Greek Tragedy: “Get Him to the Greek” is Somewhere I Wish I Hadn’t Gone

I’m sort of surprised by the decent reviews of the latest Judd Apatow produced comedy “Get Him to the Greek.” Ok sure it doesn’t have a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but the fact that anyone could think this film is as good as all the other great recent comedies out there is seriously crazy. I really enjoyed “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” which was wonderfully written by (and starred) Jason Segal. That film featured a wonderful scene stealing turn by British comedian Russell Brand, as wild rocker Aldous Snow, who stole the aforementioned Sarah Marshall away from our hapless hero. He was so enjoyable that those silly Hollywood people actually though he should have his own movie. It was a decent idea and I think it’s better than a flat out sequel, which would just feel unnecessary. Here however, unless you think Aldous Snow is the funniest character since Borat, you might find yourself in search of serious laughs. I didn’t find very many in “Get Him to the Greek.”

The one thing about an Apatow Production is that whether you find yourself laughing hysterically or not, you bound to at least be entertained. I was mildly entertained by this film, but I didn’t really care about the characters and I never felt any suspense as to whether Jonah Hill’s character Aaron Green would actually succeed in his mission to escort the crazy Mr. Snow to the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles for his anniversary rock concert. This could have been a wild and fun road movie where crazy things happen (Road Trip? Or even “The Hangover”) but instead we just get scenes of Aldous partying it up. I think there’s supposed to be some skewering of the music industry somewhere in here, but since I’m not very well-versed in that area I’m sure many things went over my head… but not all.

There are some things that writer/director Nicholas Stoller (who directed “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) gets right thankfully and that is the songs performed by Aldous Snow and his equally outlandish ex-girlfriend Jackie Q played hilariously by Rose Byrne. I think the movie should have followed her around for two hours. She has a few amusing song performances of which we see in music video form (one of which we see was directed by Hollywood punching bag Brett Ratner). The movie plays up the idea that songs like “Inside of You” “Supertight” and “African Child” could actually be hit songs in the real world. Although to be fair in the world of “Get Him to the Greek” African Child completely bombed and signaled the beginning of the end of Aldous Snow. The mocking of the celebrity life and culture is what this movie does best and if it focused more on that than just Jonah Hill and Russell Brand hamming it up and smoking pot and drinking alcohol and smuggling heroin I think it could have been a lot funnier. And thank God for that Kristen Bell cameo as Sarah Marshall starring in a new TV drama called “Blind Medicine.”

“Get Him to the Greek” is entertaining for the most part when it’s not trying to be overly sentimental or getting bogged down in tiresome third act plot developments. (Our two heroes and Aaron’s girlfriend, played by Elisabeth Moss, seems weird and unnecessary especially when we feel like the movie should be coming to an end). Long story short (too late) is that maybe I just didn’t love Aldous Snow enough for him to get his own movie. If you love that character then you will probably love the movie. For anyone else you’re better off waiting for Judd Apatow’s next production. GRADE: C+

PS – And what’s with “Sean Combs” in this movie anyways? People are saying he’s funny, I certainly didn’t think so.

Let’s Hear it For the Toys: The Gang is Back in the Charming and Enjoyable “Toy Story 3”

Leave it to Pixar to make a second sequel which feels like one of the most original and entertaining films of the year. See, sequels and remakes aren’t all that bad as long as they’re in the right hands. And Pixar’s hands have the Golden Touch. Sure any movie that has 3 in the title is not going to be the best movie ever or anything, but this proves that a trilogy, that was never meant to be a trilogy in the first place, can have three wonderful films that all fit together perfectly and are constantly surprising, charming and witty. To be honest, the Toy Story films were never my favorites of the Pixar cannon but they are certainly amazing films. So I never felt like I needed to see a third Toy Story film and since Pixar does such a great job coming up with original stories it seemed a little silly that they really needed to make this film. But even though it’s number 3 it’s still fresh and original, for the most part.

It’s been eleven years since the release of “Toy Story 2” and I’m not quite sure how much time has passed in the Toy Story movie world, but now the young boy Andy is almost all grown up. Well he’s seventeen and ready to go off to college much to his mother’s sadness. He’s not really sure what to do with all his favorite toys. They mean a lot to him, but he doesn’t need to pay with them anymore. And Buzz and Woody and the gang are a little stressed out. What’s to become of them? Will they be given away? Will Andy just toss them in the trash? They just want to be played with and loved.

Through a little misunderstanding, as is the case with these films, the gang ends up accidentally being donated to a local day care center called Sunnyside. They meet a bunch of new toys who show them around. This includes Lotso Huggin Bear, a fluffy, purple bear voiced by Ned Beatty. He seems to be in charge and makes the new toys feel welcome. Although things seem fishy when he puts them in the room where preschoolers play and treat the toys as if they were just dinky, disposable playthings. They are painted on, and glittered and thrown against the wall. These little toddlers don’t know how to treat toys exactly because, hey, they’re toddlers. It seems odd that Lotso and his friends are in the room with the well-behaved kids. Hmm I smell a similar Toy Story 2 plotline that involved Pete the Prospector. Leave it to the great minds at Pixar to come up with a plot about day care center being worse than prison. Oh and there’s the new toy Ken (Michael Keaton) whom is certain to be a fan favorite.

I don’t want to divulge too much of the rest of the plot, because that would just be unfair. Sure Toy Story 3 isn’t the most original or even close to one of the best Pixar films, but with such a high track record are you even surprised? It just can’t measure up to the genius that were “Finding Nemo,” “Cars” and “Up.” But you know what? These guys, who worked from a script by “Little Miss Sunshine’s” Michael Arndt, know how to get the audience emotionally invested in characters made entirely out of computer animated pixels. I dare you not to shed a tear at the end and think of all of your own favorite toys you were obsessed with as a kid.

“Toy Story 3” is a well-made sequel, with top notch voice talent and terrific animation, which deserves to sit right along side its equally intelligent and delightful predecessors. It introduces some great new characters and an emotionally rewarding story that will grab your heart and refuse to let go. With success after success does anyone really think Pixar will ever make a crappy movie? I doubt it. GRADE: A-

Weird Science: “Splice” is an Unconventional Science Fiction Thriller

I’m giving “Splice” a positive review overall, but be forewarned this is a super weird film that is not for the average moviegoer’s tastes. It involves a premise we’ve all seen before, borderline “mad” scientists create monstrous creature with the best intentions. Everything then goes wrong. This isn’t exactly “Frankenstein.” It’s not even “The Fly.” I’ve even heard someone refer to it as “Species” meets “It’s Alive.” Whatever you want to call it, it’s certainly unconventionally done as would be expected from the guy who brought us the “Saw” precursor torture flick “Cube” way back in 1997. And of course like all great science fiction it has a social message and deals with ethical and moral situations to the utmost degree.

Like ethical situation number 32, should you mate with the humanoid creature that you created in a lab just a few months prior? Ok ok, I’m getting ahead of myself here and you can consider that a minor spoiler, but odds are your probably not going to be seeing this movie right? Let’s start at the begging, where we’re introduced to Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley). They are hip biomedical scientists (and lovers) who are really good at splicing together various animal genes to create new species. They work for a pharmaceutical house who funds their research in hopes of creating cures for various human diseases (maybe we shouldn’t be trying this hard to cure cancer, etc?) They created this two alien blob looking creature whom they dub Fred and Ginger. In a little bit of foreshadowing, they want the two of them to mate.

It turns out that Elsa is the real mad scientist here and decides it would be a completely good idea to splice human DNA with that of either Fred or Ginger. Much to Clive’s frustration he hesitantly goes along with it as long as she doesn’t bring the being full term. But of course she does! She births it and nearly dies doing it because apparently their creation has a poisonous, barbed tail. The creature sort of looks like something out of an early Peter Jackson gore fest. And has an accelerated grow, because honestly no one would want to sit through a 4 hour version of this movie slowly waiting for the creature to come of age. Before we know it the little monster is a young girl and then a young woman (played with some CGI help by Delphine Chanéac) with kangaroo legs and a tail.

