Stuporman: “Hancock” is a Horrible Superhero in a Watchable Film

He definitely has the wrong stuff. Will Smith plays Hancock. Hancock is a superhero who isn’t quite so super. I mean he does have the trademark superpowers like flying and super strength and being able to deflect bullets. But he has a really bad attitude. He’s lazy and resembles the bum on the street corner rather than Captain America. He takes his time coming to the rescue and when he does he ends up causing more damage than the city of Los Angles is willing to forgive. This is an interesting concept for a superhero film. The film has its pros and cons but the film mainly works due to Will Smith and Jason Bateman’s good comic timing.

One day Ray Embry (Bateman) is stuck in traffic in the middle of a train track when during which a train just so happens to be barreling down the track. With cars in front of him and behind him and a sticky seatbelt it looks like he’s a goner. That is until LA’s superhero Mr. Personality Disorder Hancock comes to his rescue. Those civilians at the scene are distressed that this superhero has alcohol on his breath and smells bad and caused property damage even though he rescued Ray. It just so happens that Ray is a PR guy and wants to makes things right for Hancock.

Enter Ray’s wife Mary (Charlize Theron) who gives Hancock a weird smirk when she meets him. Perhaps she has a secret she doesn’t want anyone to know. Well if you have half a brain you’ll realize something is up between these two. And if you saw a pivotal sequence of the film being filmed on Hollywood Blvd like I did last September then you’ll know the film’s secrets right from the beginning. But that doesn’t matter too much as the film is so good at not fitting into one specific genre that it makes it worth seeing for that alone. It’s one big cheesy casserole that has all the ingredients: comedy and drama and action and emotion and romance. It’s a superhero film that doesn’t follow the clichés of a superhero film, which means it ultimately feels refreshing in a summer filled with hulks that are incredible, a man made of iron, and a knight that is dark.

If the film has any one flaw it is this. Its director (Peter Berg) insists on instructing his DP (Tobias Schliessler) to shoot his stars in extremely extreme close-ups. I mean back up just a little! Has this guy never heard of a medium shot? Also, the camera is so jittery and shaky (usually a filmmaker’s way of showing the film’s “reality” or “documentary” style) but here it’s frankly just annoying. I mean this isn’t a dramatic war movie this is a summer action movie. It felt forced and unnecessary.

The film really sort of has two distinct halves. The first is the story of a lackluster superhero who is cranky and whiny and Will Smith, who is a really good actor, despite the fact he’s always in a summer blockbuster, really pulls this off. Hancock is not an easy person to like but it’s fun to watch his story unfold. And then we half the second half which to spoil is to ruin the surprise.

This isn’t an easy film to recommend, but I found it easy to digest and entertaining. Bateman is a master at playing the “straight man” stuck in a whirlwind of chaos around him (which he did for three years in the low rated, high praised TV sitcom “Arrested Development”). And as for Charlize, you’ll wonder why this Oscar winner is really doing here, but she does a good job despite some of the things she’s forced to do in the film’s later scenes. All in all, you could do a lot worse than Hancock. GRADE: B

Nielsen Film Tournament!

Surely There's a Better Movie Than

Some Like it ‘Bot: “WALL•E” is Out of this World

There are a lot of famous cinematic robots. There’s The T-1000, the evil, morphing villain of “Terminator 2.” There’s Johnny 5 from “Short Circuit” who danced his way to stardom with brat packer Ally Sheedy. And of course there’s the duo of R2-D2 and C-3PO from “Star Wars” which are probably most peoples’ favorites. And now we have WALL•E who appears to be a strong mix of E.T. personality and Johnny 5 circuitry to add to the list of famous movie machines with unique personalities. You don’t really need a review to tell you that should going out and see WALL•E right now, but I will praise it anyway. While I don’t know if it’s officially my favorite Pixar film, (that titles still belongs to “Finding Nemo”) WALL•E certainly will be a film that will be remembered for some time (apparently so, it’s currently ranked #9 at imdb.com on the TOP 250 list).

We open in a futuristic (and hardly recognizable) Earth. There are no humans in sight as it appears we have used up all of our resources and have vacated our once beautiful planet. The only thing that is left is a little robot named WALL•E (which apparently stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class). This robot was made to compact and remove waste. He scoops up some trash, sticks it in his square belly, and a trashtastic cube pops out. He has done this for years and years. He has a curious mind. He finds random human-made objects, like Rubix cubes and Frisbees, which he finds fascinating and collects (ala Ariel in “The Little Mermaid”). And apparently he’s obsessed with the movie musical “Hello Dolly!” His life is quite and quaint, but all that is about to change.

One day a huge spaceship lands literally on top of WALL•E and a small white, hovering machine is released. It’s searching, for what we do not know, but it certainly piques WALL•E’s interest. Before he (I assume he’s “male” although the whole Hello Dolly sort of disturbs that idea) knows it he’s in love with this mysterious robot which we come to find out is called Eve. Soon WALL•E is whisked away when Eve finds an actual living plant and goes into sleep mode. At this point we’ve been watching nearly half the movie with hardly any dialogue, which is practically unheard of for a big budget summer movie. The story is expertly written (by director Andrew Stanton) and the characters are so well defined that in most cases it hardly matters that there’s not much talking.

Soon WALL•E finds himself inside a huge space station that houses the humans of the future. They are fat and unable to walk and must use floating devices that care their large bodies around. They have holographic screens in front of their faces with many viewing choices. But the big question is whether they have TIVO? I don’t see how they couldn’t. Here we meet the Captain who is in charge of this rotund society. It’s around here where the film sort of lost me. Not so much that I was confused but I cared so much about the robots (who form a friendship that seems more realistic than most onscreen relationships in most movies these days) that it was sort of shocking to actually see human begins on the screen. And much to my surprise Fred Willard shows up as the CEO of a corporation called BnL which in turn has practically taken over all these peoples’ lives. What this film has to say about our future isn’t exactly surprising. I guess the humans in this movie didn’t listen to Al Gore.

The movie does have a message about our future on this planet and how we depend too much on technology and you could read into the film a lot, but its more fun to sit back and enjoy WALL•E and his friend. That being said I enjoyed the first half of the film more, as I didn’t really care too much about these futuristic humans as much as I did about a small mound of metal with a personality. And I’d be lying if I didn’t get a little teary-eyed by the end of it all.

WALL•E is a great movie that you should see in the theater. It has such a great sense of wonder and emotion and awe (and beautiful animation) that no matter your age you won’t be disappointed. GRADE: A-

Secret Agent Clan: Steve Carell & Co Hams It Up in “Get Smart”

I know nothing of the television show “Get Smart” is based on. In fact, if you had even asked me what I though the show was about before trailers for this movie were released, I’d probably give you a blank stare. I couldn’t even give you a name of one of its cast members. So, in going to see the movie version, of this spy caper comedy, as a completely unbiased person can say that the movie as a whole is kind of dumb but it has its share of laughs, due mostly to Anne Hathaway’s hysterical performance. Got ya! Just kidding. I knew you must be scratching your head after that one. This movie actually rests comfortably on the comedic timing of its male star Steve Carell who has proved in movies (the 40 Year Old Virgin) and television (the Office) that his is the go to guy for funny, dry, deadpan humor. And he’s actually a good actor on top of it.

Ok ok, Anne Hathaway isn’t really bad, but she’s not really the type of actress I really pictured in this role. Frankly I would have rather seen someone like Anna Faris, just because I think she’s funny when she does basic things like blowing her nose. But actually casting someone not quite known for their comedic skills really help to illuminate Carell as the humorous star of the film. Anne is the straight guy and Carell is bumbling, funny fool. Carell plays Maxwell Smart who is a member of a secret government secret agent group called CONTROL. He dreams of being an agent. You know getting out there and doing all the dangerous dirty stuff that James Bond gets to do 24/7. He finally gets his chance when the evil group KAOS has some disastrous plans. He is set up with Agent 99 (Hathaway) and away they go on comedic adventures.

The plot of the film is probably the weakest link here cause I didn’t really care for much about what was going on. Now of course that doesn’t mean I wasn’t entertained, but I couldn’t really see this plotline being as entertaining on a second viewing. However, like I said before, Carell really caries this thing and his lines are funny and his actions are as well. Just look at that scene when he’s finally promoted as an agent and he requests a “cone of silence” and he yells and screams about his excitement. Unbeknownst to him, the entire team has just heard his ranting and raving. And there is one sequence in which he travels by high-speed jet and get’s a little “airsick” that had me laughing for minutes afterwards.

