Pope Fiction: “Angels & Demons” Offers Some Fun for Religion Conspiracy Theorists

I already know the question that you’re going to ask: what is better, Angels & Demons or The Da Vinci Code? It’s a tough question but I think in terms of the story itself The Da Vinici Code offers more controversy and more fascinating discussions of hidden meanings hidden in famous artworks. The Da Vinci Code was an enjoyable movie as long as you weren’t expecting the second coming of Christ (no pun intended). Most people balked at the nonsense of it all, which the novel never downplayed either, and the stop and go style of lets talk about this painting, ok lets run away from the bad guys now, ok lets pause for more exposition. “Angels & Demons,” like a new car model, is sleeker in design, and although it looks better on the surface I’m not sure it’s really all that much better than the previous model.

Angels & Demons is based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown who also wrote The Da Vinci Code. You would certainly know it just by reading the first few chapters as both stories are almost identical. Angels & Demons was written first, but the movie has the events of Da Vinici Code (in which Harvard professor and religious symbologist extraordinaire Robert Langdon discovers that Jesus had a bloodline and by bloodline I mean him and Mary did the nasty nasty and birthed a human child) having already taken place. But don’t worry you don’t really need to see the first film to really get what’s going on. Langdon is paged this time because a scientist has been murdered and branded with the sign of the Illuminati. The Illuminati were an old group of scientists who were outcast by the church for believing more in science than the church. The pope has died at the Vatican and it’s time for conclave (the choosing of a new pope) and four cardinals have been kidnapped and are going to be murdered and then the entire city is going to be wiped away from stolen anti-matter (anti-matter = science= evil=demon; religion=good=angels angels and demons, get it?) will detonate at exactly midnight!

The film follows a similar pattern to The Da Vinci Code in that Langdon (Tom Hanks, this time with shorter hair) pairs up with a foreign beauty, this time with Vittoria Vetra (Munich’s Ayelet Zurer) in hopes of finding the stolen anti-matter before it causes an explosion so big that everyone will die. And without a pope yet elected how would he save everyone!? I think one of the most fascinating aspects of this story is the whole pope thing. The Roman Catholics has always been a rather mysterious and powerful entity on this planet. The way they go about the process is pretty fascinating. All the powerful cardinals lock themselves in a room and vote on who they think the pope should be. If they can’t come up with an agreement black smoke will be seen rising from the Vatican chimney. It is not until white smoke emerges until the world will see a new elected pope.

Meanwhile Langdon and Vittoria are on a race against time. An evil member of the Illuminati has kidnapped four cardinals and will execute them every hour on the hour unless they can find the clues to get to them in time. This whole premise instantly makes for a more suspenseful than The Da Vinci Code. The whole thing takes place during one evening and therefore makes for a pretty intense experience. This film also gives us a great performance from Ewan “young Obi-Wan” McGregor as the pope’s camerlengo, which is the pope’s right hand man and the acting pope in the even of his death. You won’t really be too surprised in terms of what his character is up to, but McGregor sells it pretty well.

I think the biggest problem with both this film and The Da Vinci Code is probably director Ron Howard. Ok, don’t get me wrong I like the guy and some of his movies are really good (see Apollo 13 or A Beautiful Mind) except that I get this overwhelming feeling that the movies would be more suited to a more action-oriented director. Am I wrong? If anything, I’d love to see Spielberg direct a Dan Brown adaptation. Hey what about Ridley Scott? I can’t help but think that Howard can get a little dull at times. Angles and Demons is much more quickly paced than its predecessor which is good and I think the script (co-written by David Koepp and Da Vinci scribe Akiva Goldsman) works a little better by being a little tighter. However by being a little more action oriented you obviously loose a litter character development which means some motivations are sort of left to your assumptions which isn’t always a good thing.

"Angels and Demons" is definitely passable entertainment. It has some good sequences and offers enough intrigue to keep you entertained for its 140 minute runtime, but I can’t help but feel that in other hands it could have been even better. If the Da Vinci Code had been as tight and sleek as this film that would be the ultimate Dan Brown flick. I’m hoping the third film (assuming Brown’s next novel is adapted, um yeah it will be) will be handed off to someone else. Where’s Brett Ratner when you need him?? (Just kidding) GRADE: B-

Mate Expectations: “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” Isn’t Quite as Horrendous as You’d Expect, OK It Sort of Is

It’s not too shocking to be apprehensive about a romantic comedy starring Matthew “No Shirt” McConaughey these days. He’s been in his fair share of clunkers lately so it was with gret trepidation I “wondered” into a showing of his latest vehicle “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” which is a wacky take on the Charles Dickens classic “A Christmas Carol.” The real bright spot here for me dawg is a) director Mark Waters who helmed both Mean Girls and Freaky Friday b) borderline comedic goddess Emma Stone who was great in ‘Superbad’ even better in ‘The House Bunny’ and simply fantastic here and c) Michael Douglas totally cashing in a paycheck as a womanizing ghost with the most.

The film is average at best in its opening scenes, but they are necessary to establish the story and characters. Basically, Connor Mead (McConaughey essentially playing himself) is a womanizing big shot photographer who likes to sleep around and refuses to commit to any one woman. He travels to the home of his dead Uncle Wayne (Douglas) for his brother Paul’s (Breckin Meyer) wedding to Sandra (Lacey Chabert). Sanda’s maid of honor is Jenny (Jennifer Garner) who Connor just so happens to have a past with.

While in the bathroom dead Uncle Wayne’s spirit shows up and tells him that he’s got to stop his womanizing ways. He also says Connor will be visited by three ghosts who will teach him hard hitting life lessons which usually tend to happen in movies like this. Before he knows one of Connor’s past girlfriends named Allison Vandermeersh (Stone) shows up, in full 80s garb I might add. Stone is utterly likeable that she can make any line funnier than it is. I guess Anna Faris’ charm rubbed off on her during the filming of The House Bunny. Allison takes Connor to his childhood where he first meets Jenny and takes her picture with a Polaroid camera. We learn that his parents died in a car crash and it was Uncle Wayne who took him and his brother in. Not that he had much of a choice, but Wayne is probably the worst role model on the planet.

All the scenes taking place in Connor’s past work the best because I somehow found it interesting to see why Connor became the way he is. Wayne brings him to a bar as a kid, he orders him a drink and shows him how to pick up women. Not girls, women. Even Allison observes that it’s all sort of messed up. A second spirit, in the form of Connor’s Indian personal assistant Nadja (Emily Foxler) shows Connor the present in which his brother future sister in law and all their friends complain about what a jerk Connor is. And the last spirit shows Connor his horrible future in which no one but his brother attends his funeral.

So basically Connor realizes his grotesque lifestyle as being, well grotesque and vows to change his ways and make Jenny his mate for life rather than just a notch on his already crowded belt. Garner and McConaughey have some chemistry but actually not too much is required because they aren’t actually the sole focus of the film. When a secret is revealed about Paul and a bridesmaid, Connor must make things right with the bride and groom.

Writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore follow rather standard plot guidelines including the jerk character who isn’t a jerk by the film’s conclusion, the separation of a couple and them reuniting and even the crazy bride who can’t seem to hold it together even when her wedding cake goes crashing to the floor. But I’d be lying if I said I didn’t actually laugh out loud throughout the film. The scenes with Douglas are funny and Stone is charming as well. Mark Waters has pretty good comic timing but I still wish he’d return to his darker roots. But maybe the strength of Mean Girls lied more with its script than its direction. In any case, this is certainly an improvement over the dreck that was “Just Like Heaven.”