Then come lots of other ethical issues besides the ones involving whether it’s actually a good idea to splice human DNA and weird creature DNA. Those things I wont get into because it’s probably best to not know. I will praise the film for taking itself seriously because this could have easily gone the campy route but director Vincenzo Natali plays it all straight. He wanted to make the most realistic film he could I believe he succeeded in that arena. There are even scenes that reminded me of parts of everything from “Jurassic Park” to “King Kong.” There will be those who laugh at what they’re seeing on screen, which I think will be a normal human reaction.

I applaud Natali for going to places other directors and studios would have dared not go and good for Warner Bros for releasing a film like this, which could have easily gone straight to DVD for giving it chance. If you’re a fan of science fiction and even horror, although the film isn’t particularly scary, you’d be doing yourself a favor by checking out “Splice.” It’s a film that has some pretty shocking images and will certainly get folks talking long after the credits roll. GRADE: B

Brother, Can You Spare Some Time? “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is a Decent Enough Time Waster

“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” dares to answer the age old question: Where the beef? Apparently it’s in the formerly scrawny Hollywood actor Jake Gyllenhaal. Most people will make a big deal about Jake beefing up for the role of a Persian prince who was made popular in a video game series that I don’t know anything about. To be honest I wasn’t really expecting much from this Jerry Bruckheimer production besides lots of dizzying camera tricks and explosions and never-ending action sequences. Yes the film has all of that but it does breeze by and luckily it lasts under two hours instead of those other bloated “Pirate of the Caribbean” movies which seem to go on forever. That being said, I can’t exactly say I loved “Prince of Persia” but at the same time I found myself engaged enough where I didn’t feel the need to claw my own eyes out, so there’s that.

I was worried the plot would be inconceivable, much like those overblown “Pirates” movies where even the most bloated scenes of exposition don’t seem to make a whirl of sense. I think I got the gist here. Basically back when the Persian Empire was taking over the Middle East, the King came across Aladdin, um, I mean Dastan a young street rat. He liked his spunk and decided to adopt him as a son. He grows up to be Prince Dastan (Gyllenhaal) who doesn’t even remotely look Persian. Do I even know what a Persian looks like? Not really, but I’m assuming not like Jake Gyllenhaal. But I digress, as the young man, who is envied by his “brothers” and even his uncle (Ben Kingsley). Someone is a little too jealous and poison’s the King’s cloak. Using some form of acid (perhaps Alien blood?) the King is murdered. Dastan is the obvious scapegoat and in a scene right out of The Lion King, Dastan is exiled from his former palace home.

Meanwhile a dagger which has magical time travel abilities makes itself known when Dastan mistakenly presses the button on the handle. It sends him in back in time about thirty seconds. Tamina (Gemma Arterton) is a princess whose city was taken over by the Persians. Dastan sets out to prove his innocence, while Tamina’s only concern is this magical Dagger which can turn back time. These two can’t seem to get along and it proves right from the beginning that they will fall in love. Meanwhile they meet up with Sheik Amar whose main concern is ostrich racing. Amar is played by Alfred Molina and as you can imagine he’s better than the movie deserves. Thank goodness for Alfred.

There is a lot more going on and I think I understood what was going on, but I’d rather not discuss it because honestly does anyone really care? I certainly don’t. The film is based on a video game so plot isn’t exactly something to be too concerned with. Director Mike Newell, who Harry Potter fans will recognize as the director of “Goble of Fire,” seems suited to the material, oh I dunno because I guess it makes sense for the direct of “Mona Lisa Smile” to graduate to directing a Jerry Bruckheimer action spectacle.

Let me be frank, this isn’t mindless action entertainment like Michael Bay gives us. There are many worse movies than “Prince of Persia: The Sand of Time.” It’s really just an average action movie with fantastical elements that will certainly please fans of the videogame. It all really felt like a weird mash-up of Indiana Jones, “The Mummy,” “Aladdin” and “Pirates of Caribbean.” I had a good enough time; do I really want to watch it again? Not really. It has good performances from its actors (although is it me or does Ben Kingsley sometimes give really silly, campy performances?) and its plot isn’t quite as incomprehensible once you kind of sort it all out. Jake and Gemma have good enough chemistry and at least everything is over pretty quickly. You could do a lot worse. GRADE: C+

Back in the Hood: Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” is Not Very Legendary

“Are you not entertained?” – Maximus, Gladiator

“Correct.” – Me, after watching Robin Hood

I don’t know too much about Robin Hood, but what I did know is that I was excited to see the Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe version. I wasn’t a big fan of Gladiator at first, but now it’s become a movie that gets better with every viewing. I like its style and grittiness and much of the same style is ported over into “Robin Hood,” another retelling of the possibly fictional, possibly real outlaw from 12th century England who “stole from the rich and gave to the poor” under the tyranny caused by King John after his brother King Richard left to fight in the Crusades. How much of this is historically accurate? I have no idea. But what I do know is that this new “Robin Hood” is as exciting as a day of jury duty (Not that I would know of course, knock on wood).

I was hoping this film would start my obsession with Robin Hood, but alas it has disappointed me. What most people don’t know and should probably know going in, is that writer Brian Helgeland has written a script that works as a prequel. And it’s profoundly confusing. I expect much better from the writer of “A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master.” We see how Robin becomes the Robin Hood that most people are familiar with. There is swordplay and lots of arrows fired, but I didn’t see much stealing from the rich or giving to the poor. In fact, what I noticed was a lot of confusion. I mean what the heck is going on in this movie? Not knowing it was a prequel didn’t help much, as nothing I was expecting of Robin Hood actually happened on screen. In fact, most of my Robin Hood knowledge comes from the Mel Brooks’ spoof “Robin Hood Men in Tights” which I don’t even really like all that much to begin with.

From what I can make out in this new flick is Robin (Crowe, very Maximus-esque) is making his way back from fighting in the Crusades with King Richard. King Richard is killed and meanwhile his brother John takes over. He’s a womanizing jerk. Robin wants to seek vengeance for King Richard’s death and the new king’s tyranny. Then there’s Maid Marion (the always reliable Cate Blanchett) who just might have the hots for Robin. They have a sort of love-hate relationship. If this is the film’s most interesting aspect that’s fine, cause there’s not much else. Oh yeah we have “Little John” in the form of the guy from “Lost” who was on the freighter. There are some comic relief jokes here and there, but nothing like the light-hearted fun that’s supposedly the staple of the very early screen versions (Of which, I have, shockingly, never seen).

Ok, so there’s nothing really technically wrong with Robin Hood. Ridley Scott is a good director and he has his distinct style and sometimes he just likes to copy it over and over again. If you’re entertained by strong battle scenes, which seemed rather intense for a PG-13 rated film, but pretty much void of gore (zzzZZZzzz) then this is for you. To be honest, I wanted to love this and I didn’t. Give me “Gladiator” anyday. GRADE: C-

MacGuffin’ It: Going Mad for Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho”

“Oh, just fast-forward to the part when she gets to the motel.” – My mom
During a family vacation to Orlando, Florida we stopped by the Universal Studios theme park. It was 1993, I believe, and I was about nine or ten years old. There used to be an attraction, which sadly no longer exists, called Alfred Hitchcock: The Art of Making Movies. At this age I had not seen nor ever really heard much about Alfred Hitchcock or his films. My parents explained that he was a director who made suspense films. I know I loved movies and I figured hey why not? The first part of the attraction featured a film reel in 3D with a scene from “Dial M for Murder” and an attack from “The Birds.” Then you were escorted into another theater where a recreation of the Psycho set was on display. Here we learned about Hitchcock’s famous “shower scene” which of course I knew nothing about. And as part of the attraction a huge screen was lowered and they showed the scene from the movie. I can’t say that I was completely scared to death, but I was frightened and strangely intrigued. A movie about a guy who dresses as his mother while he kills people in the shower? I was so there! Universal even had a recreation of the original set of the Bates Motel and Psycho house on display at the park which I thought was so cool (Which are now located at Universal Studios in Hollywood). I even brought home a notepad in the shape of the Psycho house and a red pen shaped like a knife as a souvenir.