There are some rather random people thrown into the mix here including The Rock himself Dwayne Johnson, who at least is better here than he was in The Game Plan (a film I had the distinguished of honor of NOT seeing, thankfully). And even recent Academy Award winning actor Alan Arkin shows up as The Chief. He has some good lines as well especially when he’s nearly impaled through his head. But probably most random of all is James Caan as a sort of Bush-like idiot President of the United States who actually has some of the funniest scenes in the film.

Over all the film is pretty decent, although days later I’m not really remember too much from it. It does its job as decent summer entertainment (and it has a surprising amount of action that seemed rather well choreographed). I can’t say whether you would like this if you’re a huge fan of the original show, but if you enjoy Steve Carell and brisk summer action comedies than you could do a lot worse. GRADE: B-

I See Dead People: Mass Suicide Plagues Mankind in “The Happening”

Watching people commit suicide is not necessarily something that I call first rate entertainment. Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching movies with violence and gore and none of particularly bothers me psychologically. However, something about watching someone take their own life (in particularly gruesome ways) is something beyond disturbing. However, once-hot director M. Night Shyamalan has come up with a new story about something in the air that causes humans to hurt themselves, badly. People start jumping off roofs and laying down in front of lawn mowers in “The Happening.” It’s an interesting premise that is more disturbing than scary and the film as a whole is enjoyable in the typical Shyamalan way. However, if you’re seriously disturbed by the idea of people offing themselves, I’d advise to steer clear. At least Shyamalan does handle the situation in a way that is far from poor taste. Had Eli “Hostel” Roth tackled the subject, I’m sure the reviews would be even worse for this film.

Okay so here’s the deal. I’m not going to give too much away, but I will say some express some positives the movie has and some negatives. Let’s start with the positives. The premise is fascinating and disturbing. The film does actually benefit from Shyamalan’s direction because he truly knows that it’s what we don’t see that scares us. And yes this is a much more violent film that his previous PG-13 efforts, but he doesn’t linger (too much) on the gory details. He figures the subject matter is disturbing enough by itself, so there isn’t lots of brain matter splattered across the screen. But there are violent images that many will be concerned by. So the film is creepy and disturbing, which is ultimately its goal. And composer James Newtown Howard does provide another standout Shyamalan music score. Let’s seriously applaud Shyamalan for having an actual opening title sequence that actual helps set up mood. Too many films today dive too quickly into the movie without setting up atmosphere.

However, there are a lot of negatives here. Mostly due to the overall silliness that the whole story provides. Basically we get Mark Wahlberg as a biology teacher who is informed that there’s been a possible “terrorist attack” in New York City. It seems that some kind of gas or chemical has been released into the air that has caused disorientation in people which ultimately results in those affected taking their own lives. Most of the film’s dialogue is dedicated to characters discussing what could really be causing this and some of the theories are down right silly. At least the silliness helps to relieve some of the stress caused by the overwhelmingly unsettling premise. Wahlberg has hit a snag in his marriage to Zooey Deschanel and she mostly gives a bizarre and weird performance that felt sort of awkward. I mean the world’s about to end, and all they seem to do is talk about how their marriage is on the rocks. Anyways, it’s recommended that everyone in Philadelphia evacuate in case the chemicals or whatever are released in Pennsylvania. What follows is a sort of “War of the Worlds” paranoia in which we watch a family deal with a mass threat to mankind. I sort of didn’t really like how the characters reacted to everything that was going on. They seemed to not take into account that the air was deadly when traveling outdoors. Um, hello, at least cover your mouths! And a scene that involved people running from the wind was sort of more comical than truly terrifying.

Ultimately, “The Happening” is a movie with a interesting enough premise that it is worth seeing and forming your own opinion. I enjoyed the nods to “The Birds” in which perhaps it may not be a mankind threat but something more ecological in nature. If you’re expecting a typical twist ending you’ll be disappointed. In fact the movie just sort of ends for no other reason really than it’s just time to end. The film provides chills without the scary monsters, which was sort of the film’s point. It is so easy for humans to perish, that sometimes we don’t realize we’re our own worst enemy. GRADE: B-

Home on Derange: The Home Invasion Thriller “The Strangers” is a Shocking Creepfest

There’s nothing more frightening than the idea of home invasion. Knowing that someone could enter your home to do whatever he or she wants. To kill? To steal? Sure in scary movies anything can be scary whether it’s ghosts, aliens or monsters. But nothing is more terrifying than a human being with the intent to kill. Have them put on a creepy mask and you have pretty much one of the worst things to fear in the world. Now imagine you are home alone, in the middle of nowhere and someone starts banging on your front door. You call a loved one on the houseline but you get cut off. You race to your charging cellphone and realize that someone has taken it. Before you know it a guy with a burlap sack over his face is leering at you through your bedroom window. All of this occurs in the latest scarefest “The Strangers.” And I think I now need a new change of underwear.

“The Strangers” is a completely frightening and intense experience. It has one of the most effective and suspenseful premises, which is fearsome idea of home invasion. There are three masked psychos who are after a couple played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman for no other reason than “because they were home.” Kristen (Tyler) and James (Speedman) return to his family’s vacation house late one night after a wedding. We sense that something is off about the couple. They seem like they’ve recently had a fight. It looks like James wanted to propose and it seems as though Kristen wasn’t ready to accept his proposal. There’s a knock at the door and a young woman, cast in shadow, asks for Tamra. They insist she has the wrong house and that’s that. Before they know it these “strangers” are completely terrorizing this couple which they soon find out won’t end until someone is dead.

Now it is important to note that this is much more of a thriller than a standard horror flick. It has much more to due with classics like “Halloween” than it does with typical modern fare like “Hostel.” This isn’t a torture porn feature that relies on gruesome gore to get a reaction from the audience. You could writer/director Bryan Bertino has been influenced by the likes of early John Carptender and even Alfred Hitchcock in that it’s more important to establish character and create suspense. The film takes it’s time to get going and builds and builds and builds to the point where you’ll be squeezing the armrest or the person next to you. Bertino would rather scare his audience with a creepy mask by slowing revealing the killer behind the protagonist than by just cutting someone’s head off.

This is a very simplistic movie that pretty much does everything right. The actors are good and Liv Tyler actually makes quite a good Scream Queen. The characters don’t do anything too stupid except for one instance where James leaves Kristen all by herself in the house (and he’s got the shotgun!). We don’t learn anything about the killers except that they are only human beings. We know they aren’t’ just about wanting to murder; they want to psychologically taunt this couple. This movie succeeds where other recent attempts at horror have failed (like the Saw films for instance) because the story is simple and to the point. You can relate to the realist situation going on and realize that it could happen to anyone, anywhere. There’s no real motive, no twist, no surprising revelation just good old fashioned scares. This film feels like it was made during the 70s, where the less shown is more. It’s sort of “Last House on the Left” meets “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” meets “Halloween” meets “When a Stranger Calls” meets “In Cold Blood” which means if you even remotely liked any of the movies I just mentioned, this will be right up your alley.

I am reminded of the film “Funny Games” which came out a few months ago in which a team of young men psychologically and physically abuses a family to death. That film had something to say about violence in the media and how American audiences perceive violence as entertainment. This is really the type of movie that Funny Games was trying to dismiss, but you know what? “The Strangers” is much more about atmosphere and suspense. Yeah it’s sort of depressing and makes you feel bummed out in the end, but if a movie can scare the crap out of you and make you scared to return home, it definitely has done its job.

PS – The movie is supposedly based on a true story. As to what specific case this is based on I don’t really know, but I believe it to be based on several incidents and not one specific crime. GRADE: B+

Fedora the Explorer: Spielberg and That Star Wars Guy Whip Up “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”

My favorite Indiana Jones movie is ‘Temple of Doom.’ You know the one where the Indian cult rips peoples’ hearts out? The one with that little Chinese kid? The one that got parents all over the country up in arms about motion picture violence which in turn caused the MPAA to issue a producer-friendly PG-13 rating that changed the way films are marketed towards the young ones? Yeah that one. So if you really want to know what I thought of the new Indiana Jones maybe you should stop reading. You know why? Because I actually think this fourth installment is better than ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark.’ Yeah you read that correctly, the one with the big boulder and the melting face? It’s better.

The film opens up in a fun way that reveals the story’s updated timeframe. We’re now in the fifties, which means fear of Communism of course. Nazis are out, Russians are in. Speilberg stages this stuff we ease and it’s interesting to see how far he’s come as a filmmaker since the last Indiana Jones film. Since then he’s matured with darker themed works like Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich, but he certainly hasn’t lost his sense of fun. His cinematographer Janusz Kaminiski adapts his trademark dark and gritty style for a much more bright palate that fits the brighter tone of the film. Yeah the movie has it’s dark creepy parts (like the other three) but the film is not afraid to be as funny as it is action-packed.

