Die Hard: Death Doesn’t Take a Holiday in “The Final Destination”

Whenever you start to see more than three chapters of a horror franchise, you have to stop taking it seriously. Ok so I stopped taking the Final Destination movies seriously by the end of the first movie. The first film was, dare I say, a brilliant new take on the slasher film in which the Grim Reaper actually stands in for the masked killer and his weapons of choice are everyday accidents. The novelty of the films soon became any everyday situation could be a death trap. We’re talking going to bathroom, packing up your belongings, going to the dentist, riding an elevator, going tanning. And now we get to add car washes, swimming pools and movie theaters as potential places of gruesome deaths.

Director David R. Ellis who most recently gave us the hilariously campy “Snakes on a Plane” takes creative control of this fourth film “The Final Destination” (I’m not even going to spend a second complaining about the film’s strange and obnoxious title, whoops too late). Ellis directed the second chapter in this series and immediately turned it into a silly story about a bunch of people trying to escape death. These movies are just excuses to show people being diced and sliced and gouged and smashed and chopped. There is no artistic merit and no redeeming qualities. They are a product of which I enjoy supersized.

This time around Ellis stages a graphic speedway car crash in which many people are viciously killed by falling debris and tires and other sharp objects. This film’s hero Nick (second rate James Franco look-a-like Bobby Campo) has a premonition that him and his three friends and many others will die in a horrible accident. He’s able to warn them in time and his friends escape along with a few others. If you’ve ever seen any of these movies you know exactly what happens next. Death isn’t happy that these people survived because they ruined his “design.” So he comes up with even more gruesome fates for them. So it's only a matter of time before beautiful people are sucked through a pool drain, or sliced through a metal fence, or ground up in an escalator.

This is not a good movie. Want proof? The filmmakers knew the only way they could get people in the theater a fourth time was to film it in 3D. It's certainly the film's most original concept. The third dimension here actually helps the proceedings and employs some pretty desirable effects. It certainly doesn’t help build character, or make the story more plausible or help the actors with their bland performances. But you know what? None of that really matters. I just spent the night before watching Rob Zombie’s "Halloween II" and you can tell that guy really thought he was making a good movie. And he failed miserably. Here, Ellis and his team are trying to just make a fun, campy gory ride and while it’s not good cinema, I’m perfectly okay with that. He didn’t make an unpleasant movie. He knows he made a B movie and he succeeded.

If you’re a fan of these movies, there is no reason you won’t enjoy “The Final Destination.” It has a real fun sense of humor about itself (the film’s climax cleverly takes place in a 3D movie theater) and it is a welcomed source of “turn your brain off” fun. The film is probably more funny than scary but any movie in which a racist redneck is dragged down the street by his own truck while on fire is certainly ok in my book. GRADE: B

Halloween Bore The Return of Michael Myers: Rob Zombie’s “Halloween II” Sucks

OMG. Please whatever you do, please do not see “Halloween II.” I am a huge Halloween franchise fan and I’m here to say that it’s most definitely the worst of any Halloween movie starring Michael Myers (I don’t really count Part III, but it might even be worse than that piece of garbage). I’m not going to sit here and tell you what to do, so if you want to see the final chapter of Rob Zombie’s “vision” then by all means be my guest. There are so many things wrong with this movie I don’t even know where to start.

I’m going to forgive the fact that this movie even exists. There will always be Michael Myers movies it’s just a fact. Even the godfather of the Halloween movies, Moustapha Akkad (who unfortunately died back in 2005 in a Jordan terrorist attack) has said that he would make at least 22 Michale Myers movies, so there’s no surprise that we’ve got ten so far. What distresses me so much about this new movie is that the producers actually thought Mr. Zombie was talented enough to make another movie. Yeah he has vision, but I’m not so sure it fits with the Halloween movies. He should be directing “The Devil’s Rejects II” not “Halloween II.”