In the end, “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” has enough funny moments that let you forget that you’re actually watching a formulaic romantic comedy that is loosely based on a Charles Dickens novel. If anything the release date just feels wrong. Shouldn’t this have been released in November or December? You can do a lot worse than the wrong release date after all right? GRADE: B-

Deep Space Pine: “Star Trek” Reboot Boldly Goes Where I’ve Never Wanted to Go Before

“I’m gonna be teaching that honors program class and it’s gonna be a challenge. I’m going to have students who know that Chekov is a brilliant Russian playwright, not the guy who was the navigator on the Enterprise.” – Dorothy Zbornack

“I didn’t know the guy from Star Trek wrote plays.” – Rose Nylund

Those two lines pretty much sum up my knowledge of the Star Trek universe. Seeing as though I’ve just quoted the classic 80s sitcom “The Golden Girls,” you can probably imagine that I’m not the world’s biggest “Star Trek” fan. In fact, I might be the world’s biggest non-fan. Having said that, the new Star Trek retooling, which is actually a prequel, which envisions the early days of the Starship Enterprise and its captain James T. Kirk is actually pretty enjoyable. From what I can tell, this new vision is nothing like the style or atmosphere of the original series from the 60s, which is why I think it’ so enjoyable. Fans will get the in-jokes and non-fans finally have a Trek they can call their own.

Director J.J. Abrams who helped create the terrifically cryptic and confusing TV series “Lost” makes his second feature length film (after the wonderful Mission: Impossible III). He has a unique visual style that is glossy and appealing to the eyes. He employed this in MI3 as well. And boy he and his cinematographer (Daniel Mindel) certainly love lens flairs! The special effects are awesome. The music is great. As is the acting by everyone involved. So what is this Star Trek movie all about anyways?

The film opens in space, the final frontier. As a nonfan, I really am unsure about what is actually going on and who everyone is, but I’m going to try my best. Bascially there’s a spaceship being attacked by the “bad guys” who are Romulans who are headed by Captain Neo (Eric Bana). They take the captain hostage leaving George Kirk in charge. Meanwhile his wife is about to give birth and he has to sacrifice himself so that everyone on the ship can escape. James T. Kirk is born and we flash forward and see Kirk as a child and later as a young man played by Chris Pine. I think this is really where the film gets its juice. Pine is a relatively unknown actor having appeared in some random movies you’ve probably never seen (myself included). He has an appealing quality from the start. Kirk is a suave womanizer (he apparently has a thing for green ladies) who is smart but gets into trouble (he actually reminds me of a toned down version of Gossip Girl’s Chuck Bass). He gets into a bar brawl but is enlisted by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to enlist in Starfleet. There he goes through his training and where he meets best bud Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy (Karl Urban) and begins his rivalry with half human half Vulcan Spock (Heroes’ Zachary Quinto). All the standard Trek characters are accounted for including Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin), Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) and love interest Uhura (Zoe Saldana). Wow, that’s a lot of characters and I’d like to thank Wikipedia for helping me out a bit.

So basically Neo is still kicking and Kirk realizes that he’s up to the same shenanigans as the day he was born and his father was killed. Of course Spock sends Kirk off to some scary snowy planet where he’s attacked by the Cloverfield monster’s cousin and he eventually runs into Scotty (Simon Pegg) who then becomes the Enterprise’s official “beamer.” Oh and Leonard Nimoy shows up as Spock from the future. So if you’re a big fan you’ll probably want to wear a diaper or something.

Ok so will hardcore Trekkis love this movie? I’m not sure, I guess so since, if you’re such a big fan you’ll like anything Star Wars….er, Star Trek related. There were two people in the theater in front of me who were literally peeing their pants every 5 minutes. I think they were Trekkies but I’m not sure. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have worked enough into their fresh script for fans but definitely make it more appealing to those who don’t know too much about this stuff, even if I was confused on more than one occasion.

As a non-fan and someone whose knowledge of Star Trek is limited to what I’ve gleaned from 80s sitcoms and Mel Brooks spoofs (oh so that’s where the Vulcan Neck Pinch comes from!) I can say that this new “Star Trek” is an entertaining thrill ride with cool effects and wondrous production design. I’m not sure that I’m going to all of a sudden become a die hard fan, but it was enjoyable. Hey if they make another one, and that is only inevitable (actually it’s been announced on imdb) then you can certainly beam me up for a second round. GRADE: B+

Animal Rising: Hugh Jackman’s in Need of Anger Management in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”

I think of the X-Men movies simply as either a) “comic book movies” or b) “science fiction movies.” They are entertaining movies, but they are also a little deeper. They have interesting characters and involve fascinating social and moral issues into their storylines. It seemed like such a sad day when the X-Men films came to a close with “The Last Stand” a film I personally didn’t love at first, but have certainly come to like much more than when it was first released. So rabid comic book geeks, er, fans rejoiced when they learned a series of prequels would be made about several individual X-Men characters. First up at bad is Wolverine and director Gavin Hood (Totsi, Rendition) has given us X-Men Origins: Wolverine. After this weekend, it’s Fox 1, audiences 0.

The new Wolverine movie is just a clichéd action movie filled with explosions, wisecracks and horrible CGI. To think the budget on this film was more than any of the other previous X-Men films is ridiculous (Ok, for the record, according to boxofficemojo.com, The Last Stand cost much more, but this new film still seems like a waste of money to me). Having said all that, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t entertained by Wolverine. It comes in at less than two hours and Hugh Jackman is such an appealing actor that he can make any film more interesting (of course he didn’t help “Australia” that much).

I think the problem here is that with the recent surge of quality comic book translations (ie “The Dark Knight,” “Iron Man,” the “Spider-man” flicks, yes even part 3) we’ve become spoiled with well made but entertaining movies about superheroes. I told myself going into Wolverine not to expect an Oscar movie, since this is officially the start of the summer blockbuster season and the film works on a sheer action adventure level and nothing more. We get to see how Logan came to be known as Wolverine, got horribly fake-looking metal blades implanted in his fists, and how he pretty much immortal.

The film opens with a brief prologue set in the 1800s when Logan is just a child. He and his brother grow up and fight in every major American war. Having the ability to heal instantly helps while being shot endlessly by enemy fire. His half brother Sabretooth (Live Schrieber) goes rogue and evil like siblings tend to do in movies like this and Logan must stop him. Meanwhile there’s some guy who wants to steal all these mutants so he can harvest their powers to make an ultimate mutant.

I enjoyed the corny bantar between Wolverine and his mutant team who he fights with at the beginning the film which includes too brief appearances by Dominic Monahan as Bolt and Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool. Scott Summers, aka Cyclops, shows up as a high school student (played this time by Tim Pocock). Friday Night Lights star Taylor Kitsch shows up as Gambit who turns playing cards into deadly weapons. And some guy named Scott Adkins shows up at the end as the nearly impossible to kill/invincible bad guy to kill at the end Weapon XI. I want to believe writers David Benioff and Skip Woods are comic fans, but if they are they certainly don’t show it (and they seriously give the “I’m so cold” line to a dying character; you could seriously hear everyone’s eyes rolling in the theater). They don’t give the characters anything too interesting to do and Jackman, while sometimes charming and good at kicking ass, has way too many anger management problems. I mean hearing him scream and growl a couple times seems appropriate after the 435th time I was willing to pay for his therapy.

All in all, you could certainly do a lot worse than Wolverine’s solo picture, it certainly is an explosive way to start the summer and it’ll make a fun companion piece to all your other action flicks in your DVD/Blu-ray collection when it’s released in four months, but here’s looking to the stars to see if “Star Trek” will be the action blockbuster that is equally entertaining and smart. GRADE: C+

My Two Cinematic Cents: Michael Myers' Mask

With both a reboot of Star Trek and Halloween both due this summer it got me thinking. Why doesn't director Rob Zombie use Chris Pine's face as a model for Michael Myers' mask? You're probably asking "what the heck are you on?" What you probably don't realize is that the entire look of Michael Myers is based on William Shatner's mask from his Captain Kirk character. Yeah they basically took a Captain Kirk mask, spray painted it white and voila, you've got one of cinema's scariest villians. So since Zombie is making a sequel to his Halloween reboot/reimagining/revamping/prequel from 2007, I think they should take a Chris Pine Captain Kirk mask paint it white and there you go. Michael Myers revamped for the Twitter generation.