Speaking of action, yes there is lots of it. And even though Harrison Ford is pushing through his sixties he can just jump and run with the best of ‘em. Shia LaBeouf is a great addition, although if you’re expecting a Short Round replacement, you’ll feel disappointed. The pair works well together much in the same way Ford and Sean Connery worked so well in ‘Last Crusade.’ I want to reveal very little about the film’s story as to keep you all in dire suspense, but I will say like the others it has a supernatural-type of element that actually works and isn’t quite as silly as you would think.

If anything, I will say the beginning of the film sort of felt a little slow for me. There is a bunch of exposition that mostly went over my head, but once Karen Allen returns as Indy’s love Marion, things certainly pick up. And let’s just say the film’s best asset is that of super chameleon/actress Cate Blanchett who is simply sensational as the villainous Irina Spalko who is determined to get her hands on a certain type of skull made of crystal (cue the McGuffin) which gives the film its title. What a fun villain this is. After all, a movie is only as good as its villain.

Overall, this new Indiana Jones adventure is a good time. David Koepp’s script is fun and fast paced and its good to see George Lucas focus on something besides “Star Wars” for once. If you like the original films, you’re bound to enjoy this. And darned if John Williams main theme isn’t one of the greatest ever composed. As long as you’re not expecting the second coming of Christ, you could do a lot worse than ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” GRADE: B+

Sigh Velocity: The Unexciting “Speed Racer” Leaves You Feeling Exhausted

Some people may tell you that after watching “Speed Racer” up on the big screen, you will get a) a headache b) motion sickness or c) a massive seizure. Well I didn’t really get any of those things. What happened to me while sitting in my seat for over two hours was shear boredom. I felt like I was playing Mario Kart but I wasn’t actually playing. I felt like I was watching someone ekse play Mario Kart and watching someone play videogames isn’t really fun. I wish I had a headache and I wish I had a seizure, that way at least I know my body would have had some other kind of physical reaction to the Wachowski brothers' latest flick. It almost reminded me of “There Will Be Blood.” These two films are COMPLETE opposites yet they both caused the same exact feeling in me: the need to never see either film again.

I had my doubts about Speed Racer from the beginning. Yes it looks like a wild videogame gone bad. It’s as if it had been designed by a videogame maker while that person was high on LSD. In fact, and I’m not advocating drugs or anything, but I’m sure crackheads will get much more enjoyment out of this film than any other normal man, woman or child who sees it. I honestly thought it looked “cool.” I’m the last person who advocates seeing a movie just because of its visual style, after all it took me about eight years just to watch the first Matrix movie. But there was just something so fun and colorful about Speed Racer’s advertisements that sort of drew me in like a moth to a bright light. Or a moth to a bug zapper I should say. And the cast. What a great cast. We’ve got Emile Hirsch hot off his standout film Into the Wild. Susan Sarandon, who rarely makes bad movies. John Goodman, Christina Ricci (who I’ve always been a little wishy-washy about) and Lost’s Matthew Fox. Everyone is very good, but this is definitely not an “actor’s movie.” So yes the film is colorful and is probably a colorblind person’s nightmare and the actors are all decent in their roles, but other than that Speed Racer has very little to offer.

In all honestly I was hoping for the best here. The plot, which many are saying is lame, to me, is just confusing. Young Speed (Hirsch) wants to be a racecar driver when he grows up even though his older brother died in a fiery crash. A corporate guy who sponsors only the best drivers wants to sign Speed but he insists on not becoming just a product. There this is some kind of subplot involving an Asian guy and then there are some Matrix style marital arts moves. Oh yeah and Speed’s kid brother has a cute monkey for a pet. Meanwhile we get lots or computer enhanced racing scenes that are completely devoid of suspense or excitement. I at least hoped that these scenes would be thrilling because the story did absolutely nothing for me. In fact I don’t really know who exactly would enjoy this movie. My knowledge of the cartoon the film is based on is limited to what I've seen in that Geico commercial, but I imagine the film is for diehards only and has very little mass audience appeal.

Remember I said this film reminded me of “There Will Be Blood?” Well they are very different films. Blood is very slowly paced, a subdued color scheme and limited effects (if any really). Speed Racer has an edit every millisecond, has more colors than that huge box of Crayola crayons you begged for as a child, and more CGI than a Pixar movie. They both are technically very different, but to me both belong on the “is this movie over” category. I didn’t note hate Speed Racer. I didn’t run up to the box office demanding a refund, but for all the bells and whistles, the movie just doesn’t have too much to offer. Go see “Iron Man” again instead. GRADE: C

NOTE: While it may seem crazy for me to compare the Academy Award-winning film “There Will Be Blood” (a film I didn’t enjoy but appreciate for its artistic merit) with the hyperactive will-cause-ADD-in-children film “Speed Racer” I am merely pointing out that idea that two completely different styles of filmmaking could have the same effect on me.

Alloyed Intelligence: “Iron Man” Kicks Off Summer on a High Note IEEEEEEEEEEE!

Remember the first time you went to see your favorite superhero movie? I remember mine. It was about six years ago, when the first Spiderman movie opened. I had never been much of Spiderman fan before. I never read the comics. I basically knew nothing about Spiderman at all. I saw the movie and everything changed. I wanted to be Spiderman. I would bounce on my trampoline pretending to shoot webs out of my wrists. I had the soundtrack, which I would listen to on repeat. Spiderman was the movie to see in the summer of 2002. No other superhero movie has come close to reliving that feeling in me. Yes Spiderman 2 was technically a better movie than the original but by that time, my obsession with Spiderman seemed to wan. Flash forward six years later and here we have another summer with a superhero headliner: Iron Man. While the film doesn’t make me want to act like a total loser on my trampoline, its probably one the better comic book adaptations to come in some time. Many are saying that most of the success is related to star Robert Downey Jr. which is mildly true, but really what we have here is an all around fantastic movie with great characters, acting, special effects and most importantly a script that doesn’t make you feel guilty for paying so much to attend the movie.

As directed by Jon Favreau whose previous directing efforts include ‘Zathura’ (?) and ‘Elf’ (!), Iron Man is a well-made comic book adaptation that is successful in many ways. First, it is impeccably cast. Downey Jr. in my opinion doesn’t necessarily scream “superhero” but he really shows off his skills here as Tony Stark. Stark is basically like Batman’s Bruce Wayne but with a much more fun and bright personality. His parents left him as heir to their wealthy weapons company Stark Industries. While in Afganistan there is an attack and he becomes held captive for three months. He escapes when he builds a suit made of various metals. This experience changes him for the better and he perfects a better suit that can fly and shoot at bad guys. He’s cared for by his own younger and curvier version of Alfred: Ms. Potts (a surprisingly good Gwyneth Paltrow). Stark decides that his company is “wrong” for supplying weapons of mass destruction; Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane (a bald Jeff Bridges) doesn’t like this too much.

What is so great about the movie is that it’s witty and funny without being silly (see Fantastic Four). It takes itself seriously like Batman Begins, but it doesn’t wallow in the boring psychosis of its main character. We get learn who Tony Stark is through his actions and dialogue, we don’t need to see inside his head to understand his personality. There really isn’t a scene that is wasted and instead of being constantly bludgeoned by action scene after action scene the script (from two of the writers of ‘Children of Men’) features Stark becoming Iron Man rather than fight scene after fight scene. It’s a movie that is superbly balanced. You wont be saying, “oh he takes too long to become Iron Man” and you won’t be saying, “He becomes Iron Man too quickly.” It follows a perfect pace that lets the characters become enjoyable to the audience without the kitschy dialogue usually found in these movies.

I knew nothing about Iron Man going in and I was pleasantly surprised. You don’t need to be a fan to enjoy the movie, which is what good comic book movies know how to do best. They can please longtime fans and make new fans all within two hours. This is a movie that deserves a metal of honor. Get it? Iron Man is made of metal. See, the movie doesn’t include corny jokes like that. It is smart and fun and a great start to summer season. Can’t wait for part 2. GRADE: A-

Entertainment Weekly STILL Cares About My Opinions...Part Deux

I recently confessed my love of spoof movies in an EW.com message board and I am among 20 posters whose opinions you can read about here: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20197754_13,00.html

Funny Girls: Tina Fey Wants to Put Her Baby Inside Amy Poehler in “Baby Mama”

You’d think with last year’s one-two-three punch of "Waitress," "Knocked Up" and "Juno," the whole pregnancy thing would be well-worn territory. But in “Baby Mama” proves that it’s definitely hip to be preggers. This is probably one of the best movies featuring current and former members of Saturday Night Live. This is not “It’s Pat” or “A Night at the Roxbury;” heck it’s not even “Superstar.” This is a well-written and funny account of a woman’s desire to be pregnant and the lengths she’ll go through to reproduce. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are probably two of the funniest women working in Hollywood these days and this film’s success rests gracefully on their comedic shoulders. And they pull it off with flying colors.

