The Rules of Engagement: “The Proposal” is a Comfortable and Funny Romantic Comedy

Let me get this out of the way up front, my opinions of this movie are completely biased because of Betty White. If you don’t know me - and if you don’t, why are you even reading this? – I am a huge Golden Girls fan. So if any Golden Girl is going to be in a movie, I’m going to be there. And luckily she’s in “The Proposal” a lot. And she actually gets some funny things to do and say, instead of the standard “old person” role of three unfunny and unmemorable scenes. Having said that, the film is a decent romantic comedy. It’s formulaic and sort of unoriginal, but its leads are charming and have decent chemistry. Do you hope they get together in the end? Sure. Are you surprised that it happens? Not really.

The film sort of starts out like “The Devil Wears Prada.” Sandra Bullock is Margaret Tate, a pushy, unpleasant boss in a publishing company. Ryan Reynolds is Andrew Paxton, her desperate personal assistant. He’s only keeping this pathetic job because he hopes it will lead to an editor’s job. Ms. Tate is what we’d call a bitch. Everyone in the office hates her and tries to avoid her at all costs. But like we learned about Meryl Streep’s character in “Prada,” she’s really a vulnerable human being on the inside, lonely and sort of pathetic. Margaret, being from Canada, has just learned she’s going to be deported and with a little quick thinking grabs her trustworthy assistant and insists they are engaged and would therefore not have to leave the country. She basically blackmails him into it and if they were to get caught she’d be sent home permanently and he’d be fined and thrown in jail. So they go of to Andrew’s family’s place in Alaska determined to convince the entire civilized world that they are in fact in love and ready to be married.

This is wholly ridiculous and dumb idea. In real life I imagine this would be impossible, but I think we’re supposed to just go with it and accept it as reality. But if you can get over that then you’ll more than likely find something here to enjoy and I found the two leads to be enjoyable. Even though she comes off as a jerk at first, I found myself caring about Margaret and about the horrible thing she’s making Andrew try to pull off. It’s actually fun meeting his family: mom is Mary Steenburgen, Dad is Craig T. Nelson and 90-year-old Grandma is White. Margaret soon learns how well off Andrew is but his father is unhappy that he’s wasting his life away in New York City trying to be a writer when he should be more involved with his family and half the town which his father owns.

Meanwhile we lots of tradition pre-wedding stuff. Like Andrew’s female relatives taking Margaret out for a bachelorette party starring the town Hispanic as the stripper (Oscar from The Office). And they even tailor Grandma’s old wedding dress to fit Margaret even though it doesn’t quite fit her. After all everyone knows how busty Betty White is. Writer Peter Chiarelli even introduces us to Andrew’s ex-girlfriend Gertrude (Malin Akerman) and I have to give him props for not turning the character into an obvious plot point. However, that doesn’t stop him from actually making Margaret and Andrew, two people who couldn’t possibly be more different, from actually realizing they are in love, in just a few days’ time.

I’m going to recommend The Proposal on the sheer fact that it feels much like “early Sandra Bullock.” I miss the days of “While You Were Sleeping” in which you were charmed by her character’s odd predicament and you didn’t feel ashamed for feeling that way. Bullock and Reynolds have some great chemistry even when director Anne Fletcher (“Step Up,” “27 Dresses”) isn’t making them rub against each other completely nude (That was such a freaking odd scene, which they are selling the crap out of in the previews). The movie also has the traditional other oddities including a fluffy dog named Kevin who has an unfortunate run in with an eagle.