Watch the trailers for H2: Halloween 2 and Star Trek below:

Entertainment Weekly Likes Me, They Really Like Me: PART II

I'm sure if you're reading this, then you know this story, but it's still pretty good. Picture it, my bedroom, 2 months ago. I enter a "predict the Oscars" contest. Since the awards were really predictable, (oh, you had Mickey Rourke for best actor? you loser!) many people tied for first place, myself included. To break the tie, as part of the game's fine print, the winner would be determined through an essay to be written about "what the oscars mean to me" and the winner would be judged by EW on the basis of creativity and orginality, after a brainstorming session with the roomies it was decided to write a parody of Jingle Bells we came up with this:

Dashing down to greet
The guests have just arrived
Grab a bingo sheet
Wish Heath hadn’t died

Warm up the LCD
Seacrest! What a tool
And then we flip to ABC
Can hardly hold my stool

There’s
Mickey Rourke! Meryl Streep! Dark Knight got the shaft
Slumdog’s Oscar winning sweep, Kate Winslet won at last

Look!
Mickey Rourke! Meryl Streep! Wolverine can dance
I’m so thrilled for Oscar time, Oops! I Crapped My Pants

Kevin and I worked hard on the lyrics, it was sort of like that episode of the Golden Girls where Rose and Dorothy write the song about Miami (except they only came in second). Dorothy says, "We could be the next Simon and Garfunkel, the next Rogers and Hammerstein..." "...the next Shari Lewis and Lambchop!" cries Rose.

Flashforward a month later and I recieve an email from EW congratulating me on winning the GRAND PRIZE. What exactly is that prize? Oh just a 46 inch Sony Bravia LCD 1080p 120hz flatscreen HDTV and a Sony Blu-ray player (of which I already have two, but three will do just fine). Thank you Entertainment Weekly, I knew there was a reason I've been subscribing since high school...

Zac to School: “17 Again” is a Mildly Diverting ‘Body Swap’ Comedy

“Freaky Friday.” “13 Going on 30.” “Freaky Friday.” “Big.” “Freaky Friday.” All of these movies have two things in common. 1) They are all “body swap” comedies in which the main plot of the film revolves around an adult becoming a child in an adult’s body or a child becoming an adult in a child’s body. 2) They are better than “17 Again.” (I’ve never seen “Vice Versa,” “Like Father Like Son” or “18 Again!”)Of course there are worst things to be than “not quite good as the made-for -TV “Freaky Friday” starring Shelley Long (yes, it exists, yes, I’ve seen it and yes, it’s decent). Having said all that “17 Again” starring High School Musical alum Zac Efron (he’s a serious actor now no more of that singing/dancing stuff) is mildly amusing and adults might even find it more enjoyable than their kiddie counterparts.

The film starts out in the past. The year is circa 1987. Mike O’Donnell (Efron) is a big basketball star at his high school. He’s about to shoot the winning hoop when he runs after his girlfriend because she’s preggers. Wait! What kind of High School Musical is this anyways?? So basically Mike’s life is ruined. Flash-forward to the present where Mike is played by Matthew Perry. He’s about to be divorced. He hardly knows his two kids Maggie and Alex (both high school aged). And he failed to get the “big promotion” at work. Then the old wise janitor stops by with some life advise. He asks Mike if he could go back to school would he try to make his life better? And before you can say what the F-ron Mike is 17 again.

Mike goes to Ned (Thomas Lennon, slightly annoying slightly funny) who he’s been best friends with since high school for help. Ned is a big nerd (ie, he loves Star Wars and Lord of the Rings). Mike decides he’s actually gonna go back to school and see this as a way to life the live the way he always wanted. Ned begrudgingly accepts the position of posing as Mike’s father and soon he finds himself lusting after the principle in scenes that are more awkward than funny.

The film doesn’t really leave any “body swap”cliché unturned. Mike befriends his own children and I’m sure you couldn’t guess if his own daughter begins to have the hots for him and he helps his son be cool and be good at basketball (Actually some parts were strongly reminiscent of “Back to the Future”). The problem here is that no one seems to recognize that this kid is really a younger version of Mike. When he meets his soon-to-be ex-wife Scarlett (played by the always welcomed Leslie Mann) she says “wow you look just like my husband.” No sh*t Sherlock. It’s one thing to buy into the premise of a man becoming a teenager again, but it’s another to overlook the fact that everyone around him is oblivious.

I’m going to say it right here and now that Zac Efron is a decent and engaging actor and that with the right script he could actually be pretty funny. I don’t think Jason Filardi’s script is as strong as the 2003 version of “Freaky Friday” with Golden Globe nominated Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan in stand-out performances. “17 Again” is breezy and innocent, sort of dumb but enjoyable. It’s nothing spectacular. I did hear one middle-aged guy as he was leaving the theater actually say, “It made me want to be 17 again.” Heck I’m sure every fat, balding 40 year old guy would want to be 17 again if they could be magically transformed into a teen heartthrob; but no one would want to be turned back into Chunk from “The Goonies.” GRADE: B-

Seth Rogen, Mall Cop: “Observe & Report” is Strange But Funny

“Observe and Report” is sort of weird. By now you’ve probably heard that the movie is a little dark, that it features the lovable Seth Rogen in not the most lovable role and the whole thing is a bizarre “Taxi Driver” meets “Paul Blart” concoction. All of that is true, but honestly, it’s so different from what you’re expecting I can only recommend it. See it because it seems like a Judd Apatow flick, but stay because it feels more like Martin Scorsese.

The plot of the film isn’t really well defined but I’m willing to forgive that because it features Anna Faris in another hilarious turn as a ditzy department store make-up girl. Seth Rogen is Ronnie Barnhardt who takes his job as head of security at a mall very seriously. At the start of the film a large man is seen flashing several female mall patrols in the parking lot. Ronnie is instantly bent on finding this pervert and taking him down. Things really get serious when the man flashes Brandi (Faris) whom Ronnie has a large crush on. It’s his civic duty to protect his love from this flasher. When the cops don’t seem to be much help, which includes Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), Ronnie decides he might as well join the police force himself.

The whole movie sort of feels like it’s leading towards Ronnie learning how to become a police officer, but somewhere down the line it sort of gives up on that. Ronnie doesn’t quite “make it” and were left with a depressed Ronnie who is hell bent on also figuring out who has been robbing various stores in the mall during the night. It turns out the culprit might just be under his nose. Meanwhile we luck out and get lots of funny behavior from Faris. Ronnie takes Brandi out on a date where she gets super drunk and ends up drooling vomit all over herself. Priceless. And the one who really steals the film is Celia Weston who plays Ronnie’s boozing non-mom of the year.

Remember I said the film was dark? In one scene Ronnie goes on a ride along with Harrison who leaves him on the corner of a really dangerous neighborhood. It seems like a scene right out of “Mean Streets.” And even the film’s finale features Rogen taking on a horde of police officers whom he has to beat off with his flashlight. And the best part ever had to due with the return of the flasher. I sort of think writer/director Jody Hill (who is a man by the way) actually made this movie as a tribute to the gritty crime dramas purveyed by the likes of 70s directors like Scorsese and William Friedkin. I mean honestly, Ronnie thinks of himself as Popeye Doyle and yet he’s only a mall security guard. And I don’t think the casting of “Goodfellas” alum Ray Liotta was a coincidence.

So yeah, “Observe and Report” is darker than your typical “Apatow” movie. There’s sort of a sweet romance going on with a coffee shop employee who obviously has a little thing for Ronnie but it hardly “lightens up” the mood of the movie. Even a comic turn from Michael Pena from “Crash” is sort of weird and odd. Yeah the movie has a strange vibe but I was sort of digging it. It seems like a welcome breath of fresh air, besides if you want something more lighthearted maybe you should see the Hannah Montana movie instead. GRADE: B

Pots Berry Farm: “Adventureland” is a Fun Nostalgia Trip

First things first. “Adventureland” is a lot more serious than I thought it would be. It has it’s share of laughs but it’s certainly more thought-provoking and affecting than a movie like this seems the right to have. Maybe I’m just used to comedies just being “comedies” but sometimes they actually reflect real life and have something to say. This is a great movie because it really says something to everyone. We’ve all been there before: trying to get a job after college. We spend our parents’ hard earned dough for four years and then we end up at a job where a college degree is hardly required. Of course some of us land better jobs than others. I’m not so sure how I’d feel if I had to spend my post college summer working the game booths at a lame amusement park in which all the games are fixed so the average consumer can’t even win a coveted giant panda bear. “Adventureland” is about a young guy who must take on a crappy job even though he’s been accepted into grad school and his journey to discover himself.