This may not be the movie for everyone. You kind of have to suspend your disbelief just a tad. This isn’t a realistic pregnancy comedy but it certainly knows how to be funny. Most of the jokes are due to the comic timing of its talented cast. As Kate, Fey completely embodies the typical power woman who has chosen the career over the family life. While she’s not in a relationship, she decides she wants to have a baby. Easy enough right? Not really. She can’t be artificially inseminated because of her T-shaped uterus. And adoption will take too long. She decides that surrogacy is the only thing that will work. She meets Chaffee Bicknell (a hilarious Sigourney Weaver) who is the head of a surrogacy program. From here she meets Angie (Poehler) who decides to carry Kate’s baby. Kate is married to the skuzzy Carl (Dax Shepard) whom she breaks up with. This allows Angie to move in with Kate. Let the funny pregnancy high jinx commence!

Meanwhile we quickly discover that Angie is pretty much a complete slob who insists on eating junkfood and soda while carrying Kate’s child. Kate is a woman who prefers to eat organic, as she’s a VP for a natural food company (her boss is played by a hippie, ponytail sporting Steve Martin). Angie is also not exactly the brightest crayon in the box as Kate soon finds out. But this odd couple quickly bonds and Kate must juggle her work and taking care of her surrogate and even a possible relationship with the owner of a Jamba Juice-type shop (played by Greg Kinnear) with a few twists and turns along the way.

The film works mostly due to the pairing of Fey and Poehler. They are the new odd couple and watching them interact is the best part of the film. Director Michael McCullers (who also penned) really let them let loose here but not in way that lets them over act. They never seem like they’re trying to be funny, they just are. They know how to take funny lines and make them really funny. McCullers is no stranger to comedy himself, having written numerous scripts for SNL and both "Austin Powers" sequels. One could argue that the film’s third half seems more plot heavy and less funny, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

"Baby Mama" definitely works because of the talented Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. I could watch them read the phonebook and it would by hilarious. This is a movie that is silly but that’s okay. It may not be as touching or as intelligent as Knocked Up or Juno, but it’s not trying to be. Finally we have a SNL movie (Lorne Michaels produced) that is worthy of the talented people who make us laugh every Saturday night. “Baby Mama” certainly delivers. GRADE: B+

The Great Escape: Everyone’s Favorite Slackers are Back in “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay”

When thinking about “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” I’m reminded of another sequel: “Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan.” Now you would think these two films have completely nothing in common except for their R ratings but if you really think about it, they have something very much in common: they each have a promise in their titles that don’t really blossom to fruition. In the eight Jason movie we’re told that Jason will “take Manhattan.” We assume the film will take place there but as anyone who has seen the movie will tell you, most of the film’s running length is spend aboard a cruise ship headed towards New York. It’s only the climatic scenes that are actually set in the City That Never Sleeps (Especially now that Jason has taken a liking to it). In the Harold & Kumar sequel, we’re told that Harold & Kumar will “Escape From Guantanamo Bay” and yes they do, but it’s all so anticlimactic and brief that the movie really should have been titled “Harold & Kumar Don’t Go to White Castle” because that would be 100% true.

Now granted this isn’t the type of movie you’re really supposed to nit pick about because it does everything it’s supposed to do. It’s silly and stupid and provides a decent amount of laughs. The film takes place right after the events of the first film in a sort of Halloween II sort of way. Harold (John Cho) has just confronted the love of his life: his beautiful neighbor who just so happens to be flying to Amsterdam for a week. And his always-high roommate/best pal Kumar (Kal Penn) insists that they follow her to Amsterdam so that Harold can sweep her off her feet like in some cheesy romantic comedy. What could have easily turned into Eurotrip Part 2, doesn’t. Kumar is accused of being a terrorist during their flight and they’re sent to Guantanamo Bay by a sadistically racist and naïve defense general Ron Fox (Rob Cordry). You have to take the film’s humor with a huge grain of salt because none of this is supposed to be serious. Fox says there is “something wrong with Harold’s eyes” and his deputy insists it’s because he is of “Korean descent.” The film is filled with obvious racial stereotypes and that’s where most of the humor lies.

So before they know it Harold & Kumar are on the run from the authorities after their quick visit to Guantanamo. From there it’s a race to get to Texas where Kumar’s ex-girlfriend’s new Republican boyfriend who has government connections might be able to save their behinds. From there it’s a crazy journey through the southern states and they meet some crazy people along the way including a brother and sister who have a cyclops child together. They even run into the KKK and get peed on by them as well. And of course, the Pièce de résistance of the entire “Harold & Kumar” franchise is the cameo by none other than Doogie Howser MD himself, Neil Patrick Harris. Neil’s cameo in the first film is probably one of the better and most unexpected cameos of recent memory (Remember he was high on drugs and stole Harold’s car but not before humping the backseat?) Neil returns and brings Harold and Kumar to a whorehouse where Beverly D’Angelo is the House Mother. Neil’s exit is memorable and funny and the best reason to pay to even see any of this.

You know exactly whether you’re the right audience for this type of movie. It’s a buddy comedy that is silly and the writers (Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, who also directed) know this. We actually get to see some flashbacks to Kumar and Harold’s college days, which was fun to see. This is a film that will no doubt fit right in with all the other raunchy comedies that exist on college shelves across America. While I don’t know whether this is necessarily a better movie than it’s predecessor, like fast food, it’s quick, tasty and processed, which basically means you get what you paid for. GRADE: B-

The Crying Game: “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is a Truly Memorable Bromantic Comedy

I don’t know whether anyone else has used the term before, but if not, I’m using the term “bromantic comedy” to describe the type of romantic comedy that appeals to guys. You know the type, they were kicked into high gear after Judd Apatow hit it big with “The 40 Year Old Virgin.” These films are popular because they have one of the widest audiences. They have the girls who love the romance and the guys who love the raunchy humor. But these films aren’t just “American Pie” clones. These aren’t just about a bunch of sex-crazed teens with lots of potty jokes. These are about real characters who you can identify with and much more male genitalia than most Hollywood films are used to.

In the latest from uber-producer Apatow, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” highlights “Knocked Up” co-star Jason Segal as a guy who gets dumped by his TV star girlfriend Sarah Marshall (Veronica Mars’ Kristen Bell). She’s the star of a CSI-type TV drama, which we get to see in some hilarious clips featuring Billy Baldwin in a cameo. Peter (Segal) is the show’s music composer (who has dreams of writing a Dracula rock opera featuring puppets). Apparently Sarah’s been cheating on Peter with dead-brained British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), and so she wants to break up. Peter is instantly distraught, so he decides to go to Hawaii to forget about her. You couldn’t possibly guess who’s staying at the same hotel.

While “Sarah Marshall” does have some of the same formulaic rules that you’ve seen in past romantic comedies, it never feels like worn out territory. This stuff is brand spanking new. It’s as if this is the first romantic comedy to come along in ages. As written by Segal himself, the script is ever bit as smart and enjoyable as Apatow’s scripts for “Virgin” and “Knocked Up.” There are the trademark Apatow actors who show up in supporting roles including “Superbad” alum Bill Hader as Segal’s best bud Brian, Paul Rudd as a spacey surfer dude, and Jonah Hill as a waiter obsessed with Marshall’s new singing flame. And although the likes of Leslie Mann, Seth Rogen and Michael Cera don’t even show up at all, luckily we get 30 Rock’s Jack McBrayer and Maria Thayer (from “Accepted”) as religious newlywed couple.

We don’t get to see much of Peter’s relationship with Sarah at first, in the opening scene, she break up with him, but not before he drops the towel around his waste and buckles down crying while completely naked. It shows a vulnerability in a male character that you just don’t see very often. So with his Brian’s sound advice, he takes a trip to Hawaii by himself to clear his head. There he meets the lovely receptionist Rachel (Mila Kunis) at a fancy resort that he can’t really afford. When Sarah shows up with her crazy new beau (relatively unknown Brand’s performance here is amazingly hysterical), Rachel feels for him and decides to give him the best suite in the place. He soon spends his evenings balling his eyes out, even after guests complain about a woman crying very loudly.