“Halloween II” picks up right where the remake left off, which I guess is sort of a nod to the original film’s sequel. Laurie Strode (played again by Scout Taylor-Compton whose acting ability has worsened since the last film) has shot her psychotic brother and she’s taken to the hospital. It takes six men to life Michael Myer’s body into a van where two idiots are in charge of transporting him to somewhere far away. The two idiots hit a cow and crash leaving one dead and leaving the other guy with a severe case of Tourette’s Syndrome. He literally says “F*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck.” Rob Zombie is obviously a talented screenwriter. So Michael Myers thankfully cuts the dude’s head off, sees his dead mother (soon to be Razzie nominee Sheri Moon Zombie) and a white horse (!) and is told that he must find Laurie at the hospital so that they can be a family again. Oy. Suddenly “Halloween 6” makes so much more sense.

So Michael conveniently finds Laurie in the hospital where she’s recovering from surgery. In an annoying little twist (aka writer’s block) it turns out everything at the hospital is a dream and it’s really a year later. Laurie has gone from a virginal, innocent teen into a wild and crazy young woman who has weird dreams. She lives with her friend Annie (Danielle Harris) and her sheriff father Brackett (Brad Dourif) in an isolated farm house in the middle of nowhere. Laurie is all goth now which I guess is what happens when you’re either a) an attempted victim of Michael Myers or b) in a film directed by Rob Zombie (I’m thinking it’s a little bit of both). So Laurie whines all the time because she thinks Michael is going to come after her, but little does she know that Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a tell-all book about Michael Myers and he reveals Laurie and Michael’s blood relation. That makes her even more crazy so she decides to dress up as Magenta from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (remember Rob Zombie is the director) and weirdo goth friends dress up as Columbia and Dr. Frank-N-Furter. They both die, if you can believe it.

Do you even care about any of this? I certainly didn’t. Especially when Mrs. Zombie shows up all in white looking horribly out of place. If Mr. Zombie was going for unintentional laughs then her certainly succeeded by a mile. Oh those stupid flashbacks and visions are so stupid I literally slapped my forehead. Zombie also makes every victim so horrendously obnoxious that he practically justifies Myers killing him or her. He even breaks into a stipclub an and kills the sleazy owner and his stripper girlfriend for no real reason except to show a naked woman being smashed face first into a mirror. Now, if any of this were to occur in another movie not related to Halloween, then maybe it would make sense, but nothing in this movie feels like a Halloween movie. It’s obvious that Zombie had almost complete creative freedom to come up with whatever horrendous crap he could think of. And he did. It’s 100 minutes of crap.

Please for your well-being I cannot recommend “Halloween II” for any reason whatsoever. It has no redeeming qualities at all. The cinematography is lame and overdone. The music by Tyler Bates is dumb and he doesn’t even use John Carpenter’s theme until the end credits (the best part). Even the death scenes are repetitive and overly done. I realize Michael is a psycho but there’s no reason to stab someone 234385757 times and for Rob Zombie to show it. It makes the first film (which I hesitantly and generously gave a B-) look Oscar-worthy. Ok, not really but you get my point, right?

There should be a government warning on this flick ‘cause it’s bad for your health. Just do yourself a favor and Just Say No to “Halloween II.” I wish I had. GRADE: F

Jew Man Group: Tarantino’s WWII Flick “Inglourious Basterds” is A-Boomin’

I really want to spoil the ending of “Inglourious Basterds.” But I know I shouldn’t and since I want you to go into this film without knowing how it ends I’m going to do you a favor and just say it is awesome. I will say, however, that if you go into Quentin Tarantino’s World War II Nazi-scalping drama looking for historical accuracy then you’ll probably be disappointed. And if you’re a history teacher you may not want to bring your class to see this flick because they’re likely to fail their final exam.

Since Quentin Tarantino directed this war movie, a first for the former video store clerk, there are some things you know you’re going to see. You’re going to see long scenes of dialogue that at first appears to have nothing to do with anything. It’ll most likely take a second viewing to really appreciate these scenes. They’re in “Reservoir Dogs.” They’re in “Pulp Fiction.” They’re in “Kill Bill Vol. 2.” They’re in “Death Proof.” I’m sure they’re in "Jackie Brown," but I’ve only seen it once and was slightly bored. Probably because of the long scenes of dialogue. The opening scene of “Inglourious Basterds” is very simple and involves lots of talking but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t filled to the brim with excruciating suspense.