Months later back at home at the local video store, my mom thought it would be a good idea to rent some of Hitchcock’s films. I’m not quite sure what she was thinking, but I don’t regret it. I watched "The Birds" and loved it. I watched "Psycho" which I loved even more. I remember scoping out the videocassette at the store and noticing that it was “rated M for mature.” I asked my mom, “Am I mature?” I think she just nodded her head and laughed. I mean what ten year-old who is the son of a woman renting "Psycho" for her child, is not mature? I went home and watched the movie and I’m pretty sure I had no idea what the heck was going on. The first forty minutes seemed to be about some woman who likes to drive a lot. Finally she checks into the Bates Motel and is brutally stabbed in the shower. I remember they showed the film on AMC one night and I taped it. I had to watch the movie over and over again. And even when I had my friends come over, I’d say, “You wanna watch Psycho?” And we’d put it on and then my mother, possibly herself bored with the film’s slower first act, would insist that we fast-forward to when Janet Leigh gets to the motel.

I’m not sure why I became fascinated with Hitchcock’s masterpiece at such a young age, but perhaps it was fate. I think I was destined to absolutely love the Slasher Genre. Because I think it was basically the year before or year after that I was shown “Halloween” and I was equally terrified and enthralled by it. “Psycho” is a great film for all of the reasons you’ve already heard of. It kills its lead actress in the first 40 minutes. It’s shot in stark black and white because Hitchcock insisted the film would be too gory. Hitchcock revolutionized the way people go to the movies when he employed a “no late entry” policy at theaters showing the film. If the film had started, you weren’t even allowed in. And oh that music! How could you not get chills when those stark strings churn out one of the creepiest stings in all of cinema? The shower scene is still to this day the most famous, and arguably, the best moments in American film. Norman Bates is such a memorable character mostly because of Anthony Perkins’ outstanding portrayal. And let’s not forget he would reprise his most famous role three more times. Yes there are actually a total of four “Psycho” films and I’ve seen them all. I own them. “Psycho II” is a pretty decent 80s take on the Norman Bates saga. “Psycho III” is artsy and easily forgettable but remembered for its famous director (Perkins himself!) and “Psycho IV The Beginning” is a fascinating prequel which shows Norman’s messed up childhood and how he went about murdering his own mother. The less said about the equally fascinating (because it famously used the same script and camera angles) yet horrendous remake the better.

And wouldn’t you know that 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of this classic, groundbreaking movie. (Which was just announced for release on Blu-Ray!) It was a film that shocked audiences around the world, perhaps in part that it was very loosely based on a real killer’s crimes (that of Wisconsin’s Ed Gein), and in my own living room where the memories of first watching Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho are as fresh as ever. Psycho is a celebration of cinematic sound and vision that will forever hold up as the granddaddy of modern horror and the perfect topping to a brilliant showman’s wondrous career. Thanks mom, for renting "Psycho." I guess a boy's best friend is his mother. GRADE: A+

The Stark Knight: “Iron Man 2” is a Fun and Worthy Sequel, But Can’t Match the Original

I wasn’t expecting too much from the first “Iron Man” movie back in 2008. I knew nothing of the character, and I figured, hey, it might just be a fun waste of time. It was certainly fun and not a waste of time at all. I was pleasantly surprised. And even thought it came out just a couple months before The Dark Knight, no one was really expecting all that much from Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of what seemed like a superhero no one really cared about. I was certainly wrong. The movie did extremely well at the box office and was a critical success. I was fascinated by Downey’s performance as Tony Stark, a hot shot billionaire and CEO of his father’s weapons business. And after a harrowing ordeal as a POW he escapes and becomes the most unlikely and narcissistic superhero of them all. Iron Man was great fun and while I loved the movie, I could honestly care less about the continuing story. Sure I wanted to see Iron Man 2, but much like the first one, I had very little expectations.

I will say upfront, that I think I enjoyed the first “Iron Man” movie, but “Iron Man 2” is definitely a worth sequel and anyone who loved the first movie is bound to like the second chapter. Downey is as wonderful as ever reprising his role as the cocky Tony Stark. I think this guy was born to play this role and it’s too bad he had to spend all those years a complete mess before getting there, but I guess it’s been worth it. We find that Stark’s arc reactor, which is that round thing in the middle of his chest that keeps him alive, is malfunctioning and is slowly poisoning him. He thinks he’s going to die soon and begins to become reckless. He even appoints his personal assistant Pepper Potts (a wonderful Gwyneth Paltrow) as CEO of his company. And he replaces her with the mysterious Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson). It seems like she seems a lot tougher than she looks. Meanwhile, Stark’s competitor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is trying to come up with his own Iron Man suit technology. The government insists that Stark give up his suit and its technology so it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. And of course Hammer isn’t the nicest guy in the world and breaks out a Russian bad guy named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who caused some ruckus in a wonder scene at a racetrack where he was able to recreate a version of Tony’s arc reactor and used electrified whips. It turns out his father used to work for Tony’s father and he’s bent on revenge for being deported back to Russia.

There is a lot going on in Iron Man 2 and maybe that is its greatest fault. It’s never too confusing, I was pretty much aware of everything going on, but it was a lot to digest. Director Jon Favreau does a good job of balancing everything and he makes scenes that should be exciting very exciting. I loved the scene of Ivan’s attack at the racetrack. And when we see Tony put on that suit with all the CGI metal transforming around him it was certainly a heroic image. Of course once we don’t see Robert Downey Jr. anymore a bit is lost as it just seems like any other fancy robot trying to kick butt. Oh wait there’s more, Tony’s friend Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard) gets in on the Iron Man fun and uses one of Tony’s suits to help him out. And then there’s Samuel L. Jackson, who exists only for the fan boys who salivate at the idea that he’s trying to recruit Tony Stark into what will eventually be an “Avengers” movie. Writer Justin Theroex who also co-wrote Downey’s fantastic hit “Tropic Thunder” juggles a lot of story in a two hour runtime which he does well enough. But it does seem a bit bloated as if he’s trying to please everyone. It works much better here than it did in let’s say “Spider-Man 3,” which felt like there was too much going on and yet it felt a little hollow.

"Iron Man 2" is a fun movie and a great way to kick off the summer movie season. People who enjoyed the first film will mostly like find something to like here. The film really works because of Robert Downey Jr.’s great performance and I really enjoyed Pepper’s expanded role this time around because she was so enjoyable in the first film as well. Johansson proves she can be an action star and Rourke is perfectly cast. “Iron Man 2” is not a deep film in the way “The Dark Knight” is and I still think the first film works better, but it’s really fun and offers two hours of explosive entertainment that won’t make your head hurt. GRADE: B

Glove Actually: “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is the Horror Remake Dreams Are Made Of

I’ve never been shy about my love for horror films. I’ve never been shy about the idea that it’s actually sometimes OK to remake movies. Heck it’s OK to remake movies I love. Unless it’s “Adventures in Babysitting” cause that would just be crossing the line. So in all honesty I was very much looking forward to the remake of “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” The original 1984 film is one of my favorites and as a whole, the Nightmare series is probably my favorite horror movie series of all time. Having said that and being a true Freddy Krueger fan, I really dug the new flick mostly because it actually improves upon the original film and does something different enough where I actually had little objection. There is a lot to love in this new take on Freddy and his knife glove. But oh where to be begin?

How about with the brilliant casting of Oscar-nominee Jackie Earle Haley as Fred Krueger? Sure to all fans, including me, Freddy will always be known as the role of a lifetime for Robert Englund and not to take anything away from him, but Haley had big shoes to fill and I think he succeeded. Even though the actor is kind of short, he was certainly menacing and the filmmakers did not make him at all sympathetic. That’s the main qualm I had with the other slasher updates including Friday the 13th, Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They made the villain way too sympathetic. He’s a serial killer, not a war hero. In this new version Fred Krueger was a pre-school maintenance worker who got a little too friendly with the students at the school. After allegations that he sexually molested them, the kids’ parents chased him to rundown factory and torched him to death. Now Freddy haunts the dreams of the kids who he used to go after. Now they’re teenagers and they have suppressed these uncomfortable memories.