Jesse Eisenberg (The Squid & the Whale) plays James who has just graduated from college. He’s an intellectual type. He’s had relationships but never any real physical contact with the opposite sex. He’s sort of a nerd, but a cool nerd. He had plans to spend the summer traveling through Europe, but his parents can’t afford to help him with financial needs. Therefore before starting grad school in the fall, he must accept a summer job: a game booth operator at Adventureland. Adventureland is operated by the film’s main comic relief Bobby and Paulette (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig) who like the cops in “Superbad” sort of seem like they’re in a different movie, but are still funny nonetheless. James hesitantly accepts the job where he meets a cute girl named Em (Kristen Stewart) and an even nerdier kid Joel who can’t seem to shake the anti-Semitism he sees in his crush Sue (Paige Howard, daughter of Ron).

As the days progress James gets close with Em, but she’s having an affair with the park’s handy man Ryan Reynolds who is, dun dun dun, married. Why someone like Reynolds would go after a girl who looks like a 13 year old boy going through puberty is beyond me. Therefore when James wants to ask Em out, she backs away which makes James want to go out with the park’s hot body Lisa P. who has returned an employee much to the happiness of every male worker at Adventureland. She’s that slutty looking chick who, like most slutty 80s characters, wears tight, off the shoulder t-shirts and lots of makeup and neon colors. Oh and she dances while she’s operating the rides. Rumor is she’s a virgin too actually.

One of the main perks of Adventureland is it’s setting. Yeah I mentioned the park is a sketchy amusement park, but it is the summer of 1987 and many of your favorite 80s bands make an appearance on the film’s soundtrack. Director Greg Motolla (who also wrote the screenplay which is apparently based on his own experiences) actually does a great job of creating period detail. He doesn’t just throw 80s pop culture references down you throat just for the sake of it (like in The Wedding Singer). And he creates relatable characters in realistic situations. It sort of fun watching all these co-workers bond since they share similar hobbies (drinking, smoking pot etc) and they all share a horrible job run by a pair of hilarious loons.

The film doesn’t try to be overly sentimental or corny but actually hits all the right notes. You feel the frustration in James because he knows the last job he should be working is at a place like Adventureland and he’s really in love with Em. By the end of the movie you’re certainly rooting for him to get what he wants and it’s enjoyable watching his summer journey. Those expecting a complete laugh riot will probably be disappointed, which in a way, I sort of was, but looking back it’s pretty amazing how just plain enjoyable watching “Adventureland” is. It may not be high class cinema but it deals with real life issues, realistic people and is a fun nostalgic look back to a time when we think we should be conquering the world and just end up with broken dreams and wage slave salaries. GRADE: B

Space Sham: “Monsters vs. Aliens” Isn’t Out of This World

I think I’ve reached the point where even with glorious 3D technology a movie can still be a dud. The dud I’m referring to is “Monsters vs. Aliens” which is DreamWork’s latest attempt to out Pixar Pixar. Even with stuff being thrown in your face which includes a paddle ball, which was done over fifty five years ago in the original “House of Wax,” “Monsters vs. Aliens” is sort of a lame attempt to get you in the theater. To be honest, had the film not been in 3D I don’t know if I’d be as inclined to spend my hard earned cash.

The problem here is mostly due to the fact that the film is just simply forgettable. Here I am nearly 2 days later and I’m trying to figure out stuff that actually went on in this flick. I remember the story starting out with Reese Witherspoon’s character getting married, getting hit by a meteorite and then growing to ginormous proportions while at the alter. She’s immediately taken away by the government and locked away where they keep other “monsters” which include a slimy one-eyed blob (Seth Rogen), a brilliant talking cockroach (Hugh Laurie) and a amphibious creature known as the Missing Link (Will Arnett). Oh and there’s a gigantic beetle thing that doesn’t really talk (and sort of reminded me of the strange Katie character from Horton Hears a Who!). So apparently there’s some aliens who want to invade earth for some reason and it’s someone’s brilliant idea to let the monsters fight the aliens, and in so doing, they are let go, free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment.

The story seems like a sort of lame attempt to create lovable characters and while the voice actors do a wonderful job, I can’t really say the writers (all five of them) can’t really come up with anything witty or particularly original for them to do or say. The only monster that gets any laughs at all is Rogen’s B.O.B. character and that’s mostly because Rogen’s voice (and in particular his laugh) is so well known and funny on its own. The animation of these characters is well done but nothing approaching Pixar level quality. It’s obvious the animators went for the more traditional “cartoon” look which is totally fine; I mean this isn’t WALL-E.

And what of the 3D effect? I’m not so sure it’s worth shelling out the extra bucks to get the added dimension, but I’m sure it’s got to be a lot more fun than the 2D version. And you get to keep a nice looking pair of 3D glasses, that in all honesty, I was tempted to mail to the blind guy on American Idol. In most of the recent 3D movies, I never really felt the 3D was a gimmick, but here it definitely feels like just another way to get people to buy a ticket. Yeah the marketing ploy worked for me and now I’m paying for it ($11.25 to be exact). GRADE: C

It’s the End of the World as We Know It: “Knowing” is a Smart Apocalyptic Thriller

If you go see “Knowing” there is one thing that is guaranteed to happen: you won’t get it out of your head. You might hate it, you might love it, but it’ll probably start a deep conversation with whoever you saw it with. Whether the movie is “smart” or “stupid” doesn’t really matter here. What matters is the power of a film to spark discussion and on that basis alone “Knowing” is a film worth seeking out. It’s really a movie for everyone because it has action sequences of destructive violence and it has quieter moments of philosophical debate. It is scary and intense and discomforting. It will make you think about your place in the world and whether there really is something greater out there. Most would call this a science fiction film and that is probably most accurate. And having set the film in reality makes everything that occurs in the film almost that much more disturbing.

You can tell from the trailer that this film looks like a stupid Nicolas Cage action movie. However, you’ll probably agree that the premise seems rather interesting for what seems like a dumb waste of money: a time capsule is buried by school children in 1959 filled with drawings of what the future may hold, except one drawing is not a drawing at all. It’s a set of numbers which supposedly forecast every major disaster in the entire world. Scary huh? Oh but why did it have to be Nicholas Cage? I have nothing against the Cage, but let’s just say he hasn’t been proof of a surefire action hit. Besides his “National Treasure” movies, I’ve had zero interest in his recent cinema undertakings. But rest assured this is certainly one of the best Nicholas Cage movies since “Matchstick Men.”

Cage plays John Koestler who is a professor at MIT. His wife is dead and he’s taking care of his young son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). He’s not the best father in the world. In fact he probably wouldn’t be the best father if he was the last father on the planet. But at least he tries. His son’s class is about to hold a ceremony in which they are going to dig up a time capsule buried by the class of 1959. As we’ve seen in the film’s prologue the class is instructed to draw a picture of what they think the future will be like. A young girl named Lucinda, who hears whispering voices, scribbles down lots of numbers instead. In 2009 each student is given an envelope from the capsule and Caleb receives Lucinda’s. Looking at the paper Caleb was given, John begins to see a pattern in the numbers which seem to forecast the date, coordinates and number of human deaths in every disaster in the world. It seems ironic that John just previously had a discussion with one of his classes about determinism and whether things that happen in life are random or predetermined. Think “Final Destination” without the gory slasher stuff.

It’s amazing how quickly we become infatuated with John’s interest in these numbers. He realizes there are several events yet to happen and he wants to try everything in his power to make sure they don’t happen. But how is a single person supposed to interrupt fate’s plans? John ends up finding Lucinda’s daughter and granddaughter, who also hears voices. Turns out Caleb is hearing voices as well. And a strange man in black, who looks as if he walked out of a music video from the 80s, seems to be stalking John and his son as well. What does this all mean? You have to see the film to find out. The film is suspenseful and has some rather disturbing sequences that recall the horror we all remember from events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Most people will be either totally into it or find it all hokey and absurd. The film is as good as a film like this can be. It could have been a lot sillier, but from the beginning we really buy into it. How much you like the film, especially its last act, will depend on how much you think about where we are in this great world of ours.