And you’ll also find lots of violence in “Inglourious Basterds.” Brad Pitt is the top billed actor and here he plays Lt. Aldo Raine who is the leader of the Inglourious Basterds which is a small group of mostly Jewish-American soldiers who go around Nazi-occupied France hunting members of Hitler’s army. There’s one soldier, dubbed “The Bear Jew” played here by horror director Eli Roth. His weapon of choice is a baseball bat (how American!) and his enemy of choice is, of course, Nazis who won't divulge important information. Raine orders his men to collect 100 Nazi scalps. If you don’t want to see Nazis getting scalped then don’t see “Inglourious Basterds.” (Although, the film could of used a few more scalpings if you ask me).

Meanwhile a young French Jewish woman (Mélanie Laurent) who escaped the evil clutches of a sadistic (aren’t they all?) Nazi named Col. Hans Landa (played with Oscar quality perfection by Christoph Waltz), sees an opportunity for revenge when her movie house is chosen to hold a huge Nazi movie premiere. Many high ranking officers will attending and she’ll stop at nothing to make sure they all burn to death in a fiery blaze of Nazi death (you see old nitrate film used to be highly flammable). Raine and his men also plot an independent mission when they find out that the highest ranking Nazi, one Adolf Hitler, will be attending as well. We all know what shouldn’t happen in this movie, but we all know what WILL happen.

Tarantino has crafted another movie based on a whole bunch of random movies you and I have never seen or heard of and turned it into a digestible slice of Americana. The title is based on an old Italian “man on a mission” war movie titled “The Inglorious Bastards” and don’t ask me why his title is spelled incorrectly (although it might be obvious since the title is wrong as is the film's historical accuracy). But when you’re Quentin Tarantino you can get away with things like that. And of course there are the random people that show up. Look it’s Mike Myers! Look it’s that guy from “The Office!” Look it’s what’s her face from the “National Treasure” movies! Look it’s Samuel L. Jackson’s voice!

If you want a movie with suspense, lots of dialogue (most of which at time seems unnecessary but can actually be pretty witty and funny), and some great performances, then you should be going to see Brad Pitt kick some Nazi butt right now. And if you don’t cheer at the end of this movie, then you’re probably a skinhead or something. GRADE: B+

Out of Africa: You Shouldn’t Evict “District 9” From Your Summer Movie Schedule

The less that is said about “District 9” the better. Is that because it sucks and isn’t worth talking about? Heck no. It’s a great movie. It’s original and inventive and exciting and complex and entertaining. But to discuss it any further would to ruin the fun. It’s certainly everything that “Transformers 2” wasn’t.

“District 9” is interesting because it borrows so heavily from other movies and yet it feels so fresh and original. I can spot influences from as far away as “Blood Diamond,” “The Blair Witch Project,” “Independence Day,” “The Fly,” “Starship Troopers,” and “Dawn of the Dead.” And even Entertainment Weekly film critic thinks there’s a little bit of “Enemy Mine” thrown in for good measure. Basically what I’m going to tell you about the film’s plot is something you already know from the trailers. A large city-like space ship has arrived on Earth over Johannesburg, South Africa. It just hovers there. Inside is a large race of malnourished aliens. The humans bring the aliens down to the surface and over time force them to live in squalor in a place known as District 9. If you’re thinking apartheid you’re correct.

The begins as a sort of documentary which sets up this alternative universe in which aliens have arrived on Earth. They sort of look like giant bugs and are derogatorily nicknamed “Prawns.” They speak in a weird frog-like language, but don’t worry we get subtitles. We’re introduced to an employee of the Multi-National United (MNU) which one critic lovingly reminded him of Michael Scott from “The Office.” This is a random dude who thinks he knows everything. He’s chosen to go into Disctrict 9 and evict the “non-humans.” You see these aliens have been living on Earth for over twenty years and now the government is forcing them out. This man is Wikus van der Merwe and he’s played by Sharlto Copley and I’m sure he’ll become a big star. He’s supposedly just friends with the director Neill Blomkamp.

I refuse to say anything more about the film’s plot. But I will discuss Blomkamp’s wonderful direction. The scenes that are “documentary-like” are well done and are never cheesy. The film has a great set up and as the film’s plot points are reveals it is interesting how quickly you get into it. I will say that Wikus is a character who is difficult to like at first and he really didn’t have me on his side until towards the end of the film.