You could do worse than “The Proposal,” but if you go in realizing it’s just another romantic comedy, you might actually find yourself laughing and having a good time, despite the fact that you could have written the script yourself (And of course, Betty helps). GRADE: B

A Despair to Remember: “The Hangover” is Hilarious and Hardly Headache-Inducing

“The Hangover” is a lot smarter than you think it would have any right to be. It takes a sort of standard premise… a Las Vegas bachelor party… and makes it more interesting: A tiger in the bathroom! Mike Tyson! Flamboyant Asian crime lords! A missing baby! A missing tooth! A missing groom! “The Hangover” is great because unlike most movies about wild misadventures in Sin City we don’t really see any of the wild night in Vegas, we see the aftermath. We see the next day. And as the film progresses and as three groomsmen start an epic quest to find the groom, we are filled in on all the wacky situations these guys got into because they don’t remember a thing. And we’re laughing all the way through.

We’re introduced to three guys in the middle of a desert. They look beaten up and tired and desperate. One of them phones a woman. He tells her that there is no way they’ll be back in time for her and their friend's wedding. And neither will the groom who is nowhere to be seen. Then the film flashes back two days, where we’re introduced to Phil, (Bradley Cooper) a married elementary school teacher, Stu, (Ed Helms) a dentist who’s in a rocky relationship and Alan, (Zach Galifianakis) the strange brother of the bride. Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in two days and goes off with his groomsmen for an overnight, drunken stay in Vegas. What could go wrong?

The next morning we see their penthouse suite is completely trashed. A chair is smoking. A chicken wanders around. Stu wakes up on the floor and is missing a tooth. Alan has no pants on and discovers a tiger in the bathroom. Phil has a hospital bracelet on his wrist. While looking for Doug they find a baby in a closet. The three guys can’t find Doug anywhere and set out on a mission to find him. We slowly learn about their unseen crazy, drunken evening. When they ask the valet to get the car, the valet shows up with a police cruiser. They drive to the hospital where Phil was treated and press the doctor for answers. This leads to them finding out that Phil was married to a woman he’d never met before and he even gave the woman his grandmother’s Holocaust ring.

I’m not even going to bother telling you anything else that happens because finding out is what makes the movie so fun. What is so amazing is that we only get to see bits and pieces of their wild night. We only really get to see the aftermath (the set designers certainly must have had fun with this movie). Director Todd Philips, who’s an alumni of the man-boy guy comedies (Road Trip, Old School), slowly reveals the evening’s events and the situations get progressively more wacky and outlandish. And of course it helps that these three guys are so goofy and lovable, I actually cared about what happened to them. And it is actually pretty exciting to try to figure out where exactly Scott Moore and Jon Lucas’ script is going. The film’s biggest mystery – what exactly happened to Doug – is fun trying to figure out. It’s all sort of like a more intelligent version of “Dude Where’s My Car?”

And let me just give a special shout out to Mr. Galifianakis who is this year’s McLovin. He is so tremendously funny and talented he makes looking stupid and acting funny seem easy. He gets most of the film’s laughs because his character is so weird, yet lovable, you can’t take your eyes off him, even when he’s walking around without pants OR underwear.

“The Hangover” is certainly a welcome addition to this summer’s lineup and is certainly one of the funniest movies to hit the big screen in a while (although "I Love You Man" is still by far the best). You’d certainly be doing yourself a favor by indulging in the "The Hangover." It’s a movie that is hilarious and totally unforgettable. (And check out those shockingly hilarious end credits!) GRADE: B+

My Two Cinematic Cents: Title Remakes

Ok ok, everyone knows that Hollywood hardly has any new ideas anymore. It's always remake this, reboot that, reimagine this, sequel that. You know what? I'm sort of ok with it as long as there's something original every once in a while. Look at Pixar for the most original and entertaining movies ever made (Although they do have Toy Story 3, so even they have caught the sequel bug). So since everyone is all distraught over all the remake and reboots of actual movies, why is no one upset when movies reuse the SAME TITLE. So someone decided to make another sequel to The Fast and the Furious. They had 2 Fast 2 Furious. Then there was Fast and the Furiuos: Tokyo Drift. So Fast and the Furious Part 4 was too unoriginal right? I know let's take out the two THEs in the original title: Fast and Furious? huh? And now we have THE FINAL DESTINATION which is the fourth film in the Final Destination series. Apparently those producers only know how to count to three. Frankly the original title, Final Destination Death Trap, would have worked for me. And all of this isn't really a complaint, just an observation. Hence when Spider-Man 4 comes out, can we expect them to add a the? Will it be The Spider-Man? Heck why doesn't Pixar just call Toy Story 3, The Toy Story.