I’m sure there will be fans who will poo-poo this story element simply because it’s implied that Fred Krueger, when he was human, didn’t actually kill any kids. It can be inferred that he might of killed in the past or that he would have killed the kids, but in this version he’s a creeper version of the character he played so well in “Little Children.” Hopefully he’s not typecast now! It also helps that his make-up job is more “realistic” and reflects what it might look like if a person was actually burned. Those looking for pizza-face Freddy will have to look elsewhere.

We learn that Nancy (Rooney Mara) is having nightmares about a scary, burned man. And so are her friends including her good friend Kris (Katie Cassidy), who we can imply is the equivalent to the Tina character from the original film. I knew that if Kris didn’t get dragged up onto the ceiling, I’d have bad words to say. Luckily the filmmakers, while at times making huge departures, continued to work in versions of the first film’s iconic moments. That includes Freddy coming through the bedroom wall behind Nancy, of course no Spandex was use this time, but rather some corny computer effects. Ehh, I’ll take what I can get.

I actually enjoyed how not being able to sleep was affecting Nancy and her friends. Kyle Gallner, playing Nancy’s potential love-interest Quentin, who you could say would be like the Johnny Depp role, does a good job of making you see what it would be like to be an insomniac. Thank god for Red Bull because he chugs it and he even steals adrenaline when he can from the hospital. These teens are literally scared to death to fall asleep and you can really sense that in their performances. This is something I feel is sort of glazed over in the original film. In that version Nancy is really the only one to lives long enough for the sleeplessness to get to her. She gets bags under her eyes and all, but she never quite emotes what it’s like to be awake for days on end.

The film has a great look and is super stylish thanks to music video director Samuel Bayer who makes his feature film debut. He does a great job of going back and forth between reality and the dream world, and he likes to trick you a lot. He has Freddy jump out a lot, which is standard practice in horror films these days. I jumped a few times. Sue me.

It was nice to finally see a Nightmare film in the theater that didn’t also have Jason Voorhees in it (I’m talking about the poor excuse for a movie Freddy vs. Jason). Everyone involved has done a great job at updating this story for a new generation and Freddy’s knife glove is as creepy as ever. As far as horror remakes goes, this one is definitely superior that most of the other movies that have come out recently. I’m not sure it’ll have the success and power of the original in any way and there really is a feeling of “what’ the point of this” throughout, but if you’re gonna remake a classic at least make it good. Heck, at least it’s better than “Nightmare 6.” GRADE: B

Good Grief: “Death at a Funeral” Puts the Fun in Funeral

“Death at a Funeral” is the strangest of remakes. It’s a remake of a foreign film that was already in English and, from what I understand, virtually scene for scene the same. Like the “Psycho” remake they’ve added a new cast and color. This time “Death at a Funeral” doesn’t involve a stuffy British family but rather a Black family from Los Angeles. Usually not being a fan of Brit humor I gladly gave “Death at a Funeral” a chance because I actually thought it looked funny. The fact that the script is the same, except for some new references to Twitter and Facebook, doesn’t really bother me. I’m not against the Hollywood “remake.” I think every movie should be judged alone. In fact, I simply can’t wait to see the new “Nightmare on Elm Street.” And I’m one of Freddy’s biggest fans.

But Freddy is for later, what is it about Death at a Funeral that makes it a pretty decent movie? First of all, it’s a farce so it’s going to be pretty unbelievable. We know this because nearly 20 minutes into the film a corpse is knocked out of his coffin and onto the floor. Is it unbelievable? Yes. But that doesn’t make it any less funny. We’re introduced to Chris Rock’s character Aaron. Aaron’s father has just passed away and he’s preparing his eulogy. Of course his younger brother Ryan (Martin Lawrence) is a published author and everyone seems shocked that he’s not giving the eulogy. Aaron’s mother Cynthia (Loretta Divine) takes time from grieving her husband’s passing to point out that she’s still not a grandmother. There are other sorted character’s we’re introduced including Aaron’s cousin Elaine (Zoë Saldana) and her white and very nervous finance Oscar (a hilarious James Marsden) who is mistakenly given acid. It said Valium on the bottle. That bottle belongs to Elaine’s brother Jeff (Columbus Short) a pharmacology student who just so happens to know how to made acid. And there’s cranky Uncle Russell (Danny Glover) and best buds Norman (Tracy Morgan) and Derek (Luke Wilson) who just so happens to be Elaine’s ex-boyfriend.

Wow, so many characters, so little time. And that’s why Death at a Funeral works. There are a lot of characters that we get to see as the afternoon progresses and everyone works well together. Of course a movie like this needs conflict, and conflict takes the form of a little person. That would be Peter Dinklage, the sole surviving actor from the original film (who plays the same role) as a mysterious man who was part of Aaron’s father’s life. I won’t really say much more but remember the name of the movie is Death at a Funeral.

A movie like Death at a Funeral works, despite it’s unoriginal origins, because director Neil LaBute (Lakeview Terrace, nice; The Wicker Man, yikes!) actually directs comedy well. He gives the film a bright look which contrasts with the film’s dark humor. He’s able to cut from one character to another before we have the slightest chance to be bored. While Oscar is busy acting silly and stripping his clothes off and climbing onto the roof, something else crazy is going on, including Norman helping Uncle Russell to the toilet for some trademarked gross out humor. The silliness escalates, and while this stuff is always extremely unlikely to ever occur in real life it’s funny because of its setting (how many funerals have you been to like this?). And the simple set, short run time, and the fact that the film takes place over the course of one afternoon makes it feel very much like a play. It reminded me a lot of “Noises Off!” where a normal situation, a funeral, becomes a crazy situation which includes the bumping off of midgets and people tripping on acid. But if you saw the original you already know this stuff.

Sure “Death at a Funeral” isn’t going to win any awards, but it has some funny lines, inspired performances by actors who fit together well. Even though the trailers make it seem like some Tyler Perry rehash I think it would have an appeal to anyone who likes black comedies and Black comedies. It’s funny, silly stuff. Hey, I might even give that British version a try. GRADE: B

Waterworld: “Oceans” Shows a Beautiful World Just Beyond the Sea

“Oceans” takes us deep into the Earth’s watery depths and shows us beautiful and strange creatures. Some are familiar and some are not. It features beautiful cinematography and some pretty jaw-dropping shots. Unfortunately, if you’ve seen the miniseries Planet Earth or Life on Discovery Channel you probably wont find “Oceans” to be all that informative. Pierce Brosnan, who most people know from “Mrs. Doubtfire,” does a good job narrating, but he doesn’t give us too much interesting information to work with. Of course it’s not his fault, he’s just an actor.

French filmmaker Jacques Perrin directed “Oceans” and also co-wrote the narration. He actually narrated the film’s original French language version and perhaps that narration isn’t as dumbed down as the English dub is. Ok, so it’s not “dumb” it just isn’t very fascinating. But most people, like myself, don’t go see a nature documentary called Oceans for the narration. We go to see it for the visuals. And they are certainly great. I don’t expect anything less than incredible when it comes from the man who was responsible for the stunning images captured in the outstanding Oscar-nominated documentary “Winged Migration.” How he ever was able to capture all those birds’ migrations is truly a wonder to behold. I’m not really sure how he captured some of the images in “Oceans” either.

Probably one of my favorite sequences involved a feeding frenzy. Birds diving into the ocean head first to catch sardines. Meanwhile dolphins, whales and sharks are feeding all at the same time while schools of thousands, and perhaps millions, of sardines flow in beautiful schools that form intoxicating patterns for the eyes. It’s truly a remarkable thing to see and I can’t even imagine being there in real life. It was also interesting to see a man, wearing only SCUBA gear swim beside a Great White Shark. And Bruce didn’t even take a bite. Perhaps they aren’t the killing machines everyone things. In fact, I think I recall hearing a fact somewhere stating more people die from elephant attacks in a year than they do by sharks.

I loved seeing some sea creatures that I had never heard of before. This includes the red colored blanket octopus that looked like it had a superhero cape as it flowed through the water. And who knew that there are jellyfish that are literally bigger than a grown man? And a mantis shrimp is certainly a strange and beautiful creature. And even the familiar critters like sea lions and seals make cute appearance as well. I think I might even want a seal as a pet.