And of course there is whole political allegory that is never too painfully obvious and yet it’s SO obvious. There is a moral center here and I think we all know what it is. It’s sort of amazing at how seamless this world that Blomkamp creates is. We get this alternate history in which the people of South Africa are living amongst aliens and however ridiculous it may seem it’s all too painfully realistic.

The film is really violent. There are lots of exploding bodies and splashing of blood. But I would never say it was exploitative in anyway. There’s plenty of action for those who enjoy that stuff and just as much thought provoking themes that intellectuals will enjoy. Besides how many exploding bodies are there in Transformers? None, exactly. And I was sort of surprised at how well the visual effects worked here. The film was made for about 30 million and you’d never really know it. Check out “District 9” for a truly one of a kind experience. It’s nowhere near my favorite movie of the summer, but you’d be hard pressed to find something as innovative as this. GRADE: B

Fish Out of Water: “Ponyo” is a Colorful, Magical Tale of Earth’s Delicate Balance

I would have never guessed in a million years that I’d be reviewing “Ponyo,” a Japanese animated feature film from legendary animation director Hayao Miyazaki. I have never seen any of his other films and that equally makes me feel happy and ashamed. I’m ashamed to call myself a film fan even though ive never seen his other films and yet I’m glad that I haven’t had to sit through all that boring, fantastical anime. I’ve never had much a desire for anime and I don’t think “Ponyo” will really change my feelings towards the subject, but I am willing to agree that it is a fun and beautifully hand drawn animated film with an interesting story (inspired by Hans Christian Anderson’s ‘The Little Mermaid’) a wonderful music score by Joe Hisaishi, and loveable characters.

“Ponyo” whose original Japanese title is something like “Gake no ue no Ponyo” tells the story of a little red fish. she winds up near the surface of the water and crosses paths with a young boy named Sosuke (voiced by the Jonas Brothers little bro Frankie). Sosuke is instantly smitten with the cute little creature and he names her Ponyo. He takes scoops her up in a bucket and runs back to his house on the cliff where he lives with his mother Lisa (Tina Fey). Of course Ponyo’s magical human-like “father” Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) who resembles the lead singer of an ‘80s glam rock band, isn’t too happy about this. It turns out that creatures who live in the ocean are meant to live in the ocean. And it also turns out that Ponyo, after licking a cut on Sosuke’s finger, has the power to turn human. And she has the desire to be as well.

Now anyone who has seen the Disney version of ‘The Little Mermaid’will recognize parts of this movie as being similar. Like for instance the desire of a character who is born of the sea to be on land. And let’s not forget the demanding father who doesn’t think it’s a very good idea. However, in this version there is an extremely evident environmental message as well (which I hear Miyazaki is known for). It turns out that the water in which little Sosuke’s house is near just happens to be very polluted. Fujimoto complains about the human’s using the water as their own personal garbage bin and how it angers the sea gods or whatever you want to call it.

Eventually little Ponyo (Miley Cyrus’ little sis Noah) makes her way back to daddy in the water much to Sosuke’s dismay. But there is no stopping the little critter and she begins sprouting arms and legs and she’s whisked off to the surface to be reunited with Sosuke. All of her little fish sisters transform into big beautiful blue fish and help her ride the waves back into Sosuke’s life. She takes on the form a young girl similar to Sosuke’s age and his mother says it’s alright if she stays with them. Here she learns all about basic human things such as eating dinner. These scenes inside the house are simply enjoyable in the traditional “fish out of water” way. Literally. But unbeknownst to Ponyo and her new human friends, the water is rising rapidly due to the moon’s new position in the sky (which is something I missed along the way) and because Ponyo is now a “human” earth is completely out of whack.

But let’s be honest, the real reason most people would venture to the theater to see this movie is its unusually animation style. Like I said, Miyazaki employs actual hand drawn animation and from what I understand no uses of computers at all. I can hardly remember the last traditional animated feature film I saw in the theater. It was probably “Lilo & Stitch” way back in 2002. Disney since has sort of given up on that type of animated, save for December’s “The Princess and the Frog” which will wisely return Disney to its traditional animation roots. At first I was almost a little put off by “Ponyo’s” animation. It almost seemed cheap and low budgeted. Something you’d find on Saturday morning but blown up to huge proportions. But then I realized that I just wasn’t used to seeing animation that way.