Having said all that, I'm super duper excited for The Final Destination which is going to be released in 3D! The Final Destination series have been one of the most consistant in terms of fresh slasher kills even though it is seriously the same exact plot in every movie. Hey, if it works the first time, don't change a thing! And i'm being serious... Imean this ain't Shakespeare. Bring on the gory deaths August 28th. And check out the trailer now:

The Final Destination trailer in HD

The Chick and the Dead: Alison Lohman Tries to Reverse the Curse in the Fantastic “Drag Me to Hell”

If you see one movie this summer, go see “Star Trek.” If you see two movies this summer, go see “Drag Me to Hell.” Simply put, it’s one of the most ridiculously amazing movies of the year. Cult director Sam Raimi who moved into mainstream success with the “Spider-man” flicks finally goes back to his roots with a campy horror tale of a woman cursed by an evil gypsy woman. The movie is funny, scary and totally outrageous. It is probably one of the most fun times you’ll have at the movies this year and is certainly one of my favorites so far this year.

I enjoy “The Evil Dead” but it’s not one of my favorite movies. The 1982 super-cheap cult horror flick which Raimi made with a bunch of his friends with very little money is still considered his bread and butter. As the years have gone on, he’s made bigger budgeted flicks, but its obvious he’s always had a desire to revisit his campy past. He does that with “Drag Me to Hell,” which is quite possibly one of the best movie titles in the history of cinema. It’s more than a title it’s a promise. A promise from the filmmaker to the viewer that they will see someone onscreen being dragged to hell. Of course, the big question is who exactly.

The flick starts in the 1960s where a young boy has been cursed. His family brings him to a medium who fails at saving the poor boy and he’s… yes dragged to hell. Flash-forward to present day where we meet Christine Brown (Alison Loman) who works as a loan officer at a bank where she’s up for a promotion. Her boss says she’s near the top of the list, but he’s looking for someone who is not afraid to be tough. When an old creepy woman named Mrs. Ganush (exquisitely played by Lorna Raver) comes in to ask for a third extension on her mortgage, Christine sees an opportunity to prove that she can say no when needed. She can’t be a pushover. The woman, who coughs up yellow phlegm, has a discolored iris, and takes out her teeth to eat a treat from Christine’s candy bowl, begins to beg on hands and knees. She’s visibility upset. Then she visits Christine later that night in the parking garage, in of the film’s greatest sequences (hello stapler as weapon!) in which she steals a button off Christine’s coat and curses her. She insists that it will be Christine who will come begging to Mrs. Ganush.

At first the whole curse thing just seems silly to Christine, but then strange things begin happening. Scary shadows, loud noises, you know, standard Exorcist/Poltergeist type stuff. She goes to a fortune teller who, despite a price tag of 60 bucks, insists that Christine has been officially cursed and after three days of torment by an evil demon, she will be dragged to hell for all eternity. What is pretty refreshing to see, first of all, is Christine’s college professor boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) doesn’t really believe her but he continues to support her. He slowly realizes that maybe everything weird going on isn’t exactly just in her head, like when a fly comes into the bedroom at night, and goes down her throat and she proceeds to have a “dream” that the old woman is lying next to her and she proceeds to throw up thousands of mealworms all over her face. Yes this movie is gooey and gross and fantastic. The violence is so over the top you can’t help but laugh at it.