Director Alex Proyas who is no stranger to dark, ominous visions of futuristic society (see The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot) foregoes the stylized, bleak future he’s explored in his previous films. He instead directs the film as if it could all happen tomorrow. The movie takes place in the present day and therefore embodies it with a realistic and intimate setting which makes it all that much more disquieting. You’ll probably leave the theater feeling a little deflated, but what do you expect from a film that basically shows you how the entire world will end? See it and talk about it. GRADE: A-

Manhunter: Paul Rudd is in Search of a BFF in the Hilarious “I Love You, Man”

Entertainment Weekly film critic Owen Gleiberman put it best in his review of “I Love You, Man” by stating this film is “by far the best Judd Apatow comedy that Judd Apatow had nothing at all to do with.” Yes it is true. When you sit there in the theater at the end of this spectacular bromantic comedy you will be surprised to find Apatow conspicuously absent from the closing credits. Judd doesn’t even get an obligatory executive producer credit. In fact the guy who directed the film, John Hamburg (who also co-wrote it with Larry Levin) previously directed the sorta funny but mostly lame comedy “Along Came Polly.” But enough of who was responsible for this flick, you just really have to see it.

Paul Rudd is delightfully goofy and awkward as ever as Peter who has just proposed to his girlfriend Zooey (The Office’s Rashida Jones). They are a warm, happy couple. You really sense they are in love. Everything seems to be fine, except that Peter doesn’t really have many male friends. He’s always been more of a “girl friends” sort of guy and therefore doesn’t have anyone to make his best man. Apparently his brother Robbie (Andy Samberg) is out, literally actually, because they’ve just never really been that close. Even his dad thinks of Robbie as his best friend. After overhearing Zooey chat with her girlfriends about his lack of male buds, Peter sets out to make some guy friends come hell or high water. And the results are simply wonderful.

Rudd is such an expert at playing the goofy guy who everyone finds charming. I’m surprised it’s taken him so long to really get into the spotlight. He’s the guy everyone wants to be friends with, except for in this film, which at first seems a little far fetched. It seems difficult to believe that Paul Rudd could not have any male friends, but once you really get a sense of his character (“sensitive nice guy”) you instantly realize how hard it is for him to be friends with the typical guy these days. In any other movie he’d probably be the “gay best friend” but here he loves women, but isn’t a jerk or afraid to embrace his “feminine side” (he loves “The Devil Wears Prada”). At first he makes attempts to be better friends with his co-workers at the real estate film he works for. It doesn’t go too well. Even his mother sets him up on a “man date” with another guy who has gotten the completely wrong idea. It is scene after scene of Peter’s embarrassing attempts at making friends that makes this movie as charming as it is.

Enter Sydney Fife. As played by Jason Segal, he is a goofy, childish, man boy, who is not nearly as annoying as you’d think he should be (think the anti-Stifler). He’s just plain lovable and you want Peter to be friends with this guy. He’s actually pretty cool, mostly because of the way he just seems to coast through live with nary a care in world. We all want to be friends with him. Peter meets Sydney at an open house Peter is hosting. He’s trying to sell The Incredible Hulk’s Lou Ferrigno’s house, complete with Lou Ferrigno statute. Sydney shows up for the food, not for the house, and he and Peter seem to hit it off. We instantly sense that maybe this could be Peter’s friend and we witness Peter’s uncomfortable and hilarious attempts to become friends.

I love the way the movie plays how sort of difficult it can be to make friends as an adult. It is so much easier when you’re ten, when you can just invite a friend over to play in the sandbox, but watching the friendship develop between Peter and Sydney is just so much fun to watch. In fact, I’m sort of jealous of them. I want to be their friend too. And odds are, so will you. In true, Judd Apatow form, the film has heart and some terrific supporting characters including Zooey’s friend Denise (Jaime Pressly) and her sleazy husband (played by “Iron Man” director Jon Favreau) whom she loves and hates equally.

"I Love You, Man" is a film I absolutely loved from start to finish. The writing is great, the acting is great and you really fall in love with and relate to the characters. This is one of the best bromantic comedies to date. It’s good to see the positive effect Judd Apatow has had on Hollywood. As long as they keep churning out gems like this, I have faith that movies today are truly in a new Golden Age. GRADE: A

Like a Virgin Spring: Horror Remake “The Last House on the Left” is Only a Movie, but Still a Good One

I’ll watch nearly every horror movie that is released. Show me your worst: Show me blood, show me guts, show me brains, show me people being ripped apart. It’s cool with me. Having said that, I’m not so much a “fan” of Wes Craven’s 1972 film debut “The Last House on the Left.” It's more an interesting film to discus, analyze and dissect rather than actually enjoy. I mean I can watch horrible things on screen, but I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t particularly enjoy watching a group of disturbing delinquents savagely abuse, torture, rape, murder and disembowel a pair of young teenage girls. While this may have been classified as a horror film back in the day, today it holds up as a political and sociological statement of society (and response to Vietnam and the Manson murders) and is completely raw, shocking and disturbing, if only because you think everything that is happening on screen is actually happening. But alas, as the original trailer so kindly pointed out, it's only a movie.

Having said all that, this new remake, supervised by Craven himself, ups the ante in terms of suspense, production value and actual entertainment value. This is a film, while yes disturbing at parts, is still 100% more watchable than its predecessor. And why is that? Because they certainly play down the torture sequence and up the ante in terms of the revenge of the scorned parents. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s lay out what this movie is all about.

Basically we have a teen girl and her parents who are vacationing in their lake house in the middle of nowhere. Seriously, what is with people in movies who have vacation homes in the middle of the woods? It’s not exactly relaxing to think I could be murdered and scream for help and no one would ever hear me. Mari (Sara Paxton) asks her parents (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn) if she can borrow the car to go into town and hang out with her girlfriend Paige (Superbad’s Martha MacIsaac). Her parents are weary (because Mari’s old brother died a year ago) but let her go anyways. Her father, a surgeon, gives her a wad of dough and a kiss good bye. While in town Mari and Paige meet a strange but nice enough boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) who says he can hook them up with some good weed. Like rebellious teens tend to do in movies like this, they go back to the hotel room where his father Krug (Garret Dillahunt) is staying and they smoke up. Daddy comes home early with his girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome) and younger brother Francis (Aaron Paul). Oh by the way: these people are absolute lunatics and just previously murdered two police officers the night before. This disturbing family unit takes Mari and Paige on a crazy adventure that ends in death and despair in the middle of the woods.

What follows is the “difficult to watch” sequence of these wackos hanging out in the woods while they torture these innocent girls. The original film’s take on this sequence was much more graphic and disturbing (they force one of the girls to pee her pants for crying out loud) and it takes up nearly half of the film’s runtime. Here director Dennis Illiadis makes it just one section of the film. Screenwriters Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth add more character development and actually create people easy to sympathize with. We’re supposed to feel nothing but hatred for the murderers, which is obvious because once these guys end up at the house of Mari’s parents, both unbeknownst that this stranded “family” has left their daughter for dead, we’re on the edge of our seats waiting to find out if they will figure out who these loons really are. The ending segment of the film, which includes Mari’s parents seeking the ultimate revenge (which the audience screamed and cheered with delight) is actually a lot more entertaining and suspenseful than the original. Like most of the recent horror remakes the film benefits from a bigger budget and more production value (and 100% better acting), but it’s still missing the grittiness (i.e. where are the intestines?) that made the original such a cult hit. Although by getting the film out of the 70s, it makes for great use of everyone's favorite kitchen appliance.

“The Last House on the Left” is one of the more enjoyable horror remakes. It’s hard not to make comparisons to the original, as is the case with most of these films, but it can stand on it’s own. Anyone interested in where Wes Craven came up with such a shocking story should probably seek out Ingmar Bergman’s “The Virgin Spring,” a film which I have not seen myself, whom some may be surprised to find out won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. How shocking is that? GRADE: B

The Last of the Really Great Superheroes: “Watchmen” is a Watchable Comic Book Geek Fest

I have not read the comic bo…, er, graphic novel “Watchmen” (published in 1987) nor do I have plans to ever read it. I’m sorry, but reading adult themed stories with drawings always seemed so odd to me. If I’m reading a book with illustrations, I’ll stick with the Bernstein Bears, but I digress. Comic books and graphic novels aren’t quite my cup of tea (I never even heard of Watchmen the supposed “Citizen Kane” of comic books until I heard they were making it into a film) but I do love movie adaptations of them. That being said, if you enjoy movies that happen to feature superhero characters then odds are you’re going to in the very least enjoy “Watchmen.” There really isn’t anything horrible about it, (it’s not “Batman & Robin”) yet there isn’t anything particularly earth-shattering about it (it’s not “The Dark Knight”).