Another thing that is just odd to me is the use of American actors doing the voicework. This a foreign film through and through and while it was enjoyable to hear familiar voices (and it certainly helps the movie be more accessible to American audiences) it is sort of weird hearing Betty White’s voice come out of a character named Noriko. Lily Tomlin, Cloris Leachman, Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon are some of the other talented actors lending their voices.

“Ponyo” will be a huge success amongst those who flock to see these types of films and as an outsider I will say I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. I can’t say that it makes me want to see movies like “Spirited Away” or “Princess Mononoke,” but I’m glad I was able to put my prejudices aside when it comes to anime and enjoy a fun animated movie that anyone can enjoy. GRADE: B+

Another Day in Paradise: “A Perfect Getaway” is Far From Perfect But is a Completely Sufficient Thriller

“A Perfect Getaway” does offers a few positives. It feature some beautiful tropical locations. It offers a pretty witty script from writer/director David Twohy. And lastly it has a pretty cool twist that won’t make you slap your forehead in disbelieve. I almost couldn’t believe it but then once I realized what was going on, I was like, hey that’s pretty cool and different. It makes me want to watch the movie again and see from a new point of view. But enough about that. “A Pefect Getway” I would classify as a thriller and although it takes awhile to get to the thrills, I appreciated it’s attempts at building suspense than just going for blood and guts whenever it had the chance.

The film opens with some home video footage of a wedding. And then we’re introduced to the newlyweds Cliff (Steve Zahn, shedding his goofy, typecast persona, kind of) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich, who is all eyes) as they’re about to embark on a treacherous hike in Hawaii for their honeymoon. There one of those couples who would rather do some dangerous hiking done rather than sit on a relaxing beach drinking colorful drinks. I’m going to get this out of the way up front, I didn’t really believe them as a married couple. I’m not saying their not good actors or that they’re necessarily miscast, but they seemed more like brother a sister than husband and wife. But that’s all I’m saying.

They meet up with another strange couple, also newlyweds, who are hitchhiking. They’re hesitant to give them a ride mostly because they’re super weird and creepy and grizzly. They are played by Marley Shelton and Chris Hemsworth. They speed off where they run into another couple played by Timothy Olyphant (perfectly cast) and Kiele Sanchez. Although sort of strange, Cliff and Cydney decide to hike along with them since they seem to know what they’re doing. Of course they run into a few other hikers who have just been informed that a newlywed couple had just been brutally murdered one on of the other islands. I take it you can guess that the killers might just show up.

A good chunk of the movie involves Cliff and Cydney trying to determine if Nick (Olyphant), an Iraq War veteran and innocent, southern Gina (Sanchez) are the killers or not. Cliff has his trustly Blackberry on hand, and when he gets a decent enough signal he attempts to read about the killings. There is even a poor quality surveillance photo of the killers, but Cydney informs him it looks like they could be anybody. They also think they’re being followed. Is it that strange hitchhiking couple or is there something more sinister out there?

Remember I said the screenplay was witty and that is mostly due to the fact that Cliff is a screenwriter. So him and Nick have conversations about one of Cliff’s scripts that’s currently in pre-production. They have conversations about plot and characters and even red herrings (which Nick naively calls ‘red snappers’). I found the conversation about red herrings most interesting as any alert viewer is going to try to figure out what exactly the red herring in the movie actually is. Some of the dialogue reminded me of “Scream” although it wasn’t quite as self-reflexive or savvy, but it was definitely above average for a movie of this type.