The film also at some points delves into the fact that human pollution is causing harm to the Earth’s oceans, which isn’t the biggest shock in the world, but I don’t feel like the film really explain how to help or how it affects the animals besides the obvious things such as polluting animals’ habitats. It’s not really anything I haven’t heard before. And the film almost treats it as an afterthought.

“Oceans” features some really striking photography and I’m excited to see how the film will look like in high definition on Blu-ray. My theater’s projection was slightly off and images that should have been crisp were almost blurry which affected the power of the images on screen. And of course the simple narration, which in most cases just stated what the animals were didn’t really delve very deeply into anything too informative about the creatures themselves. Overall, the film’s strong images, although I still think “Planet Earth” and “Life” might have done it better, make it worth seeing. The bigger the screen the better. GRADE: B

Botchmen: “Kick-Ass” Doesn’t Quite Live Up to Its Title

Maybe I just prefer superhero movies less violent? I have nothing against violent movies, bring on Michael Myers, Freddy Kruger and Jason Voorhees. Bring on the buckets of blood and guts. But something about the extreme violence in the Tarantino-esque comic book adaptation “Kick-Ass” sort of rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it’s the fact that the film seems to be marketed towards kids as if it were a Spider-Man film. I imagine a lot of shocked parents when they realize they just took their young kids to see an eleven year-old girl sprout profanity and chop peoples’ limbs off in graphic fashion. Sure Kill Bill is more violent, but how many little kids wanted to even see it? I’m not necessarily agreeing with Roger Ebert about the film’s apparent “controversy” I’m more at odds about how I really feel about the film at all. Is it really supposed to be funny all the way through? And are we supposed to buy into this “realistic” world that the film sets up from the start? I’m not sure I’m buying it.

Some of the ridiculousness seems related to what I saw in the comic book adaptation “Wanted.” There was lots of violence, and unrealistic elements, and yet something about that film seemed fresh and just enjoyable. Maybe there have just been too many superhero movies as of late as “Kick-Ass” just feels like a funnier version of “Watchmen” which is the superior film in many ways. It sets its tone from the beginning and sticks with it. In “Kick-Ass” we’re introduced to goofy high school student Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who is bored with his teen life. He wonders what it would be like to be superhero. He and his guy friends talk the way most characters talk today with plenty of pop culture references. It sort of feels as if we’re watching “Superbad.” There are some great jokes and some really funny moments and wry observations. But by the time the film ends, I felt as if I was watching “Reservoir Dogs.” What happened? Somewhere along the way the movie sort of dumped me in the middle of nowhere without a way to get back.

I’m not offended by the sight of Damon Macready (Nicholas Cage), who is also the masked vigilante Big Daddy, shooting his daughter Mindy, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, who we will see is also a masked vigilante dubbed Hit Girl. She’s probably more sadistic than her father. She could easily grow up to be on Bill’s Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Or at least play young Beatrix Kiddo if they were to make a Kill Bill Prequel. Of course we learn she’s just learning to take a bullet while wearing a bullet proof fest. And her poof of feathers as Damon plans a bullet in the vest and knocks the girl off her feet is pretty priceless. Yes, we know we’re in for something bizarre with this movie. But somewhere along the way it completely derails.

Back to Dave, who orders a green wetsuit online and decides to become a superhero because he’s bored. He figures if Batman can do it, why can’t he. He doesn’t need special powers, he just needs a reason to. So he goes out and tries to stop some thugs from stealing a car and ends up getting brutally stabbed in the stomach and run over by a car. This I suppose is “funny” but as shot by director Matthew Vaughn it’s more shocking than funny and somehow I couldn’t find myself laughing at the situation. When Brad Pitt gets hit by a car in “Meet Joe Black” it’s unintentionally hilarious. You laugh. When Dave gets hit by a car it’s unintentionally serious. I didn’t laugh.

Although the Hit Girl character is so controversial, obviously little girls who see this movie are going to want to start chopping random dudes’ legs off, I found Chloe’s performance to be simply wonderful. This young actress has been in a string of hits recently which include 500 Days of Summer and Diary of a Wimpy Kid. She takes the role and just runs with it. Frankly, her character should have been called Kick-Ass.

Maybe that’s therein lies the film’s problem. I just didn’t care too much about Dave. He’s pathetic in a way that most of us are pathetic in high school. He pretends to be gay just to get close to his crush and yet if this was actually real life this girl would actually like him from the beginning, because Dave isn’t really a horrible looking guy. He’s got the male equivalent of “glasses and a ponytail.” And then of course is the film’s plot about an evil drug overload and his son played by McLovin from “Superbad.” Even he has to come up with a superhero alter-ego. To be honest, I think all these people need a psychologist who enjoys a challenge.

There will be plenty of film geeks who will find “Kick-Ass” to be “rad” and “awesomely sick.” I’m not quite one of them. Frankly, I’d rather just watch “Spider-Man” or “Superbad” or “Kill Bill.” Maybe the whole time watching the movie I wished I was watching “Death at a Funeral” instead, who knows? I never really thought the film looked good from the trailers anyways. But Hit Girl is still pretty badass. GRADE: C+

Fey Ride: Steve Carell and Tina Fey Together at Last in the Hilarious “Date Night”

How much someone likes the movie “Date Night” will depend on several factors. One is how much one loves the lead actors Steve Carell and Tina Fey and how much you can forget that “Date Night” isn’t the most original film ever made. You might recall Mr. Carell has a hit show on NBC called “The Office.” He’s also appeared in that Judd Apatow film about the guy who is a 40 year old virgin. Tina Fey, a former Saturday Night Live cast member and writer has her own TV show on NBC as well. It’s called “30 Rock” and although it has won the Emmy for Best Comedy Series three times in a row, it still manages to average about 17 viewers a week. These are talented people and they infuse their talent into their film “Date Night.” Even though both actors have written before they remain only on screen talent here. I can’t help but think if these two wrote this flick it would simply be one of the best comedies of the past five years. Alas it’s simply one of the best comedies of the past five years.

Steve Carell and Tina Fey are a middle-aged married couple. They are Phil and Claire Foster. They have a couple of kids and a regular teenage babysitter. They’re sort of in a rut, much like the couple from “The Out-of-Towners.” And much like the couple in “The Out-of-Towners” they are about to get into a lot of trouble. They decide to take a little risk and travel an hour into Manhattan for dinner at a new posh spot. Unfortunately the place is booked solid, yet a party known as “The Triplehorns” have not shown up for their reservation. Phil claims to be the Triplehorns, and before they know it, they’re being seated and taking pictures of Will.I.Am with their camera phones. Of course it turns out some thugs are after the Triplehorns and they think Phil and Claire have the MacGuffin (a computer flash drive). Soon there are shoot outs and car chases and hilarity ensues as that tends to do in movies like this about mistaken identity. It all sort of reminded me of “Adventures in Babysitting” if they parents had a crazy night instead of the kids. I mean come on; it’s about white suburbanites’ misadventures in the scary big city. Add a little “Cellular” in there and you can pretty much tell what you’re in for.

I can guarantee you’re in for lots of laughs. I’m still shocked that Fey and Carell have never worked together before but while watching Date Night you would assume it was their tenth movie together. They have real chemistry and their comic timing is off the charts. They make silly lines “This pay phone smells like urine” simply hysterical with their brilliant comedic chops. Even if Date Night feels like dozens of other movies it’s all ok, because these people bring a charm that has simply been missing from motion picture comedy since last summer’s surprise hit, “The Hangover.” And while it’s similar to “The Hangover” “Date Night” feels less raunchy, because it is, and more suited to sheer brilliant comedic acting that just trying to be dirty and over the top.

There are some great small performances from some talented folk. This includes the always reliable James Franco and the skuzzy real Mr. Triplehorn and Milas Kunis, who was great in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, shines as well as Mrs. Triplehorn. Mark Wahlberg plays homage to his Marky Mark days as a security man who may be Phil and Claire’s only hope. Ray Liotta makes fun of himself as a sleazy bad guy and he plays it perfectly. He’s had a lot of practice.