Having said all that, it seems that the general consensus is that most “fanboys” feel disappointed in the film and even the book’s original creator Alan Moore wants nothing to do with the film. I feel in a special position not having read the book, because I have nothing to compare the film with which always seems to work out well. However I will say I felt slightly lost with some of the thick plot’s elements most notably the whole ending which I won’t spoil for you here. Fanboy Alert!: the ending is slightly modified supposedly. Everything up until the last thirty minutes or so worked well for me in that I enjoyed following along with the characters, learning their backstories and trying to figure out who killed The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan) in the film’s opening sequence.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Alan Moore has actually created a fascinating world with Watchmen. The story takes place in an alternate 1980s America in which history has been slightly altered due to the rise of caped crusaders in the 40s, some of who eventually helped out the US in the Vietnam War. But now it's 1985 and these masked heroes have been outlawed and Richard Nixon has been reelected to the presidency. The Cold War is raging on and the entire world is in fear of being nuked. Meanwhile, The Comedian, an aging, retired Watchman has been murdered and we don’t know who did it or why. It seems like someone is trying to take out all the former superheroes.

So who exactly are these Watchmen? Well there is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) who is the only one with actual superpowers. He was “disfigured” in a horrible accident and now he glows bright blue and spends most of his free time free ballin’ while working for the government. He’s with Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) who's the daughter of the first Silk Spectre (Carla Guglio). Silk starts to become romantically involved with Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson) who can’t seem to get his mojo until he starts to fight crime again. Probably the coolest character, and I’m sure the fanboys will agree, is Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) who wears a mask that has moving ink blots which are pretty cool to stare at. His backstory is probably the most fascinating and disturbing and he’s definitely one of the more well rounded characters.

If there’s any real problem with the film it has more to due with its length than anything Zack Snyder related. This guy directed the sad excuse for a film “300” which I hated and while he employs a similar style here, it’s definitely more of a departure from the standard “shot-in-front-of-a-green-screen-so-it-can-look-mad-sick” appeal of his previous directorial effort. I was a fan of his remake of “Dawn of the Dead,” so it pleases me that his “Watchmen” is completely watchable although it goes on rather long (I heard there’s an even longer version for the fanboys) and the ending is a little bloated and less than satisfying. Again, in a totally unbiased not familiar with the graphic novel sort of way.

If there is any real reason to see this flick, it’s for the completely, amazingly cool opening title sequence which reimagines history Forrest Gump-style with superheroes taking part in some famous times in history (see who killed JFK! The opening of Studio 54! Look, there’s Andy Warhol!) all set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” The killer soundtrack, visual style and interesting characters conspire to form an enjoyable movie going experience that is more substance than style, for once. GRADE: B+

There Will Be Blood: Swedish Import “Let the Right One In” is a Fascinating Vampire Tale

“Let the Right One In” is being hailed as one of the best vampire movies ever made. I’m not so sure that’s the truth but it’s certainly close. It is certainly one of the most original and beautiful films about a vampire ever put on celluloid. Sort of a reverse “Twilight” with more artistic aspirations, “Let the Right One In” tells the story of a young Swedish boy around age 12. He gets picked on at school and he’s dealing with his parents divorce. Some new neighbors have just moved in to their cold, snowy town and suddenly the murder rate has sky rocketed. He makes friends with a young girl named Eli. Who just may happen to be feeding off of human blood.

“Let the Right One In” succeeds in spades due to its exquisite camerawork and beautiful photography. Of course the story is interesting as well, but nearly every frame is a piece of carefully crafted artwork. Director Tomas Alfredson uses some fantastic techniques to instantly get us hooked. From the opening frame of snow falling relentlessly, we know we’re in for a dark cold and bleak story. The cinematographer purposely gives us drab, washed out colors (save for a few shots of the red stuff). We feel the cold watching this film. Our young hero Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) is a pale boy (what do you expect he lives in Sweden) with blond hair. He blends into his snowy surroundings rather well. He spends his nights attempting to overcome his fear that the school bullies are going to intimidate him and push him around. While out playing on the playground of his mother’s apartment complex, he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson) who is friendly, oddly strange, and yet seems to be the ying to his yang. They form an instant bond and soon Oskar thinks he’s falling in love.

Of course what Oskar doesn’t know is that Eli is a vampire. She feeds off human blood. I enjoyed learning about the life of a vampire. Like when they haven’t fed on blood in a while they start to smell bad. We see what happens when a vampire is exposed to sunlight. We see what happens when a vampire enters a person’s home without being invited in. call it a sort of vampire 101, although I didn’t spot any garlic, crosses or holy water. This film is too good for those clichés. The film has some disturbing sequences which add to the beauty of the film. Eli has a father figure who finds victims, hands them upside down and drains their blood so that she could feed without having to go around attacking people in the dark of night. Of course things don’t always go as planned, such is the life of a bloodsucker.

As Eli and Oskar’s friendship grows and he becomes more suspicious of who she really is, we are totally sucked in (parden in the pun). We’re completely fascinated with Oskar and Eli’s friendship and we wonder what exactly she might have planned for Oskar’s tormentors. It all comes together at the end in one of the film’s most brilliant and disturbing sequences.

“Let the Right One In” is simple, beautiful, disturbing and scary and yet you never for one second dare to look away. I guess the rumors are true; it is probably one of the best vampire tales ever. I urge you to check it out when it's released on Blu-ray and DVD on March 10th. GRADE: A-

UPDATED - Oscar Forecast: The Curious Case of Slumdog Millionaire

Well what a predictable night. I only got three predictions wrong: sound mixing, foreign film, and documentary short (darn those cleft palates!). Overall the eveing was exicting and Hugh Jackman made an entertaining host who mixed jokes with enjoyable musical numbers. Wow this guy can be an action guy and a musical guy whenever he wants to be. Talk about mass appeal. Although, in terms of the winners, it was sort of sad that the biggest surprise of the evening was Slumdog's near sweep of 8 awards (instead of the predicted 7) which included a win for Sound Mixing. Ben Button picked up three awards and Dark Knight followed with two as did Milk. And by the way, how on earth am I not being paid by Entertainment weekly? I had more predictions correct than they did. My total predictions: 21/24 correct (winners are below in bold)

It’s one of those years. There’s almost one guarantee come Sunday evening that I’m willing to place money on: Frost/Nixon is not going to win a thing. Sure there are the obvious choices: Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight! WALL-E for Best Animated Feature! Best Documentary goes to Man on Wire! In fact, the most obvious thing that is going to happen on Sunday is Slumdog Millionaire turning AT LEAST half of its nominations into wins. Good luck to The Reader, Milk, Frost/Nixon and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, it was nice to have known you all.