You can see that there is a slight spark between Peter and Rachel, and there’s a slight hint that maybe Sarah might still have some feelings for Peter, so in all honesty I wasn’t 100 percent sure which way things were going to go. But getting there was definitely so much fun. We get to see little flashes of Peter and Sarah’s relationships that really add to the characters and are done in a unique way. Peter is a sympathetic character, and while Sarah could have easily been labeled the bitchy shrew, she isn’t. She’s not the “bad guy.” This isn’t that type of movie. Segal’s script (and Nicholas Stoller’s Apatow-like direction) treats all its characters equally and let’s everyone have the chance to be funny.

“Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has the distinction of being the best comedy so far this year. (Although that’s really not saying much, so it’s one of the best films so far this year). Guys will like it and girls will like it. This is for everyone who enjoys a great, well-written funny movie that isn’t afraid to show that it has a heart or private parts. This is one bromantic comedy that is truly unforgettable. GRADE: A-

Intelligent Design: “Smart People” Got No Reason to Live

The only real reason to see Smart People, which is being advertised as “from a producer of Sideways” (eghh), is to see Ellen Page’s first post-‘Juno’ role. And here she’s sort of the Republican version of our favorite pregnant, hamburger phone-using teen. In fact, since seeing the movie nearly 5 days ago I can’t really remember much from it. The actors are good and most of the dialogue is funny, but there’s really not much going on in the film’s brief 95 minute running time. It’s a movie that’s enjoyable for the time and days later, you’ll probably forget that you ever went to see it.

Smart People is about a family. Dennis Quaid is the intelligent, but dull, college professor father. Thomas Haden Church is the not so intelligent freeloader/adoptive brother of Quaid. Page is the Young Republican/college prepping daughter of Quaid. And “A History of Violence’s” Ashton Holmes is Page’s college student older brother. Mom is dead. After Quaid injures himself while attempting to retrieve his briefcase from his car in the impound lot, he meets Dr. Sarah Jessica Parker who just so happens to be his former student. If you can’t swallow the fact that Dennis Quaid could have possible been Parker’s former professor, you wont even buy everything that happens afterwards.

The film doesn’t really have much going on in terms of plot. We basically get to see a few months in the lives of this untraditional family. When Quaid begins dating Parker, Page sees it as her stepping on her turf. It’s obviously been too soon since mommy has died. And then there’s the whole weird incest thing between her and her adopted uncle Church. He gets her to smoke and gets her drunk at a bar. Good thing she’s not pregnant in this one.

Overall there are a few good moments in the film, mostly due to Page’s brilliant acting style. This film is proof that she needs to be in every single film from now on. Parker and Quaid’s romance is iffy at best and not the most interesting storyline of the film. If Page was the main character it would be more memorable. The film isn’t stupid, Mark Poirier’s script does have some interesting touches. For instance, Quaid, having a small seizure can’t drive a vehicle for six months, which means Church insists on being his personal driver. Noam Murro is a good director and the film isn’t dun, it’s just not going to win any MENSA awards. GRADE: C+

Bug Off: “Superhero Movie” is Super Bad

I love the spoof genre. I mean I love it. Airplane! is my favorite movie of all time. I’ll go see any spoof movie no matter how lame. And I feel that what’s become of the spoof genre is a travesty. It’s a sad commentary when Mafia! is the best spoof to be released in a decade. That at least had to courtesy of 1) being funny and 2) being directed by Airplane! alumnus Jim Abrahams. Of course there have be scattered successes. There’s been Scary Movie, Not Another Teen Movie and Walk Hard The Dewey Cox Story. These are all very good examples of spoofs that I’m not embarrassed to say I’ve enjoyed. But for every Scary Movie there’s a Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and The Comebacks.

In lieu of an actual film review of “Superhero Movie” I have decided to give a few bullet points explaining why most of these modern spoof films just don’t work.

1 – All these films do is recycle the same scenes and plots from popular films, sometimes line for line, without really making fun of genre conventions. You know what, Airplane! did this too. The ZAZ team has specifically explained that they stole direct lines of dialogue from the disaster movie Zero Hour! They even had to purchase the rights to that film in order to make Airplane! However, the reason it works is because no one had ever actually seen Zero Hour! I’m willing to bet that no one upon first seeing Airplane shouted out, “Hey that line is from Zero Hour!” They took ridiculous situations from a serious movie and by putting it in the context of a comedy it just became funny. Truly good parodies will follow their own plots (such as “Spaceballs” or “Hot Shots!”) while spoofing their respective genres.

2 – These films won’t be funny in 20 years because of all the pop culture references. Let me get this straight, I love me some pop culture. Hey, if you checked out my DVR you’d see I have months and months worth of Best Week Ever episodes stored to near capacity. Pop culture is fun whether it’s making fun of celebrities, humming a commercial jingle, or watching people get hurt on YouTube. But when twenty years comes along and someone pops their dusty Superhero Movie DVD in (God please don’t) are viewers going to get the references to Britney Spears or facebook or T-Mobile’s Fav 5?

3 – These movies are being catered towards children who simply gobble this crap up. “The Naked Gun” films were filled with potty humor so these modern spoofs are not the inventor of bodily fluid or fart jokes. But films like “Naked Gun” catered to a more adult audience. They had people imitating Queen Elizabeth (Part 1), George and Barbara Bush (in 2 ½ ) and in part three cameo appearances were made by the likes of Olympia Dukakis, Pia Zadora and James Earl Jones. These films parodied political situations not just pop culture situations. I mean just take a look at “Hot Shots! Part II.” I mean when the hell are we going to get a spoof where the main villain is Osama Bin Laden?! I’m waiting ZAZ!!!

Having said all that let me just say there was a few times (and I stress a few) I actually chuckled in “Superhero Movie.” Leslie Nielsen is the king of these comedies and as Uncle Albert, he probably gets most of the film’s laughs. And sue me for laughing at Stephen Hawkins’ expense (played here by Robert Joy), but I chuckled when a pot of coffee poured all over the brilliant physicist and he swore up a storm in his computer voice. And thank God for Regina Hall’s all too brief appearance (in horrible bald-headed makeup) as Mrs. Xavier. And at least writer/director Craig Mazin (who worked on Scary Movie 3 & 4) included a sequence that had actors imitating the likes of Prince Charles, The Dalai Lama and even Nelson Mandela. I’m sure the ten year olds in the audience were pleased.

What the film really gets wrong is in some of its lead roles (and a basic plot rehash of Spider-man). Drake Bell is not a comedic actor. That may have worked for Leslie Nielsen when he first appeared in Airplane! (it was his first comedic role, fyi) but it doesn’t work here. Sara Paxton as the love interest is a waste. Not only is she not funny, she doesn’t get the chance to be. Even Airplane! alum Robert Hays in a bit partouldn't save this thing from the slaughter. So what’s the point? Why did I even bother wasting my time on any of this. Just think of it this way: I wasted my time watching “Superhero Movie” so you wouldn’t have to. You can thank me later. GRADE: D

Veteran’s Daze: “Stop-Loss” is a Powerful Look at Our Unending War

It’s been over five years since our president declared war on the country of Iraq. It’s been a costly effort and many people, liberals and even some conservatives, are wondering what it’s all been for. If you're looking for an anti-war tale about WHY “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was started in the first place then the film “Stop-Loss” will disappoint. You’re probably better off seeing one of the many movies nominated this year for Best Documentary at the Oscars. However, “Stop-Loss,” Kimberly Peirce’s follow up to her emotionally draining debut “Boys Don’t Cry,” is a powerful essay on the effects of war on the men who give their hearts, minds and bodies for our country. While many soldiers have the good fortune to come back home physically unharmed, sometimes you can’t vouch for their mental and emotional health. “Stop-Loss” takes a look at a handful of soldiers returning to their hometown and toll the war on terror takes on them.

Ryan Phillippe, who started his career in teen films like "Cruel Intentions" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer," has certainly come a long way. He has matured into a very capable and appealing actor who has chosen interesting and challenging roles. His turn as a nice cop gone racist in "Crash" really opened many people's eyes that this guy means business, as he does here as Sgt. Brandon King. The film opens with some harrowing footage of soldiers fighting in Iraq. King is joined by Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum). This opening sequence is one of the better and intense war sequences in modern film. Although many see the opening of “Saving Private Ryan” as the cinematic equivalent of hell on Earth, one could make a strong argument that “Stop-Loss” paints an equally devastating picture.