I have no idea who screenwriter Josh Klausner is (he’s contributed to Shrek 3 & 4) but he does write some funny lines. I sort of wish the script didn’t have so much of a “been there done that feel” but the actors simply make this movie worth your time. Even director Shawn Levy, who has made other silly comedies like Night at the Museum and Cheaper by the Dozen, while not the most visually exciting filmmaker, knows how to direct comedic actors and pushes them to their funniest. You will laugh a lot in “Date Night.” It’s a fun and brisk movie that doesn’t overstay its welcome. Make a date and see it. GRADE: B+

Remember the Titans: “Clash of the Titans” Remake is a Cheesy and Fun Action Spectacle

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I have not seen the 1981 fantasy film “Clash of the Titans.” If it’s theatrical trailer is any indication it is a solid cheese-fest complete with corny effects and even cornier hairdos. At the time it was a big hit and it’s no surprise to think that the new remake will be a solid success as well. If you like action and corny dialogue then “Clash of the Titans” will crave your hunger. I honestly didn’t have much expectations going in. I figured it would be entertaining but pretty stupid. Sure I wouldn’t necessarily call this film “smart” I mean it’s not like it’s going to win a writing award or anything, but “Clash of the Titans” is yet another fun example of why we go see movies in the theater in the first place. It’s all about an experience. And you can have fun and loud entertainment without feeling too guilty about it.

Greek mythology is pretty Greek to me if you catch my drift. Sure, like most people, I learned the basics in middle school, but I wouldn’t call myself an expert. And I think the only reason why I know Poseidon is the God the Sea is because I’ve seen “The Poseidon Adventure” way too many times. Surprisingly with all the weird names and some unknown actors and actresses (with some stars of course) “Clash of the Titans” wasn’t all that difficult to figure out. We learn that Perseus (Avatar’s star on the rise Sam Worthington) is part God. His father, the God Zeus (Liam Neesen), impregnated a mortal woman, but she was cast off and he was taken in by a human couple. Hades (Ralph Fiennes), Zeus’ brother, was cast to Hell to be God of the Underworld. Hades also just so happens to kill Perseus’ family so he’s not exactly thrilled with the Gods as this point. Then Zeus shows up to the humans who aren’t very God-happy and he gives them an ultimatum which may start an all-out war between Man and God. Yikes!

Perseus starts out on a mission to the underworld to defeat Hades and whatever evil creature gets in his way. This includes gigantic CGI scorpions which were a lot scarier than I thought they’d be. They also find some odd creatures who hold eyeballs in their hands and let’s not forget Medusa the scary snake-lady who turns men into stone. All of these battles and adventures sort of reminded me of the The Mummy redo from 1999 as it was a fun-filled CGI-laden journey with scary moments and perfectly timed moments of comic relief. It felt like the perfect summer fun even though its only the first weekend in April.

Since I haven’t seen the original film I can’t quite compare the two, but it seems like the remake follows the original story pretty well. The first film employed stop-motion animation for some of the film’s creature effects including the evil sea monster the Kraken. Here the Kraken is completely CGI, and while I sometime condone this I can’t really see how using stop-motion animation would have made any sense whatsoever. The creature was humungous and I’d be lying if I said the final battle wasn’t very thrilling. Because it was. The movie moves so swiftly that I hardly had much time to realize how completely ridiculous it all really was.

There are two types of mindless entertainment. One is something like last summer’s “Transformers 2” which isn’t fun even when your brain is off. It’s loud and obnoxious because it takes itself way too seriously. On the other hand we have “Clash of the Titans” which yes is loud and mindless but it has a fun enough way about it which doesn’t take itself too seriously. It knows it’s based on a cheesy movie and it embraces it. If anything the movie makes me wish I had paid better attention in middle school. GRADE: B+

Note: I viewed the 2D version and it was great. The film is showing in 3D theaters but be weary that the film was not originally shot with the intention of being shown in 3D and therefore if you choose to view the 3D version you'll pointlessly be paying extra money to the studio executive Gods.

It’s Hard Out Here For a Wimp: “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” is a Clever Look at Life in Middle School

I’m grown up. Sort of. I don’t have kids. But I was one. And “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” will appeal to anyone who was once a kid. So that’s pretty much everyone. So therefore if you think you’re too old to see “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” (which is based on a serious of books) you’re wrong. In fact it think you’ll get more out of it having been through middle school. Movies for kids don’t have to be stupid or dumbed down, and this movie is not. I imagine it’s sort of similar to what Woody Allen might come up with had he written a movie for ten year olds. And frankly, young Greg Heffley is sort of a young Alvy Singer, trying to get through life, a smart guy, who happens to be surrounded by complete morons. Sure I’m not sure most 12 year olds are this wise and observant about life, at least I don’t think I was, but most 12 year old characters in movies don’t really act their age do they?

Our hero is Greg (Zachary Gordon) and he’s about to enter dreaded middle school. A thing that he says is the dumbest thing invented. Everyone is awkward especially him and with his skinny, tiny frame. He’s yet to hit puberty, so worst is really yet to come. His best friend is Rowley, a sweet and charming rotund young boy who sort of coasts through life under Greg’s guidance. He helps Rowley learn to be “cool” and even though Greg himself isn’t very popular, he insists that he is. But oh as the saying goes, it’s hard out here for a wimp. And as this story progresses he will find himself lower and lower on the popularity echelon.

There are many things working against Greg so that we instantly find him sympathetic. He’s cursed with an older brother who constantly teases him and beats him up. Is this what having an older brother really is like? Perhaps I was blessed by only having sisters? Although I’ve always wondered what it would be like to be “beaten up” by a brother. His parents don’t just understand him and I think most kids sort of feel that way. He’s also cursed with an underdeveloped body. He’s surrounded by other boys with hair in places he’s yet to see develop and his skinny frame is forced be a “skin” in gym class. It’s hard not to sympathize with this youngin.

Although you soon realize what does he really have any right to complain about? He’s well provided by his parents, lives in a good home, and seems to have everything he could want, yet he still finds things to complain about. Like having to eat breakfast while his potty training brother goes to the bathroom next to him. And having to attend a Mother-Son Dance. But those are just standard things everyone goes through growing up. The point is he makes pretty funny wry observations about life as a kid. Of course there are silly things added in for the kiddies, like Dad (Steve Zahn) dumping water on unsuspecting trick-or-treaters and an odd subplot about a moldy piece of cheese on the playground. But overall the script is pretty tight and witty, sort of a watered down “Mean Girls” for young boys.

“Diary of a Wimpy Kid” does prove something. That it’s possible to make a family friendly film that isn’t stupid and doesn’t treat kids like they’re stupid. You don’t need singing animals or constantly slapstick humor to get kids to laugh. After all, after seeing this film you realize kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. GRADE: B

Dragon the Line: “How to Train Your Dragon” is High Flying Fun

“How to Train Your Dragon” is the latest thrill-a-minute 3D spectacle. It may empty your wallet, but at least it’ll fill your heart. Sure it looks “cool” in 3D and some of the flying sequences are pretty breathtaking, but I’m pretty sure this is still another unnecessary use of 3D technology. Now there was a time just a few years back where I’d go see anything in 3D. it was a novelty then and now it seems to be the standard. And as shocking as this is, I think I prefer my 3D gimmicky. I want stuff being thrown at the audience and I want the characters to be in on the gag. Sometimes not enough things are being thrown at the screen it begs the question “why am I wearing these uncomfortable 3D glasses over my regular eyeglasses. Maybe having so much gear on my face is just annoying. In any case, 3D works for “How to Train Your Dragon” but much like “Alice in Wonderland” I don’t know how much it’s actually needed.

Having said all that, the latest animated adventure from the studio that brought you all those Shrek movies, is certainly a blast. It tells the story of a young Viking and his family who are constantly fending off evil, man-eating dragons. But could it be the dragons are just misunderstood, and like most “man-eating beasts” (ie Great White Sharks?) they are in fact just big creatures that are misinterpreted as monsters? (Although I don’t suggest swimming with Great Whites even if you are Anderson Cooper) Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) is a skinny little Viking. His father Stoick (Gerard Butler) insists that he go through “dragon hunting training” to make sure he grows up to be a fierce hunter. But Hiccup stumbles upon an injured dragon who can’t fly and after a few meetings realizes the beast isn’t as evil as all the Vikings make the dragons seem.

