given that Angels and Demons the book is set before The Da Vinci Code (though the film isn't), it's unlikely our hero will perish while trying to save the Vatican.

The Cast

Tom Hanks is fine as Langdon, and it truly is a blessing that he's not being forced to wear that silly wig again. When Hanks was initially cast in the role of Robert Langdon back in 2004, I was skeptical because he isn't anything like how I pictured the character while reading Brown's book. But director Ron Howard knew what he was doing in casting his friend/frequent collaborator in the lead. Both films needed someone charismatic, relatable, and able to talk us through the ins and outs of the hunt, and frankly there aren't that many actors in Hanks' age group who fit that bill.Hanks is the best thing about Angels and Demons. Although he's surrounded by a talented group of supporting players that includes Stellan Skarsgard, Ewan McGregor, and Armin Mueller-Stahl, none makes an impact the way Hanks does. Even his lovely co-star, Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer, doesn't stand out. She's relegated to being a minor player in the film, while in the book her role in the action was greatly expanded.

The Bottom Line

Tom Hanks in 'Angels and Demons.'

Yes, Angels and Demons succeeds in ways The Da Vinci Code failed, but that doesn't mean it's worth devoting your time to in a movie theater. Watching Hanks as Langdon do his impression of a Tasmanian Devil racing all around Rome trying to get to specific Illuminati-related locations in time to stop murders is only mildly fun.

Angels and Demons is bedeviled with problems in logic, the majority of which were spelled out in the book but were lost in translation on the way to the screen. And then there's that final act...one which I won't spell out here...that's a tepid version of the book's. That alone was enough to ruin Angels and Demons for me.

17 AGAIN

2009-09-13T04:21:00.001-07:00

The seriously cute, seriously corny 17 Again is Zac Efron’s first real challenge as an actor outside the safety of the High School Musical cocoon. Sure, he played the heartthrob in Hairspray, but that role didn’t require him to stretch his acting muscles. He sang well and provided teen girls with some eye candy, and that was pretty much all that was required of him. But with 17 Again, Efron actually proves he can handle the lead in a non-musical. Surprise, surprise.

17 Again isn’t ground-breaking cinema. The story’s been done many, many times before and in some cases much, much better. Still, the moral is an important one and if it gets through to even 10% of Efron’s fanbase, then I guess you could say its recycled premise was worth revisiting.

The Story

Matthew Perry plays Mike O’Donnell, a man disappointed with every choice he's made since one fateful day in high school. Sad and bitter, Mike just got passed over for a promotion at work and he’s in the process of divorcing Scarlet (Leslie Mann), his wife of 20 years. The two were high school sweethearts but now Mike seems to believe it’s all Scarlet’s fault he didn't follow his dreams and has become, at least in his mind, a failure.At 17, Mike was a basketball stud on the verge of earning a scholarship to college. However the day the college scouts showed up to watch him play was the same day Scarlet told him she was pregnant. Mike chose to wed his pregnant girlfriend instead of grabbing his one chance at a future in hoops, and has regretted passing up his shot at being something ever since.

Zac Efron and Thomas Lennon in '17 Again.'

Now 37, Mike makes a wish that he could be young again and voila, a ‘spirit guide’/high school custodian makes that wish a reality. Mike wakes up as Zac Efron (because this is a fantasy tale we have to just go with the idea that Perry looked like Efron at 17). Totally confused and weirded out, Mike seeks help from his lifelong best friend, Ned. Ned’s a geeky billionaire with no social life and a house filled with the sort of movie memorabilia every comic book fanboy would kill to own. After a battle involving light sabers and other props, Ned comes to terms with Mike’s sudden regression. Ned thinks the best way to deal with the bizarre transformation is to enroll in the same high school they attended growing up - the same high school where Mike’s two kids now spend their days.At first Mike’s convinced he’s been sent back to change his own destiny. But soon after enrolling in school Mike gets to talk to - really talk to, not talk at - his kids and quickly learns he really knows nothing about them. He also figures out that maybe helping them through the trials and tribulations of their teen years is what his spirit guide actually meant for him to do. That insight leads him back to his old home and back into the life of his soon-to-be-ex-wife who sees an astonishing resemblance between this new kid and the guy she dated in high school. And you just know that all this interaction with his family leads to everyone involved learning significant lessons about life and doing what’s right.

The Cast

Efron’s terrific as Mike, engaging and sweet, and showing real comedic timing. Plus, he actually pulls off the more dramatic moments with surprising success. Thomas Lennon plays nerdy Ned with a lot of gusto, and truth be told Ned’s the most fascinating character of the bunch. 17 Again would have only benefited from more shared screen time between Lennon and Efron. The always dependable Leslie Mann once again shows why audiences just adore her onscreen. Mann helps keep the film real and grounded, playing a strong, determined mom who’s tried her best to save her marriage but who’s prepared to move on when she realizes it’s a lost cause.Melora Hardin as the high school principal and newfound object of Ned’s affection is good though underused. Michelle Trachtenberg as Mike’s kind of wild daughter and Sterling Knight as Mike’s introverted son who blossoms under his 17 year old father’s tutelage are fine in supporting roles.

The Bottom Line

17 Again starts off with a man coping with his failures, living with regret, and dealing with the serious issue of divorce. Then the film goes through a screwball comedy period as Mike pops back into his 17 year old body with unexpected side effects (the boy can’t stop eating, has too much energy, etc.).

Leslie Mann and Zac Efron in '17 Again'

Things turn a bit creepy as his female classmates compete for his attention, his own daughter hits on him, and he discovers he’s still got deep, deep feelings for his soon to be ex-wife that as a 17 year old are highly inappropriate. And then when the lesson has obviously been learned, 17 Again gets all serious and wraps up with a gooey, sweet scene that brings the film back full circle. It’s a predictable story littered with clichéd characters and a few downright ridiculous scenes (no high school bully is going to stand still while the new kid in school delivers a 10 minute monologue on why he’s just a loser hiding behind a thick layer of bravado). But Efron’s got a presence on screen that saves the film from being just another toss-away teen comedy.

Director Burr Steers does a decent job of taking an old concept and making it maybe not feel new, but at least sincere. Still, there’s something stagey about the production that made 17 Again not work for me. Maybe it was kicking the movie off with a basketball game in which Mike joins the cheerleaders for a high energy dance number right before the biggest game of his high school career...

Despite its shortfalls, the teens in the preview audience were into the film, applauding the second Efron appeared onscreen and laughing at the appropriate moments. The adults...well, there were a few chuckles from the non-Zac Efron-adoring crowd.

If all you're looking for is silly escapist entertainment, you could do a lot worse.