Soon these soldiers’ tours of duty are over and it’s back to their hometown in their patriotic state of Texas. At first all appears normal. These soldiers are excited to see their family, friends and loved ones. Shriver can’t wait to see his girlfriend. Burgess can’t wait to see his wife. That is until these guys, who are borderline psychologically damaged from military combat, begin to have some serious delusions. Shriver digs a pit in his own front yard and sleeps in it as if he were out in the bush. Burgess is a depressed alcoholic who can’t make his relationship work. And one soldier who lost both legs and an arm is the positive one, recouping in an Army hospital somwhere stateside. And if all that isn’t bad enough Lt. King has become stop-lossed. That is, he gets officially ordered back to Iraq even though he served out his contract. He did his duty and it’s time to be home. He doesn’t want to go back, and he won’t without a fight.

“Stop-Loss" takes a good hard look at a subject that is very difficult for some to deal with and makes it fascinating. We, as Americans, hear about the never-ending war almost on a daily basis. We’ve lived with it for over five years and it’s a part of our lives. And to think that someone is being forced back into serving their country (someone who volunteered in the first place) just seems wrong. King feels he has nowhere to turn except for a senator in D.C. who might be sympathetic to his plight so he takes to the road with Shriver’s girlfriend (Abbie Cornish).

Peirce’s writing almost oozes with preachy opinions, but it’s the actors who really sell this stuff. We’re immediately drawn to King’s dilemma because there’s really nothing that he can do, and yet it’s captivating to see him try. He also has become mentally unstable which is devastating in a scene in which he treats some simple muggers like Iraqi POWs. Peirce crafts an intriguing and sympathetic story about the men who fight for our country without ever really pissing off either end of the political spectrum. Sure you can see how she feels about this war but it's this specific military policy, which has apparently affected thousands of soldiers, that, whether you're for the war or against it, you can’t help but feel it’s a crime against humanity. Patriotism only gets you so far. GRADE: A-


Note: Don't let the film's "let's-market-this-to-fifteen-year-old-girls-because-the-guy-from-Step-Up-is-in-it" trailer turn you away. This is a harrowing and tough film that's well worth your time. And doesn't that poster make it looks like Varsity Blues II?

Vine Intervention: “The Ruins” is a Good Enough Way to Pass an Afternoon

If you’ve seen one of them, you’ve seen them all. I’m talking about the type of movie where a bunch of young Americans who vacation in a foreign country who end up…hmmm dead? If you can get past the dreadful and clichéd opening scenes of “The Ruins” you’ll be pleased to find out that the rest of this blood fest is actually quit chilling and enjoyable. Based on the book, which is sort of Steven King lite, The Ruins is sort of like “Turistas” with a supernatural twist, except that it’s much better than you’d think. And thank god there is no exposition because when it comes to films like this, frankly I don’t give a damn.

If you’re wondering what exactly is after these twentysomethings (which include Jena Malone, Jonathan Tucker, Laura Ramsey and Shawn Ashmore) let me just tell you right up front (SPOILER) that it’s killer plants. Yes I said killer plants. And you know what? “The Ruins” is the “Gone with the Wind” of killer plant movies. Of course, “Little Shop of Horrors” remains the “Citizen Kane” of killer plant movies. These four young things, while vacationing somewhere in Mexico, decide to explore some ancient ruins with their new German friend played by Across the Universe’s Joe Anderson. Before you know it, they are being quarantined on the ruins by a modern tribe who have bows and arrows AND automatic weapons. They can either try to make a run for it, or wait it out and hope that someone comes searching for them. In the meantime, they notice the local flora isn’t exactly friendly.

Like I said if you can sort of buy into the initial lame premise then you might actually get scared every now and then. The story (penned by Scott B Smith, who based it on his novel) is non-existent and the characters are just simply there to be die disgusting deaths, but I was sort of surprised at how invested I was with what was going on. I don’t know if I just liked the actors but I almost sort of felt bad for them. When one girl gets a bad cut on her leg, she wakes up the next morning with a vine attached to the wound. And it’s not just attached; it’s like growing inside her. Her boyfriend immediately yanks it out and it’s surprisingly gruesome. There are some ghastly images here (amputation anyone?) and yet there’s no scary dude with a mask, so it’s all good.

Mock me if you want, but I found the later half of The Ruins to be an enjoyable freaky ride. It may not be the most original horror flick, but if you sick of the standard slasher movie or so called “torture porn” movies, then you might as well do yourself a favor and check out “The Ruins” if only so you can say you saw that movie with the killer vines… I can’t believe I just wrote that sentence. Oh well. GRADE: B-

The Joy of Speck: “Horton Hears a Who!” is an Appealing Cartoon That Feels Fresh and New

While I didn’t really want to see this film I knew that I should, and wouldn’t you know I thought it was quite good. Jim Carrey voices Horton an elephant of some size, he does a great job he should get a prize. Steve Carell is the Mayer of Whoville a land full of Whos, they are all exciting people who won’t make you snooze. This world of Whos is the size of speck and all of sudden Horton hears it and says “What the heck?” Horton begins to communicate with the tiny little spot, all his jungle friends thinks he’s crazy and probably on pot. Horton’s main rivalry is found in Kangaroo voiced by Carol Burnett, and she wants the speck destroyed so she hires a vulture played by Will Arnett. So Horton must make sure this dot doesn’t get into the wrong hands, although that pesky Kangaroo has some nasty other plans. I won’t spoil the ending for those who haven’t seen it, I’m sure this family friendly adventure will be a box office hit.

Phew! Pardon my rhymes but I felt that was only appropriate considering the film is based on the classic Dr. Seuss book “Horton Hears a Who!” I must say I was quite surprised to find the film rather enjoyable. The animation was colorful and eye-catching and the actors’ voice work was great. Horton was a little Jim Carrey “animated” in the way the actor is always practically bouncing off the walls, but it fit with the film’s fast pace (which included a bizarre anime spoof sequence). And Carol Burnett simply shines as Kangaroo who simply insists that a little speck couldn’t possibly contain an entire world of life. She gathers up nearly the entire jungle of animals and turns them against Horton, which sort of reminded me of “The Mist” in which Marcia Gay Harden’s religious freak character turns her followers against the non-religious folk.

As for Whoville, I’m sure most Seuss fans will be pleased that this place simply screams Dr. Seuss. I’m sure if the Doc were around today he would certainly approve. And if this movie proves one thing, it’s that Dr. Seuss movies can exist and be successful, but only in animated form. Films like “The Grinch” and “The Cat in the Hat” simply don’t work because Seuss’ creations belong in cartoon form. As the mayor of Whoville Steve Carrel is great. And Amy Poehler is enjoyable as his devoted but skeptical wife.

I was actually impressed at the level of suspense that is actually created. The entire jungle believes that Horton is crazy so they all want to take this speck, with they don’t believe could house life, and destroy it. This would naturally render everyone in Whoville completely and utterly dead. Horton must fight against the majority and stick up for what he knows is true. And that’s a strong theme to have in a supposed “kid flick” with a G rating. If anything, I felt the film sort of had too endings. The story seems to be coming to its close but then continues on, but it really never seems to drag so it’s not all bad ( I mean the movie’s less than 90 minutes anyways).

“Horton Hears a Who” is simply an enjoyable movie for all ages. It has bright and colorful animation and equally colorful and lovable characters (how about that wacky Katie, is she on crack or what??). Whether you have kids or not check out “Horton,” it’s a family flick that is stupendously fun. GRADE: B

Stayin’ Alive: “Funny Games” Dares the Audience to Be Revolted: How Charming!

Let’s get this out of the way first. I love this movie. I love everything about it. That doesn’t make me a repulsive human being. But it does make me human. I don’t love the movie because I enjoy watching people being tortured (although I admit that was me watching “Hostel” and it’s sequel in the theatre). I think that is what the film’s most avid critics are confused about I love this movie because of how it uses film to a) create a dialogue amongst viewers b) manipulates the audience who are seasoned to the clichés of cinema and c) how a remake can actually be just as well received as the original film. That being said, I do not recommend this movie to everyone. If you went to film school, or love seeing every type of movie, or aren’t easily offended then please check this out. If you only care about watching movies with your favorite pop star or boy wizard I advise you to stay away. In fact, be afraid, be very afraid.

“Funny Games,” which is a remake of the 1997 Austrian film of the same name is about an upper class family that is the unfortunate victim of a brutal home invasion in their lake house. Two preppy young lads (who insist on being polite and mannerly) take the family hostage and force them to play torturous mind games in which they bet that the three family members (a couple and their young son) will be dead by morning. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth (both likable) are the couple and Devon Gearhart is the child. Bradley Corbet and Michael Pitt (both disturbing) are the psychos. This is a shot for shot remake of the Austrian version and the same director (Michael Haneke) has returned. They are pretty much the exact same film. What you get in the first film is what you get in the remake. And this is fine by me because this film will reach a wider audience than the original, although due to its subject matter, I doubt it will hardly make a dent at the box office. And you know, that’s ok because I would be seriously disturbed if this movie actually made more than 20 million dollars.