The animators and writers do probably the best thing possible my making this dragon, who Hiccup calls “Toothless” like a big dog or cat. He’s playful and has many domesticated animal traits that most animal lovers will recognize. And you instantly fall in love with him. I have to admit that the story is very simple, and not completely original (it sort of reminded me of E.T.) and yet it feels genuine and not forced at all. There is humor to be had here but it’s mostly comic relief in the form of various dragons and their quirky personalities as Hiccup’s fellow trainees learn the ropes of dragon hunting. There are characters voiced by Jonah Hill and McLovin himself Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Ugly Betty’s America Ferrera provides the voice of Astrid, whom Hiccup might have some feelings for.

“How to Train Your Dragon” features some really outstanding animation and a terrific look that fits nicely into the other recent outstanding animated adventures. It has some really funny and touching moments and one flying sequence which was pretty breathtaking. Overall I found this an adventure worth taking. Even if I had to wear two pairs of glasses to see it. GRADE: B+

Along Came Molly: “She’s Out of My League” is Only a 5 Compared to Apatow’s Comedy Classics

The 40 Year-Old Virgin. Knocked Up. Superbad. Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Walk Hard. Step Brothers. Pineapple Express. What do all of these films have in common? They are all produced and/or directed by Judd Apatow. He’s today’s go to guy for quality comedies. What else do they have in common? They are all significantly better than “She’s Out of My League.” If “Knocked Up” were the hot girl with a perfect bod, then “She’s Out of My League” is the nerdy guy with skinny arms and bad hair. That isn’t to say this film is horrendous, because it isn’t, but it’s easily not as good in quality or importance as any of the above films I’ve mentioned. Not surprisingly, Apatow had nothing to do with this one, so we can blissfully shrug this one off as an “Apatow wannabe.” Of course, not all Apatow wannabes are bad, just take a look at the terrific “I Love You, Man” for instance. And after all, “She’s Out of My League” is really the only pure comedy I’ve seen since Ricky Gervais’ “The Invention of Lying” from way back in October. So seeing as though there’s no real competition, you could do a lot worse than this movie.

We get “Knocked Up’s” Jay Baruchel in his first staring role as Kirk. Kirk is a goofy, scrawny guy who works as a security guard at a Pittsburgh airport. So do all his male buddies. Note to self: never get on a plane in this airport. These guys spend more time checking out girls than screening passengers. I’m surprised more terrorist attacks didn’t occur in this film. But I digress. A hot girl comes through security, accidentally leaves her iPhone, which Kirk holds onto until she can return to claim it. It turns out this hot girl named Molly (Alice Eve) is not only nice on the outside, she’s nice on the inside, and decides to give dating Kirk a try. Kirk’s goofball friends, not surprisingly, are shocked that someone like Molly (whom they dub a “hard 10”) would even consider going out with a guy like Kirk (whom they dub a “5”). I’m not really sure who made these classifications, but they seem to have a firm grasp on it. [that’s what she said]

It turns out Molly is actually interested in Kirk precisely because he is a 5. But she knows that he’s actually a 10 on the inside, and she’s only used to guys who are 10s on the outside but only 5s on the inside. This includes her ex-boyfriend/pilot Cam (Geoff Stults) who is as All-American as they come. Even Molly’s more traditional parents are sort of shocked by Molly’s new dating choice. Kirk’s family is very different from Molly’s parents in that they are the super weird parents we usually find in movies like this. Kirk’s dad’s eyes nearly bug out his head when he first sees Molly and Kirk’s mother squeals with delight because her son has snatched such a hottie. And it turns out that Kirk’s parents have taken a likening to Kirk’s ex-girlfriend Marnie and her new boyfriend. They hang out a lot and it’s certainly awkward. And Kirk’s douchey brother Dylan is everything obnoxious brothers are supposed to be.

I guess what seems to be the film’s biggest problem is a lack of extremely funny and witty writing. This is supposed to be comedy’s most important thing of course, because without funny writing there is no funny movie. I chuckled at parts and was entertained the whole way through, but some story elements just felt stale. It’s as if the writers (Sean Anders & John Morris) just got bored half way through writing the script. They come up with a few gross out situations, because movies like these need to have these moments, which include the removal of body hair and a certain bodily fluid. The film isn’t too shameless though and I’m glad to say and these scenes are decently brief.

I found myself rooting for Kirk, for some reason, even though I pretty much knew how things were going to play out. I enjoyed Molly’s droll best friend played by Krysten Ritter; I hope we get to see more of her at some point. Kirk’s three best buds are pretty forgettable and don’t add anything fresh or new to the proceedings. Although I’m glad Molly is as nice as she appears to be and you come to find out it’s not so shocking that she would go for someone like Kirk. “She’s Out of My League” is not a fantastic film, it certainly has its issues, and it’s nowhere near as good as some other comedies that have come out in the past few years, but you could do a lot worse. GRADE: C+

Insane in the Membrane: A Virus Turns the Local Townsfolk into “The Crazies”

If you go see “The Crazies” you should probably be forewarned that you’ve probably seen it before. Most likely you haven’t watched the little seen original film directed by George A. Romero. In fact, I had never even heard of it until this remake was scheduled for release. No, you’ve probably seen a lot of it before in other movies like “Dawn of the Dead,” “28 Days Later,” heck even “Zombieland.” The zombie film has sort of become an unfortunate retread in the horror genre as of late, because everyone seems to be making them. However, even though The Crazies doesn’t necessarily reinvent the genre, it certainly is one of the better ones and is worth seeking out.

“The Crazies” takes place in the little town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa. It’s a quite Midwest town where nothing much happens. It seems like the most exciting event is a local high school baseball game. An elderly man wanders into the outfield with a shot gun and the local sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) is forced to shoot, and kill, the man when he ignores his orders to put down his weapon. The man’s wife and son are devastated, but David insures him it was for his own protection as the man was acting very strangely. It turns out he’s not the only one as it’s soon discovered that several of the townspeople begin acting crazy and become extremely violent. It turns out the local water supply has been contaminated by a virus. The origins of it I will not expose here, but those conspiracy theorists will most likely be overjoyed.

Soon David is on the run with his pregnant wife Judy (Radha Mitchell) and his deputy Russell (Joe Anderson) from these “crazies.” While in most zombie films the infected are violent and mindless. Except here it seems like those infected know exactly what they’re doing even though they are pretty much insane. And yes they are extremely violent. One infected man even locks his wife and son in a closet and sets the whole thing ablaze.

I was actually genuinely surprised at how much I found myself caring for the characters. Olyphant and Mitchell actually have good chemistry and are well matched as young soon-to-be parents. The movie is pretty relentless, barely giving you much time to breath between several tension filled sequences. Look at one scene in which Judy is strapped to a gurney. She can’t move from the bed at all. An infected man slowly approaches her, dragging a bloody pitchfork on the floor behind him. It’s pretty suspenseful stuff as long as you don’t expect the main character to be killed off so soon.

There is some really good stuff to be found here and it’s all filmed in an appropriately dark and gritty tone. I can assume the original film, being a Romero movie, to have a very low budget quality, and while this remake is no slick piece of filmmaking, it is appropriately low budget looking and yet never ever feels cheap. It’s director who last made the big budge adventure film “Sahara” seems much more suited to this genre as is writer Scott Kosar who gave us The Machinist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

Like I said the film’s biggest drawback is the fact that there are dozens of films like it out there that you’ve probably already seen. “The Crazies” should please fans of the genre who aren’t already sick of it. I guess I’m sort of one of them, I think we should take a break from all these zombie movies; it’s enough to drive you crazy. GRADE: B

Oscar Forecast 2010: “Locker” with a Chance of “Avatar”

UPDATED: So The Hurt Locker cleaned up huh? It won a total of six Oscars (including first time female director winner Kathryn Bigelow) in a show that was rather predictable, save for a surprise Best Adapted Screenplay win for the deserving "Precious." For a moment, i thought Gabby might have a shot at Actress but the super lovable Sandra Bullock got it as planned. To think she won a Razzie (for All About Steve) and an Oscar in the same weekend is a pretty big feat. And she accepted both in person. I enjoyed this super long ceremony but somehow this supposedly streamlined show ended up ballooning into a show that had DVRs being cut off all over the country. My biggest question is how Avatar only managed 3 technical wins (just as many as Benjamin Button last year I might add). I got a total of 19 out of 24 predictions correct missing out on Adapted Screenplay, Sound Editing, Live & Animated Shorts and Documentary Short). See you at the movies. Winners listed in bold.