BEST PICTURE
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire. You’d have to be living under a rock to not know that this is the most likely candidate in this category. “Slumdog” is the most winning film of the year. It won the Golden Globe, BFCA, BAFTA, WGA, SAG, DGA and even won the editing, cinematography, and costume design guild awards. If it didn’t win it’d be the biggest shock since “Crash” won over “Brokeback Mountain.”
Who Should Win: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Speaking of "Brokeback Mountain," it would be just plain cool if "Milk" won, but I almost can’t see that happening. I did love “Frost/Nixon,” but I don’t think it should win the top prize. “The Reader” was watchable and has good qualities but it’s not Best Picture. I’m not the biggest fan of "Slumdog" to be honest (save for that catchy dance number), but I understand why people love it so. That leaves me with “Benjamin Button,” a sprawling epic that everyone just seems to feel indifferent towards. I have to hand it to the Academy for finally nominating a long-ass film that is hardly a snooze-fest; at least to me anyways.
Should Have Been Nominated: Revolutionary Road

BEST ACTRESS
Will Win: Kate Winslet, The Reader. Ok so I’m not extrememly positive she’s going to win but I’m like 85 percent sure. There’s so much talk about Meryl winning, but I think that’s mildly hullabaloo. Besides she’ll have another shot next year when she plays Julia Childs. Who knows, maybe Kate and Meryl will split the vote and allow someone else to come through? But with 5 previous nominations and no win, and with “The Reader” being nominated for Best Picture, you can tell the Academy overall likes the movie and her. She should finally take it!
Should Win: Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married. Ok before you jump down my throat, I WANT kate to win really badly. And I would probably still vote for her if I was in the Academy. However, going on pure performances, I have to say I was most surprised by Hathaway’s gritty turn in “Rachel Getting Married.” I’m not quite sure if she’ll get many shots in the future, but I’d hate to see Kate go empty handed again. Besides Kate gave 2 amazing performances last year, and Anne only gave one (And for the record, “Bride Wars” came out this year).
Should Have Been Nominated: Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky

BEST ACTOR
Will Win: Sean Penn, Milk. I’m note quite as confident here as I am with Best Actress. I’d say I’m about 60 percent sure. Actually, I’m kind of not sure really. Mickey Rourke could easily take this (and I wouldn’t mind, see below). Yes it’s true he’s “already won” but he’s well respected and if Daniel Day Lewis could win two Oscars why couldn’t Penn? Besides most voters still are fuming over Prop 8 and “Milk” has a Best Pic nod, which shows overall support. However, I wouldn’t be shocked to hear Rourke’s name called.
Should Win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler. Ok I honestly liked Penn and Rourke’s performances pretty equally. And since this is supposed to be Rourke’s big “comeback,” (even though his comeback was 3 years ago in “Sin City”) why not give him the Oscar? His acceptance speech at the BAFTA’s was great. And besides his Chihuahua just died. Hasn’t he suffered enough?
Should Have Been Nominated: Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will Win: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I surprisingly wasn’t the biggest fan of this film, and neither was the Academy as it failed to even pick up a Screenplay nod for Woody Allen, and yet I thought Cruz was amazing. She really brings the film to life and steals every scene she’s in. And that is a great Supporting Actress. She had the most buzz going into awards season and it’s stuck with her. Until word of Viola Davis started spreading and her couple of scenes in “Doubt.” Davis could easily take this, as could anyone really, as this is the “wild card” category.
Should Win: Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I actually liked everyone in this category and you know I’m a “Button” fan so I even like Taraji. I’m so sure what the big deal with Davis was. I mean she was amazing, but like Ruby Dee last year, I think people are seriously overplaying a small performance and making it seem like the second coming of Christ. Cruz instantly made her film better and that makes her worthy of an Oscar.
Should Have Been Nominated: The Academy actually got this category right.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight. Did you see this movie? Enough said.
Should Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight. Did you see this movie? Enough said.
Should Have Been Nominated: Brad Pitt, Burn After Reading

BEST DIRECTOR
Will Win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire. Director and Picture almost always go together. Since Slumdog is going to win Best Picture, Boyle is the next logical win. Boyle is the reason that most people love this film. To think anyone else has a shot would be lunacy.
Should Win: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire. Even though I’m more of a Button fan, I’m willing to share the wealth. David Fincher is equally responsible for the mesmerizing visuals in “Benjamin Button,” yet he’s also responsible for making people hate that movie, which I don’t really understand. So I guess I sort of have to blame him for the “Button” backlash.
Should Have Been Nominated: Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight

And the rest:

Original Screenplay: Milk

Adapted Screenplay: Slumdog Millionaire

Animated Feature: WALL-E (duh)

Foreign Language Film: Waltz with Bashir Departures

Documentary Feature: Man on Wire

Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire

Costume Design: The Duchess

Film Editing: Slumdog Millionaire

Make-Up: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Original Score: Slumdog Millionaire

Original Song: Jai Ho, Slumdog Millionaire

Sound Editing: The Dark Knight

Sound Mixing: The Dark Knight Slumdog Millionaire

Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Animated Short: La Maison en Petits Cubes

Live Action Short: Spielzeugland (Toyland)

Documentary Short: The Witness – From the Balcony of Room 306 Smile Pinki

Guilty Pleasure Nielsen Film Tournament

Guilty Pleasure Film Tournament

Voorhees a Jolly Good Fellow: This New Jason Re-imagining Doesn’t Quite Feel Like “Friday the 13th” But It’s Still Enjoyable

Original Friday the 13th director Sean S. Cunningham has said that when he was developing an idea of a Friday the 13th horror movie, the main reason it got made was because he wanted to rip off “Halloween.” “Halloween” had been a big horror hit and many in Hollywood were itching to recreate that success. I really don’t even mind that “Friday the 13th” was a blatant attempt to cash in on the slasher craze, in fact, the success of “Friday the 13th” proved that this slasher thing wasn’t just a phase, but rather a cultural phenomenon. Now here we are nearly thirty years and ten sequels later and we’re handed the Michael Bay-produced “re-imagining” of everyone’ favorite hockey mask wearing killer with “Friday the 13th.” I can’t help but think this is just a blatant attempt to cash in on all the other horror remakes of lately, most notably “the Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (also produced by Bay) and “Halloween” (equally destroyed and revamped by Rob Zombie). It wouldn’t really be a Friday the 13th is “rip-off” wasn’t the original intent is what I’m getting at here. But is this latest franchise reboot worth it?

There are positives and negative to director Marcus Nispel’s (“Chainsaw” remake) take on the new Jason Voorhees. First of all the movie seems more like a remake of Friday the 13th Part 2 in that the film opens where the first film ends (with Final Girl decapitating deformed Jason’s mother Mrs. Voorhees). Everyone remembers (except for Casey in the first “Scream”) that in Friday the 13th Mrs. Voorhees is the one offing sexually active camp counselors. Jason doesn’t kill any one until Part 2. Writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (who also penned “Freddy Vs. Jason” in case you care) must of thought it best to have Jason be the killer since having a middle aged woman be the killer is so over done. It’s not? What do you mean? Ok ok, so having Jason be the killer is the first thing this remake is sort of getting wrong, but that’s ok.

Everyone who has seen any of the Friday films will notice the sheer lack of production values (at least in numbers 1-8). Sure they were distributed by Paramount but you can really feel the low budget whenever you watch one of those flicks. Slick is not a word you’d use to describe them. Here with this new film slick is the only word used to describe it. Daniel Pearl’s (whose first film was the original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” cinematography can best be described as beautiful. The look of the film is inspired and almost seems unnecessary seeing as though this is supposed to be a “Friday the 13th” movie. The film looks like it was made for 60 million bucks which instantly doesn’t make it feel like a Friday film. And besides random people like Kevin Bacon and Crispin Glover, who were unknowns, before appearing in parts 1 and 4 respectively, this new film is chock full of (mostly) TV actors and faces that you may recognize. Look it’s the guy from “Supernatural” who plays Clay who is looking for his missing sister Whitney who was Seth’s aunt on “The OC.” Clay clashes with Trent (the blonde douche from “Transformers” and “Accepted”) and his group of college friends who are spending the weekend at his rich parent’s house in the woods. Unbeknownst to them, Jason is out in the woods, waiting to kill off as many horny idiots as he can get his hands on. And speaking of which, he is keeping Whitney locked up in his underground lair, ala Leatherface, because she supposedly looks like his sister. I smell BS. I appreciate the film trying to be different and treat Jason as a real human being, but getting a peek into Jason’s alternative lifestyle is of no real interest to me. In fact humanizing him is probably the biggest mistake they could have made. (And don’t even get me started on the fact that the plotline doesn’t even come close to having anything to do with the original. There’s not a single character that appears in the remake save for mother and son).

Ok enough of this fanboy’s bitter complaints. Besides a few slips (like where the heck are the homages to the original that I found so enjoyable in Zombie’s Halloween?) I feel should have been mentioned this new Friday flick is actually rather enjoyable. It has all the standard slasher elements you’d expect in such a film like ample nudity, sex, violence and drug use. I appreciate the casting director for finding good looking guys and gals which always makes it more fun to see arrows rip through their foreheads, or axes go through their backs, or machetes go through their heads, or boats being driven over their faces. I counted lots of original bloody kills (thirteen if I’m not mistaken). There’s a few tense sequences, but nothing to cause nightmares by any means, just plenty of sharp objects being thrown at the good looking cast.