What’s so great about Funny Games, a film that is extremely stylized, is it’s a prime example of the director being in complete and utter control. He makes choices that you wont see in other films including one character who actually addresses the audience. He knows we are watching a film and Haneke plays with that. These poor people are not the only ones being played with. Haneke teases us and tortures us the viewers as well. Maybe not physically, but he knows what we should expect and he goes against that. He cuts away from the violence, forcing us to hear it instead. He also employs some extremely long takes, at which some viewers just may decide they've had enough. He even goes as far as rewinding the film and causing a major plot development (which the audience would want) to be avoided. He wants the audience to be shocked and he succeeds, and I admire him for it. In fact, the film is so stylized in its brutality and psychological abuse that it’s almost lyric and so vulgar as to be nearly comical. But at the same time he creates unbelievable tension in the viewer. Your heart will pound and you’ll sit motionless in your seat for very longs stretches. And then there will be points when you look at your watch waiting, practically begging for SOMETHING to happen.

This is a film that facilitates and requires discussion afterwards. In fact, a total stranger asked me how I felt about the film. When I told the guy that I enjoyed the film, although I had pretty much watched the exact same thing two days prior, he was surprised to A) find out it was a remake and B) that I loved it. He enjoyed it as well. He enjoyed it not on the same level as one would enjoy say “Ratatouille” but on another level completely. It’s a fun movie to talk about, dissect and criticize and the director almost dares you to enjoy it. He wants you to feel dirty and vile if you even remotely find it entertaining. (since he is ultimately commenting on violence being a sick form of entertainment) But watching people be physically and mentally abused isn’t something that should be fun, but he insists that’s why we go to the movies in the first place: to experience something you can’t experience in your real, mundane life. That’s why pornography exists. That’s why prositution exists. That’s why the entire Internet was created! It's sad but true.

This is probably one of the best remakes simply because it actually makes it available to an American audience. The acting, writing and direction are pretty much equal, except we don’t have to keep reading all the time! This sort of makes an argument about how a remake can actually be a good thing. If a foreign director makes a movie in another country where no American has seen it, why not remake it with American actors? The original Funny Games is not a popular movie like “Psycho,” so a shot for shot remake almost makes sense. He’s not remaking his own film because it was bad, he simply wants to show it off to a new wave of people. And is wanting your film to be seen really such a bad thing? And the film was pretty much perfect as it was so there’s no need to change anything. Because this film was made with American money doesn’t make the ending different. Unlike the similar film The Vanishing. The director took his own disturbing film and made it with American actors and completely changed this own vision to fit the generic taste of the Hollywood audience. Nothing is more disturbing than that. I’m glad Haneke stuck with his original script because it wouldn’t work if it had a happy ending. This is not a happy movie. I would compare it to the likes of Hard Candy (because it’s what you don’t see that’s scary) or Natural Born Killers (because that was also a violent movie that was about violence) and even A Clockwork Orange (which still disturbs viewers nearly forty years later). Kubrick made movies to provoke and disturb and when his movie came out everyone thought it was repulsive and now it’s a classic.

So that raises the question? Am I a psychopath for actually enjoying this movie? No. I didn’t enjoy this movie to point where I was applauding the deaths of people in the way you would in say, a “Friday the 13th” movie, I enjoyed this movie simply because it was so weird and different from the movies that it’s commenting on. If you’re the one who watches every “Saw” movie and nothing else, then you’ll hate this. If you don’t see every “Saw” movie and only see whatever Julia Roberts makes, then you’ll hate this. But if you like watching ALL kinds of movies disturbing or not and nothing really offends you, then you’ll enjoy this. Because to like this movie isn’t to like what goes on in the story but how the plot is affected by the director’s sleight of hand. It plays with movie conventions and flips them around. It’s not afraid to cause such a wide range of emotions in the viewer and it’s not afraid to manipulate the audience in a way that actually may make them walk out of the theatre. (In fact Haneke himself has said that if you stay to watch the whole thing, you have failed “the test” but if you walk out disgusted you “pass.”) If you’re willing to sit through more of a moral exercise than an actual motion picture, you will have a lot to gain from (and a lot to talk about) watching “Funny Games.” GRADE: A-

Emotion Picture: “Be Kind Rewind” is a Kind & Enjoyable Fable

“Be Kind Rewind” is the kind of movie made for people who love movies. If you’re the type who goes to the theatre once a year to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, steer clear. But if you’re the type who can play movie trivia games and quote your favorite lines and spend most of your time going to, renting or watching movies, then Be Kind Rewind was just made for you. And I found it particularly enjoyable. Jack Black isn’t one of my favorite actors, but he’s finding roles that suit him without making him irritating. Wild directing auteur Michel Gondry who made the fantastically bizarre Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, finds a comfort level here in “Rewind” which shows his loves of movies and characters who love movies as well.

The story takes place in an urban area of New Jersey. A local video store called Be Kind Rewind has probably 50 VHS tapes in stock to rent. The rentals cost a whole dollar. The store is straight out of “Little Shop of Horrors” (without the horrors of course). Much like Mr. Mushnik’s flower shop, it’s a wonder how the business is still in operation. Especially with West Coast Video (think Blockbuster) in serious competition just a stone throw away. And then actually rent out DVDs and have more than one copy of a movie. Be Kind Rewind owner Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) goes on a mission to uncover West Coast Video’s secrets and puts his number one employee (his only employee?) Mike (Mos Def ) in charge. Meanwhile, Mike’s friend Jerry (Jack Black), gets electrocuted and ends up being magnetized. And what happened when you run a magnet over a VHS tape? Erasure.

Before they know it, ever tape in the store has been erased and Mike is placed in a scary predicament. When his boss returns he’ll not only be out of a job, but the store will no doubt be “relocated” due to a new development willing to buy out and move the rundown rental place to another location. So in a moment of desperation, when number one customer Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow) wants to rent ‘Ghostbusters,’ they decide to shoot their own version (with the help of a local stranger Alma played by Melonie Diaz who is very good and natural) and pass it off as the real movie. Their logic? Well if she’s never seen the movie, how would she ever know the difference? Uh, maybe because she’s human and can see and hear. If you can buy the premise, you’ll be golden. What begins is a phenomenon. The customers are actually enjoying watching their favorite movies being “Sweded” the name given to the Be Kind Rewind staff’s version of the movies. Jerry is signing autographs and business has never been better. They reenact everything from “2001 A Space Odyssey” to “The Lion King.”

What is so enjoyable about the film is that it takes a standard plot; low-income business must face adversity in the form of corporate conglomerates and puts a fresh new spin on it thanks to the wild and creative imagination of one Michel Gondry. Some people are insisting the film is to “weird” to be liked but I never really found anything to weird about it. It’s different yes, but nothing wildly “out there.” The acting is good and the creative ways they go about shooting the films is beyond genius. If anything, what they do stretches character credibility. You’ll be asking, could these people really come up with that? But beyond that it’s fun to see where the film goes and how it gets there. And surprisingly the film has a lot of heart and is very good-natured.

The whole film has a fable vibe to it without really seeming too whimsical. The shots are simple but imaginative and you can see the amount of heart that was put into the film. This is a small little film that was made for people who love movies. It may not stand the test of time and you even forget it exists years down the line, but it’s a movie that’s worth seeking out because it feels like a film made just for you. GRADE: B+

UPDATED: Oscar Forecast: No Country For Juno?

UPDATED: It was No Country For Old Men's time to shine at the 80th annual Academy Awards. It took home four awards including Best Pic. The night actually had some surprises up its sleave and i'm not just talking about Transformers NOT winning for Visual Effects... Julie Christie went home empty handed; Marion Cotillard took home the Oscar! I said she should win and I'm very happy for her (although I predicted wrong grr!) But that's ok, cause I totally went against the crowd for once and predicted Tilda Swinton for Supporting Actress. My final tally stands at 14 out of 24 awards. Not too shabby... Winners are listed in BOLD.