All I can say is finally. The Oscars are finally here. This has been the longest Oscar “season” yet. It feels like months since we watched the Golden Globes, oh wait it has been months. For some reason (could curling have anything to do with it?) the Academy Awards were pushed back to March which made things all the more difficult to predict this year. And yet for some reason some categories are locked up tighter than Charles Manson. There are some races that seem up in the air, if you’ll excuse the expression. Like for instance Best Picture. I wanna bet the farm on The Hurt Locker, but this whole 10 noms and preferential ballot thing is making me sort of nervous. I’m thinking anything could happen. Let’s break it down, shall we?

BEST PICTURE
Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker. I wanna say this is all locked up, but it’s not. If this were a normal voting year, I’d say sure. But no one really knows how this preferential ballot is going to affect who wins this award. And for as many reasons for this film winning (it’s a critical darling, it’s got the momentum, it’s won nearly every precursor award) there are reasons against it (it bombed at the box office and it’s recent “bad taste email” scandal doesn’t help). I’m still going with “The Hurt Locker,” but I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if “Avatar” were to win here. It’s certainly possible.
Who Should Win: Up in the Air. “Up in the Air” is the small film that works perfectly with the other recent best picture winners of the past few years. It’s topical and charming and will stand the test of time. It was my 3rd favorite film of the year. “The Hurt Locker” would certainly be deserving as would “Avatar,” but I’d have give my vote to “Air.”

BEST DIRECTOR
Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker. If you were to bet against her, you might as well just throw your Oscar pool money away. She is going to win, not because a woman has never wont before, but because she directed one of the most visceral movies of the year. If James Cameron hadn’t won before this would be more of a race. In the battle of the exes Bigelow takes it.
Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker. I didn’t really like The Hurt Locker when I saw it in theaters, and I’m much more of an Up in the Air fan, but, like last year, I’m willing to spread the wealth. You can’t deny that Bigelow made a film that is intense and chaotic and yet completely in control. Nice work.

BEST ACTOR
Will Win: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart. Duh. Snooze.
Should Win: Colin Firth, A Single Man. Based on sheer performance alone, he takes the cake. I didn’t see “Crazy Heart” or “Invictus,” but it’d definitely be between Firth, who gave a great emotionally draining performance and Jeremy Renner who stuck out in a film better remembered for its look than its performances.

BEST ACTRESS
Will Win: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side. I still can’t believe that Sandra Bullock is this close to winning an Oscar. I never thought it would happen. Ok, let’s be honest people. This is a weak year. In any other year, Bullock wouldn’t have a chance in hell. I’m honestly surprised she has the momentum. She was really good in her film, and was definitely the best part (I still can’t believe it’s nominated for Best Picture), but I think the Academy will probably vote for her more because they like her than because of her performance. That always happens, just deal with it. Meryl, you will have 16 more chances.
Should Win: Gabby Sidibe, Precious. She was simply sensational in that movie. You really think they plucked some poor teen from Harlem. But when you see her personality in real life, you simply can’t believe it. It’s like she’s Daniel Day-Lewis or something. For a first timer, she gave the most deserving performance. Her nomination is her reward. I am a big Streep fan and technically I really want to see her win again, but she’ll be back.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds. He stole every scene he was in. and that is a great supporting performance. He turned a cold-hearted Nazi into a cold-hearted and charming Nazi. Anyone who bets against him is a fool.
Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds. The only other actor I can comment on is Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones and he was certainly the best part of that movie, but nothing really compares to Waltz when it comes to super creepy psycho killers.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will Win: Mo’Nique, Precious. She’s had this thing in the bag since Sundance 2009. The Academy loves when someone not known for their acting ability (singers, rappers, comedians, magicians etc) wow them with their dramatic acting turns. And Mo’Nique has it down pat. She was so incredibly good as Precious’ wicked and yet human mother, you simply couldn’t take your eyes off her. Good show indeed.
Should Win: Mo’Nique, Precious. The Academy is actually going to do things right when it comes to the supporting races. Good for them!

And the rest…

Original Screenplay: The Hurt Locker

Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air Precious

Animated Feature: Up

Foreign Language Film: The Secret in Their Eyes

Documentary Feature: The Cove

Art Direction: Avatar

Cinematography: Avatar

Costume Design: The Young Victoria

Film Editing: The Hurt Locker

Make-Up: Star Trek

Original Score: Up

Original Song: The Weary Kind, Crazy Heart

Sound Editing: Avatar The Hurt Locker

Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker

Visual Effects: Avatar

Animated Short: A Matter of Loaf and Death Logorama

Live Action Short: The Door The New Tenants

Documentary Short: The Last Truck Closing of a GM Plant Music by Prudence

The Magic Kingdom: Tim Burton Brings Us Down the Rabbit Hole in the Uneven “Alice in Wonderland”

I am a big fan of Tim Burton’s movies. And for once, I finally understand why most critics have mixed feelings about his films. Many tend to lean towards the camp of Burton being a great visionary with wild and exotic locations, costumes with quirky and original characters. A lot of the time all of this stuff gets bogged down with weak story elements and unnecessary plot developments or characterizations. Sometimes when he makes a film with a character in the title, he spends more time on secondary characters (Batman Returns for instance). Which brings me to his version of “Alice in Wonderland.” It’s a beautiful film with outstanding production design (mostly computer generated but lovely nonetheless) and other simply scrumptious visuals. But there’s something about this story that sort of just didn’t work for me.

Being a film called “Alice in Wonderland” I expect this film to be about a young girl who wanders off into a magical land full of talking animals, smoking caterpillars and an evil queen whose idea of recreational activities include public beheadings. What we get in this new version is more of a sequel with Alice now being a 19 year old young woman who has already visited Wonderland but doesn’t remember actually having been there. Sort of lame if you ask me. The film is written by Linda Woolverton who worked her magic on the scripts for Disney’s “Beauty & the Beast” and “The Lion King.” I appreciate the attempt to rework what everyone already knows about Wonderland and turn it into a new story, but then rename the film something along the lines of “Return to Wonderland.”

Having put all of that aside, there are definitely elements I enjoyed here. We have newcomer Mia Wasikowska as Alice, who gives a good performance, however she’s upstaged by two of her other female actors. We have Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen, who has a huge head and a tiny body which looks odd at first, but comes directly from Burton’s wonderfully warped mind. And the other is the White Queen played terrifically by Anne Hathaway. She has an Amy Adams in Enchanged quality which reminded me of a super angelic version of Glinda the Good Witch of the North. Lots of laughs to be had at watching Hathaway’s engaging performance.

There are other familiar characters we meet along the way, but because this is more like a sequel it’s feels like we should have already been introduced to these characters. This includes Johnny Depp’s hammy version the Mad Hatter, Alan Rickman as the toked-up Caterpillar, Steven Fry as the Cheshire Cat, and Matt Lucas as both Tweetledee and Tweetledum and Michael Sheen as the White Rabbit. In fact there are so many other characters, you don’t get much time to get to know much about them. And there is so much here plot wise about saving Wonderland from the Red Queen that to be quite honest, I didn’t find myself caring much about the fate of any of these beings.

I don’t have too much to say about seeing the film in 3D, but it didn’t really need it. I guess I like my 3D with extra cheese. Throw stuff at me and remind me that I’m watching a 3D film. 3D has the power to full engulf you in a movie experience (like the breathtaking “Avatar)” but here it just seems like a way for Disney to wring more money out of you.

I can’t really call myself an “Alice in Wonderland” purist because I haven’t read the books and my knowledge basically lies in what I’ve seen in the 1951 Disney cartoon, but something about Tim Burton’s version just was slightly off for me. It has some great performances and a majestic look with the usual Burton quirkiness and very good visual effects, but I’m not sure I’d want to stumble down this rabbit hole again anytime soon. GRADE: B-