This reboot is sure cause discussions amongst rabid fans. Anyone who is into horror films is bound to enjoy it. And don’t get me wrong it’s totally enjoyable. If you know the original film and its sequels really well, I would advise trying to forget about them for 95 minutes and just enjoy this movie as its own separate entity. I mean it could have been worse; they could have set the film in space or something like “Jason X.” Mrs. Voorhees must be rolling around in her grave. GRADE: B-

PS - They could have integrated the famous "ki-ki-ki, ma-ma-ma" score a little more don't you think?

Best of Best Picture Nielsen Film Tournament

Best of Best Picture

The Parent Trap: The Visually Scrumptious Tale “Coraline” is Mostly Sew Sew

I am a fan of Tim Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas. I am a fan of Alice in Wonderland (the Disney cartoon of course). I am a fan of stop-motion animation. I am a fan of 3D. I can quite say I was a fan of “Coraline,” the animated film adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s award winning novella of the same name. Every element seems to come together with “Coraline:” it has a great voice cast, the animation is beautifully (and creepily) conceived by director Henry Selick (who also wrote the screenplay) and it’s one of the more original stories I’ve seen from the movies in a while. The problem is, I didn’t really care much about what was going on.

Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is a little girl who moves to a new apartment complex with her mother and father. Her parents are too involved in their work to give Coraline much attention so of course she develops a knack for exploring as children tend to do in stories like this. She discovers a tiny door in her house that had been covered up by wallpaper. Her mother uses the key and shows Coraline that the door is sealed off and doesn’t lead to anywhere. That is until Coraline notices the door is opening one night and our curious little heroine wanders inside. At the other end of this dark tunnel is an exactly duplicate of her house. She discovers she as an Other Mother and an Other Father who pay attention to her and cook delicious food for her. It seems like a dream come true. Except her “Other” parents have buttons sewed to her eyes and they insist that if Coraline wants to say in this world permanently she’ll have to sew buttons over her eyes as well. What kid wouldn’t want to do that?

I think the biggest problem I had with “Coraline” is that it takes its sweet time in creating any sort of conflict. Some films are interesting enough because they have interesting characters or some other fascinating element in which conflict doesn’t seem important. But the fact is, I couldn’t care less about Coraline, in fact she was sort of whiny if you ask me. It wasn’t until nearly an hour into the film that Coraline becomes trapped in this world and has to escape. I was waiting for that and waiting for that. Meanwhile Coraline would go into the “other” world, and then wake up in her bed in her normal world. And then the next night she’d go back again. I was like, seriously, enough already, just get her trapped in there and get this story moving already.

Not to mention that the film features some loony characters right out of a David Lynch movie. Coraline has three neighbors. She visits Mr. Bobinsky who is a foreign acrobat with hairy shoulders and very skinny arms and legs. Then she has Miss Spink and Miss Foricble who seem like the scary aunts from “James and the Giant Peach.” There is one scene where Coraline visits these two women who are performers in which they perform to a crowd of dogs. I was waiting for Coraline to show up at Club Silencio from “Mullholland Dr.” next. There are sequences in the film that almost bored on tedium due mostly to the fact that I just didn’t really care much about Coraline and her wacky misadventures.

Now let’s get to the part of the film that truly makes it worth seeing: the animation. I could simply eat the screen the movie looks so delicious. This style of animation, I feel, is so much more “animated” than the CGI animation we’ve all come to love. It feels more “real” and yet it is so simply unreal. And you certainly have to appreciate the time and effort it takes to make a 100 minute movie in which every frame is painstakingly shot. The film does get rather creepy towards the end which is definitely the best part of the film. When coralline’s Other Mother reveals her true form it is certainly something out of a nightmare. Little kids who see this movie won’t probably sleep for a week.

The film works as a gorgeous piece of stop-motion filmmaking, but I honestly wish I could have felt more involved in Coraline’s adventures. Even being shown in 3D, which doesn’t really feel at all gimmicky, didn’t help involve me too much more. It’s really weird and twisted and that didn’t really turn me off because I was expecting it to be weird and twisted. In fact the film is sometimes so dark, I almost felt as if Coraline wouldn’t even make it out alive. Now that’s what I would call a happy ending. GRADE: B-

The Dating Game: I’m Just Not That Into “He’s Just Not That Into You”

“He’s Just Not That Into You” is a romantic comedy. I suppose. However, I hardly found it either romantic or comedic. There were plenty of people laughing their heads off in the theater. And ooohing and awwwing at just the precise moments. Maybe it’s the fact that I’m a dude, and I can certainly enjoy a romantic comedy, but I just found this film to be predictable and just not that funny. Is it so hard to ask for a romantic comedy to be slightly suspenseful? I realize that a Hollywood studio film about love is going to end happily and conventionally, but is it so hard to at least create a little suspense or throw in a surprise or too? If you’re expecting this film to be predictable and you enjoy watching women try anything in their power to get a man to like/notice/marry them then by all means enjoy “He’s Just Not That Into You.”

The best part of this film, and its selling point for me at least, is its impressive ensemble cast. I guess you could argue that the movie stars Ginnifer Goodwin, as Gigi, who is waiting for a call from Conor (Kevin Connolly). They went on a blind date and Gigi insists that it went well. In the world of dating a girl is supposed to sit worriedly by the phone waiting for a call from the guy who would then ask for another date. Gigi works with Beth (Jennifer Aniston) who has been committed to Neil (Ben Affleck) for seven years. He doesn’t want to get married and she does. Neil is friends with Ben (Bradley Cooper) who is married to Janine (Jennifer Connelly). It turns out that Ben and Janine’s marriage isn’t exactly solid, because Ben pines for Anna (Scarlett Johansson) whom he met at a convenient store. Anna is friends with Conor. Conor is also friends with bartender Alex (Justin Long) who dispenses dating advice to Gigi while she pathetically attempts to “run into” Conor one evening. And I forget, but somehow Drew Barrymore, as Mary, figures into all of this. She has an amusing line about My Space (which we’ve seen in the trailer) which is probably the funniest part of the film.

The point of all of this is to have plenty of characters so that when you get bored with one’s complaining about the love interest we can jump to see what another character is up to. I actually sort of enjoyed the elliptical way all the characters are connected. It’s sort of like “Crash” without the racism and with more schmaltzy romantic boo-hoo-hooing. I don’t get why in these movies the only thing these people talk about is reltionaships. If anything, I’d at least like to see them talk about something else, anything else. Heck, I’d even take the always fascinating “which way do you wipe?” conversation.

The alpha and omega rule in a romantic comedy is that you root for the couple to get together. I can’t really say that here. Gigi is almost disturbingly obsessed with the tool Conor for some unknown reason except that she thinks their date went well. And that’s all. I had no idea why she was so obsessing over him. Of course by her going out to the bar alone she meets Alex who we instantly, once he starts telling her about dating from the guy’s point of view, realize is the one she really digs. I can’t even count how many times I wanted to punch Gigi in the face. She acts like a pathetic whiner, and I feel bad for women who go to this movie and have to actually attempt to identify with her. I have to admit that Gigi and Alex would make a nice couple, but I’m not so sure it’s worth waiting over two hours for it to happen. And I actually thought the biggest twist (spoiler alert) is that Bradley Cooper’s character had been smoking the whole time.

In the end, if you have a uterus, you’ll probably enjoy everything that goes on in “He’s Just Not That Into You.” You’ll probably even enjoy the quick testimonials about dating that director Ken Kwapis employs to help give the film a When Harry Met Sally… sort of feel. It feels like an attempt to be “different” but comes off as more of “why can’t I just be watching ‘Annie Hall’ right now?” come on ladies, wake up already. You are too smart for this stuff, now please agree that the wittiest thing about this film is its title and go see “My Bloody Valentine 3D” if you need a Valentine’s Day movie to share with your loved one. GRADE: C