The movie has a certain sense of humor about it and that is due to Sam Raimi (and his co-writer & borther Ivan Raimi) expert balance of humor and horror. They don’t let it get too scary or too funny but they spread out perfect layers as if they’re award winning chefs designing the perfect dessert on Ace of Cakes. They know exactly what they’re doing and what exactly the audience wants to see. And the way they go about it, with traditional horror movie staples such as loud, scary noises, creepy camera angles and stylized editing which all congeal to form a perfect roller coaster ride of frightening fun.

Like I said, the movie is utterly ridiculous (hello goat!) but it’s super fun. It knows exactly what it’s doing and just how to do it. I dare you to argue how this isn’t one of the most original and enjoyable movies to come out this summer. The summer movie season always has one sleeper horror hit and Drag Me to Hell is sure to be that movie. Remember the title is a promise: someone gets dragged to hell, so go see it to find out just who that is. GRADE: oh what the hell, A

Sky Tension: Pixar’s “Up” is a Fantastic Adventure That Receives My Highest Recommendation

Well geez how boring is this? Pixar and Disney have teamed up to make their 10th full length animated feature and you know what? It’s just as good as all the others. You’d think there’d be room for a turkey somewhere right? But no, “Up” is simply another marvelous, colorful extremely fun adventure with great characters and wonderful animation that yet again pushes the boundaries of anything you’ve ever seen before. The story follows one of the most unlikely relationships ever between a grumpy old man and a naïve little boy who experience a journey like no other. Pixar has added another winner to their already overly prestigious crop of films and prove yet again that they have the most talented and original filmmakers on the planet Earth.

How does Pixar do it? How do they come up with such rich and creative ways of telling stories? “Up” is a wonderful story that may not seem like much on paper but it comes brilliantly to life up on the screen. We’re introduced to Carl as a young boy who urges for adventure from the likes of his movie idol Charles Munz (Christopher Plummer). Carl meets Ellie who is adventurous as well. They fall in love and spend a happy wonderful life together which we see all before our eyes as the film begins. They even have a scrapbook which will document all their life’s adventures. One of their biggest dreams is to go to the wilds of South America, but as they grow older that isn’t meant to be. Ellie then passes away during one of the film’s most touching and saddest sequences and now Carl (voiced as an old man by Ed Asner) is all alone. Grumpy and crotchety and refuses to sell his house to the land developers in charge of the construction going on all around his quaint home.

One day Carl decides he’s had enough and since he’s got nothing left to lose (he’s already being forced to move to an old folks home) he attaches thousands of balloons to his home in hopes of floating all the way to South America. The only dent in his plan is a young wilderness scout has stowed away on his front porch who just wants to help an old person so he can get a new patch. The young boy’s name is Russell (Jordan Nagai) and he’s one of those slightly annoying young kids who you hate at first and come to love once you get to know him. These two characters seem like polar opposites, but it’s their love of adventure that gives them that connection.

I don’t want to talk too much about what happens after they lift up and head for South America because that would be ruining most of the fun. I will say that they certainly have one of the most wacky and outrageous adventures this side of an Indiana Jones flick. We’re treated to giant colorful birds, talking dogs and a villain that is certainly worthy of the title. Oh and is this movie funny! There are sequences in which you may find yourself not being able to hear the dialogue because you or those around you will be laughing so hard.

And you all know this going it, but “Up” has brilliant animation. I seriously believe we’re looking at the next Oscar winner for Best Animated Feature (and hopefully a best original screenplay nod). I didn’t see the film in 3D because I wanted to take in the gorgeous animation first, but I will be checking the 3D version soon. You’ll definitely want to see “Up” more than once because once just isn’t enough when it comes to Pixar. GRADE: A

Dr. Loomis: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love “Halloween”

With just about three months to go until Rob Zombie's next chapter in his Halloween reboot, I've decided to go back to the beginning and figure out just how John Carpenter's original slasher classic "Halloween" became my fourth favorite film of all time and the definitive American movie from the 1970s (sorry Mr. Corleone but you got nothing on Michael Myers). Look I've even seen the Myers house in person --->