‘Tis that time of year again. The most captivating television event of the year! (No, it’s NOT the Dancing with the Stars finale) It’s Oscar, Oscar, Oscar! Time to throw caution to the wild and hunker down and try to figure out who will take home the Oscar in 24 glorious cinematic categories. There are the locks and the uncertainties. And if I had to pick one ultimate, “there’s-no-way-he/she/it-can-lose,” it would have to be ‘Ratatouille’ for Best Animated Film. If you marked either two films on your Oscar ballot, then I don’t even know why you’re reading this. Anyways here I go trying to attempt to out guess every other film freak in the country with my fearless Oscar predictions:

Best Picture:
Will Win: No Country For Old Men.
Sure it’s violent and gritty and has a WTF ending. It’s simply the most Oscar-esque of the nominees. If this was 10 years ago, I’d bet the farm that Atonement would grab this, but not this year. (And besides you can instantly rule it out because of it’s lack of editing AND directing noms). Juno is that little comedy that could and a win would be a genuine surprise, but even Little Miss Sunshine couldn't overcome The Departed’s loaded gun last year. (Athought Jason Reitman's nomination is a strong indication of Juno love, home skillet). I hear the Academy loves Michael Clayton, but the film doesn’t have the scope the voters look for. And that leaves There Will Be Blood, a movie that seems to polarize people (I disliked it FYI) but I think if the Academy is going to go with a bloody epic, they’ll choose No Country.
Should Win: No Country For Old Men.
Technically, according to my Top 10 list for the year, I liked Juno better. And I think it would be awesome if Juno took the top prize and it would show that the Academy isn’t just an old foggy broken hip group, but a truly hip group. But for sheer cinema experience, I think No Country is the best film of the five.
Should Have Been Nominated: The Diving Bell & the Butterfly.

Best Actor:
Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood.
I disliked the movie but agree that Day-Lewis is just a force of nature. He’ll be one of the strongest locks of the evening, and you’d be wise to mark your ballots accordingly. Although Hollywood loves George Clooney and Johnny Depp they’ll have other shots down the line.
Should Win: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood.
Even though I didn’t really care for the film, I’ll be the first to say that he deserves to take this prize.
Should Have Been Nominated: Ryan Gosling, Lars and the Real Girl

Best Actress:
Will Win: Julie Christie, Away From Her.
Technically, Julie Christie isn’t quite the lock that Day-Lewis is, but this I’m predicting that the Academy will honor screen siren Christie. She won over four decades ago and she’ll probably win again. I think Ellen Page has a decent shot, but I can’t really see it happening. Although weirder things have happened. And then there’s…
Should Win: Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose.
I think hands down, Cotillard deserves to take this prize. If you were one of the 13 people that saw this film then you would probably agree with me. She takes that standard bio-pic and makes it watchable and captivating. Her transformation from 19 year old to 49 year old is fantastic and she does the best lip-syncing since Ashlee Simpson. If only her performance wasn’t subtitled…
Should Have Been Nominated: Amy Adams, Enchanted.

Best Supporting Actor:
Will Win: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men.
It’s possible that creepy Bardem is an even bigger lock than Day-Lewis. This amazing performance is the stuff of Hollywood legend. Although I’m not sure what the legend is exactly but that sounded pretty good didn’t it? He creates one of the best screen villains of all time. Eat your heart out Dracula and Frankenstein; there is a new movie monster here to stay.
Should Win: Javier Bardem, No Country For Old Men.
I don’t really believe in giving an acting Oscar simply for lifetime achievement, which is what many who predict Hal Holbrook to win will be thinking. If you know me at all you know that I loved loved loved Into the Wild and Holbrook is one the best aspects of it. However, I think it’s an honor to be nominated, even at 82 year of age. This is Bardem’s to lose.
Should Have Been Nominated: Max von Sydow, The Diving Bell & the Butterfly

Best Supporting Actress:
Will Win: I HAVE NO IDEA, so I’m guessing Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton.
This category is tougher to call than Live Action Short, (not really but you get my drift). This is really a four way race, with little Saoirse Ronan left out in the cold, fighting for scraps. Ultimately I believe it would come down to Cate Blanchett and Amy Ryan, but I don’t think the academy likes these movies as much as the critics. Ruby Dee is the “veteran” of the group so she’s a possibly spoiler. But for slapping Denzel Washington? Please! That’s why I must go with Swinton, who is great at playing an important character in Michael Clayton which is a movie the Academy loves. And since this is a great year for villains, why not!
Should Win: Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone.

She really owns that movie. As a drug-addict non-mother of the year, Ryan simply outshines every other actor onscreen (all of whom are very good). She is so good in fact, you can’t believe she’s acting. You really think they got some crack addict from the slums of Boston to play this role. Now that’s acting.
Should Have Been Nominated: Catherine Keener, Into the Wild

Best Director:
Will Win: Joel & Ethan Coen, No Country For Old Men.
Why? Because this is “their year.” They won the DGA award which is almost a sure sign of a repeat win here. And besides, could you have seen anyone else direct this film besides this brilliantly crazy duo?
Should Win: Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell & the Butterfly.
This is a film in which 95% of it’s success is because of the way it was directed. The vision that Schabel had and actually gets onto the screen is simply too impressive for words. This is a must-see film that will leave you speechless upon exiting the theatre.
Should Have Been Nominated: Sean Penn, Into the Wild

And the rest…

Animated Film: Ratatouille

Art Direction: Sweeney Todd

Cinematography: There Will Be Blood

Costume Design: Elizabeth The Golden Age

Documentary Feature: No End in Sight Taxi to the Dark Side

Documentary Short Subject: Sari’s Mother Freeheld

Editing: No Country For Old Men The Bourne Ultimatum

Foreign Language Film: The Counterfeiters

Makeup: Pirates of the Caribbean At World’s End La Vie en Rose

Music, Original Score: Atonement

Music, Original Song: “Falling Slowly” Once

Screenplay, Adapted: No Country For Old Men

Screenplay, Original: Juno

Short Film, Animated: I Met the Walrus Peter & the Wolf

Short Film, Live Action: Tanghi Argentini Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)

Sound Editing: Transformers The Bourne Ultimatum

Sound Mixing: Transformers The Bourne Ultimatum

Visual Effects: Transformers The Golden Compass

Cyber Dyin’: Diane Lane Tracks a Killer Who’s “Untraceable”

I recently watched the 1970s movie “Network.” That movie was a satire about the television industry that was way ahead of its time. It’s probably one of the least dated movies in that it’s story is just as relevant today as it was back then. It was about a woman (Faye Dunaway) who worked at a TV network who would put anything on the air to get ratings. She’d put on some crazy guy who talked about wanting to commit suicide on live TV and she insists that’s what viewers want to see. In the cyber-thriller “Untraceable” a killer is broadcasting his victims online and the more visitors to his website the quicker the victims die. What is learned in the movie is that there are some sick people out there. But what the movie doesn’t realize is that anyone who sees the film is just as sick as those who would go to the website.

Of course that sounds strange coming from me, the some person who would rather watch “Hostel Part II” than “Citizen Kane.” The problem with Untraceable isn’t that it reveals in showing graphic murders, but it thinks it’s being profound in the process. It thinks it’s saying something about our society. It isn’t really. It’s just as cheap as any teen slasher movie and those movies we know aren’t trying to say a damn thing except: “Look at this bloody breasts!”

Untraceable follows Diane Lane’s character who works in the cyber crimes division of the FBI. She finds guys who send computer viruses and who steal peoples financial information. You know the types. Her partner in crime fighting is none other than Tom Hanks’ son Colin Hanks. He seems rather young to be an FBI guy but imdb.com tells me he’s 30. Geez I wonder if he still gets carded. Anyways, they get inside tip about a website that is being broadcast from the area live. The camera shows a man with cuts on his chest. He’s bleeding. The wounds don’t appear to be too fatal except that he’s slowly being fed a drug that will stop his blood from clotting. The more visitors to this website (killwithme.com which in real life turns out to be the film’s official website) the more drugs released into this guy’s body and the quicker he bleeds to death. He’s dead in less than a day.

Soon more victims are dead and the website’s numbers begin to grow, not surprisingly, at an alarming rate. All those visitors must be big fans of so-called “torture porn.” They enjoy getting off on seeing others suffer and die. And wouldn’t you know there are people out there who like seeing people suffer. I never would have guessed. Pretty soon we have a game of cat and mouse as this quickly becomes a personal vendetta between the killer and Diane Lane. It’s only a matter of time before Lane is hanging upside-down above a thrashing set of mechanical blades.

The film as a whole is rather predicable and doesn’t really add anything new to the genre, but it’s a decent watch. It has a few genuine thrills up its sleeve and I was never bored by the proceedings. However in a day and age when the Internet can showcase wonderful pieces of entertainment, it surprises me why anyone would want to check out “Untraceable.” GRADE: C+