I can remember it so clearly. I was at my grandparents’ house. It was someone’s birthday. My grandma? My grandpa? My uncle? Who knows? It was a family celebration that would forever change my life. Most family get-togethers revolved around the TV set. My parents would hang out with the adults while my sister and I would retire to the television. We had finished watching a movie, of which I can’t remember, and the spot on the TV announced the next movie coming up was “Halloween.” “Uncle Georgie!” I cried at the ripe old age of about 9 or 10, “Halloween is on next!” My uncle insisted it was a great movie and that I watch it. I’m not really sure what he was thinking, but I was never against a solid film recommendation at that age and so I watched it anyways. I watched and watched. I sat there unglued and yet unflinchingly terrified at what I was actually witnessing. And this was the TV version no less. I remember leaving my grandparents that night still shocked at what I had witnessed. That night, when my mother put me to bed, I, without hesitating, flicked my closet light on, which before that time had never really had any use except for trying to find a good toy to play with. I had Michael Myers on my mind and in my dreams and I was forever a changed human being. There have always been two points in my life: pre-“Halloween” and post-“Halloween.”

I’m not really quite sure why “Halloween” affected me so strongly but I have a few ideas. First off, Michael Myers was and is, to me, the scariest villain I’ve yet to come across in a movie. The mask he chose to steal from the hardware store is simply chilling. I literally couldn’t even look at the mask without getting goose bumps. It didn’t help that director John Carpenter’s simple yet haunting score simply scared the crap out of me. Just hum a few bars and still get the creeps. Like John William’s shark theme from “Jaws,” its simple notes put effortlessly together manage to create a foreboding atmosphere unmatched by nearly any other film composition. Unless of course you count Bernard Herrman’s shower scene music which, along with “Halloween” and “Jaws” are the horror movie score trifecta of terror.

“Halloween” had always been just “the scariest movie I’d ever seen in my entire life.” It now not only stands as of the scariest movies I’ve seen but one of my favorites. It currently ranks as number four on my list of all time favorite films. It sits just behind “Mrs. Doubtfire,” as strange as that seems, but perhaps it’s hard to beat out any film that has won a Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy Golden Globe Award. In my opinion, not only is “Halloween” scary but it is a completely well-made and efficient thriller. Carpenter and his co-writer and producer Debra Hill (who also produced my #2 favorite “Adventures in Babysitting”) made the most of their very limited budget. They used the camera in a subjective way that had been used very little up to that point in time. The original “Black Christmas” used the subjective camera many years earlier, but it never quite caught on with American audiences. Carpenter also had a crazy idea to open his film, which included a tour of a small Midwestern suburban house and a murder, all in one take. He ultimately used three takes with well-placed edits, but the entire opening sequence feels like one long and suspenseful take. We are shown a house, a young couple make out and run upstairs to do the nasty nasty. We travel into the house, open a kitchen drawer, pull out a knife, make our way upstairs, put on a clown’s mask and before we know it we are stabbing a naked girl to death. It is revealed just seconds later that we were looking through the eyes of a young boy. We are looking at Michael Myers. The story picks up years later when Michael escapes from a mental institution where he proceeds to stalk one young Laurie Strode ('Sream Queen' Jamie Lee Curtis' big break) and her slutty girlfriends. Michael’s psychologist Dr. Loomis is on his trail and he must stop him before the town of Haddonfield, Illinois becomes a bloodbath.

John Carpenter was a young guy who just wanted to make movies and he succeeded in not only creating one of the most successful independent films of all time, but certainly one of the scariest. You can feel his presence in nearly every frame. He created one of the most evil and memorable and freakiest villains ever put on film and he certainly scared the ever loving crap out of me. For a while, I couldn’t even hear the name “Micheal Myers” without screaming my head off. Needless to say it was a while before I had watched “Halloween” again. It played the next year on TV and I was ballsy enough to tape it. It wasn’t until years and years later when I got my first DVD player that I even watched the theatrical version, in widescreen of course.

“Halloween” has since influenced my entire taste in movies. I prefer a slasher movie (which “Halloween” basically helped to create) over nearly every other genre, although I’m generally non-exclusive and enjoy watching whatever I can get. I love Freddy and Jason and Leatherface, but for me, Michael Myers will always hold a special place in my heart, even if he scared the crap out of me so many years ago. GRADE: A+

Check out the trailer for Halloween 2:

Rage Against the Machines: “Terminator Salvation” Proves This Franchise Must Be Terminated*

When Christian Bale can’t even make your movie interesting, authentic or emotionally satisfying then your movie isn’t that good. I can’t believe I just said that mostly because I’m not even the biggest Christian Bale fan. I mean I like the guy and he’s a great actor who is capable of playing an extremely wide range of roles, but I don’t necessarily get super excited just because he shows his face. And wasn’t his growling Batman voice a little ridiculous? But I digress… back to the important issue at hand. Guys and gals, the new Terminator movie kind of stinks! I guess I’m not really too disappointed seeing as though I didn’t think it was a good idea and never really looked to amazing to begin with but here we are with “Terminator Salvation,” the only salvation being is that it’s less than two hours.

“Terminator Salvation” takes place in 2018 which, in my opinion is the biggest mistake right there. I enjoy the Terminator flicks because they are sci-fi movies that take place during the present day, I’m not so interested in the aftermath of ‘Judgement Day’ and I assume a lot of people aren’t seeing as though it took this long to make a movie about it. So in this future the machines have taken over like the past three movies have told us. They’ve also created some sort of human/machine hybrid which here is played by relative new comer Sam Worthington (he’s from Australia so he’s new to us Americans). Worthington is Marcus Wright a man who is going to be executed but not before agreeing to “donate his body to science.” Turns out he’s giving his body to Cyberdyne the company that is responsible for Skynet and the whole apocalypse thing. He becomes this film’s half-man half-machine and while the guy is a good actor, he certainly can’t replace Arnold in whole acting like a machine thing.

Speaking of which. This doesn’t really feel like a Terminator movie. Arnold is severely missing, which is only time I’ve really missed him. And I still miss Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor which is one of cinema’s greatest female action heroes (well she was in T2 not so much in T1, whoa that hair!). We do get Bale playing an adult John Connor who is helping to fight the machines who have waged a war with the humans. Bale is decent, but can’t help cover up the weak script by John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris who also penned “Terminator 3.” Terminator 3 was more successful in that it felt more along the lines of the first two films even though it wasn’t nearly as good. This new vision of the bleak future hardly even stands on its own as an interesting view of how dreary things will eventually be for mankind (I’m assuming ‘The Road’ which opens in the fall will be better).

At least the writers have shown us more of Kyle Reese who here is now played in a younger former by Anton Yelchin. Reese as any Terminator fan knows was a solider sent to the past to protect Sarah Connor who would eventually give birth to John Connor who would then lead mankind to victory over the robots in the future. Mr. Reese ended up helping to conceive John in what is certainly one of the film’s more interesting paradoxes. Yelchin is pretty good but isn’t really given anything too exciting to do except help shoot at robots. And speaking of robots they actually weren’t that scary. They could have easily made this more of a horror exercise like the first film and had suspenseful sequences of robots killing humans but we get a few half assed attempts like swimming robots trying unsuccessfully to kill John when his helicopter lands in a river.

Overall Terminator Salvation is an utter disappointment. Actually it wasn’t even really a disappointment since I had no real aspirations to begin with. Even Danny Elfman’s non-Burton score isn’t all that memorable. With new director McG at the helm its no surprise that the film is mindless action and special effects, and actually pretty boring at parts. He doesn’t really seem to understand what makes a Terminator film work and that is sad. Maybe he should have made Charlie’s Angels Salvation instead. GRADE: C-

*thank you Anthony Paolucci

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+