And like I said, the movie’s twists and turns were pretty interesting and well deserved. They never seemed forced and I enjoyed that the film took its time getting going. Too many movies these days rush to the gore, and not that I mind, but even I want a little substance once in a while. I enjoyed the film’s ultimate revelation and I think you might as well. And if anything could be learned from this neat little thriller, is that sometimes it’s safer to just stay home. GRADE: B

Fry Hard: Amy Adams and Meryl Streep Cook Up Great Performances in “Julie & Julia”

Julie Powell did an amazing thing. She spent 365 days of her life cooking all the recipes (524 to be exact) in Julia Child’s cookbook “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” and wrote a blog about it. What’s so amazing? She never once made French toast or French fries. Julie’s real-life mission is depicted in the latest biopic to hit the big screen, “Julie & Julia” which tells two true stories. That of famed American chef Julia Child who gained prominence as a world class chef while living in France with her husband and went on to write numerous cookbooks and became a spunky TV personality. With her tall frame and her boisterous voice and attitude Julie Child quickly became one of the most recognizable people in America. And she never even had a sex tape.

Julie Powell was an aspiring writer who lived in Queens with her husband and cat. She worked in a cubicle and was unimpressed with her life. She wanted to do something. She loved cooking and writing so it was natural that she’d find a way to merge both her interests. She decided to cook all of Child’s famed recipes from her French cookbook and blog about it and in the movie she’s played wonderfully by Amy Adams. Adams is such a delightful and talented performer it’s no surprise she was selected for the role. You identify with her and you want her to succeed in her “Julie/Julia Project.” Her story takes place in 2002.

The film is crosscut with the story of Julia Child who is played also wonderfully by Meryl Streep. I’m sure Streep has a Golden Globe in the bag for this performance because it’ll definitely be considered one of her trademark performances. I learned so much about Child’s real life and I found most of it fascinating. She’s married to a loyal man named Paul (Stanley Tucci) who supports her always. Like Julie, she was bored with her life and decided to go to school for cooking. As she whipped up lots of delicious recipes she spent nearly a decade trying to get a cookbook published. She dreamed of having a cookbook written with lots of tasty French recipes tailor-made for American women. It was a difficult struggle but we’re with her 100% of the way.

I enjoyed how writer Nora Ephron, who finally getting her grove back since she hasn’t really had a hit film since “You’ve Got Mail,” chose to tell both of these stories simultaneously. She easily finds the commonality between Julie and Julia who have ironically similar names and shared many of the same ups and downs during their lives. Both were unhappy women who wanted to make an improvement in their lives and went for it. They had a dream and achieved it. The movie is a happy one and it’ll most likely make you happy as well.

As well as hungry. Now if you know me at all, I’m a picky eater and I probably wouldn’t have eaten 98% of the foods Julie or Julia made in this film, but that certainly didn’t stop me from smacking my lips every few minutes. This movie is certainly a feast for the eyes and for the soul. It is charming and features terrific performances. The film almost feels a little long and the ending isn’t quite as climatic as I’d have hoped, but the film is worth seeing. If you’re a fan of Meryl or of Amy or of food, and who isn’t, you could do a lot worse than the yummy confection that is “Julie & Julia.” GRADE: B

House Trap: Low Budget “The Collector” is Better Than the ‘Saw’ Sequels, But That’s Not Saying Much

I can’t help but blame the “Saw” movies for “The Collector’s” lack of originality. Had "The Collector" come out before "Saw" I’m sure it would get slightly more praise. Then again when it comes right down to it, "The Collector" is just a small, low budget exploitation flick with sadistic violence and torture. Of course it certainly has an intriguing enough premise that made me want to check it out. A man enters a house with the goal of robbing it. However, as he’s about to break into a safe, he realizes there’s someone else already in the house who is more sadistic then he ever imagined. Cool right? A robber is faced with a moral dilemma. Does he try to get out of the house to save his own life or does he attempt to help the very people he was intending to rip off?

"The Collector" is a low budget movie. It was shot on 16mm film stock which gives it a dark, gritty grindhouse feel. Fans of 1970s horror take note. The film features no name actors who are all decent enough. The film is apparently proud of the fact that its director wrote “Saw IV,” “V” and the upcoming “VI.” I stopped watching those movies at part IV simply because they were basically all the same. Of course that doesn’t really matter since most horror film franchises are the same plot or premise repeated ad nauseam. But anyways, "The Collector," which is a sort of strange hybrid of "Saw," "The Strangers" and "Home Alone" (!) is watchable enough and really nothing more.

Arkin (Josh Stewart) is a handyman who works for Michael (Michael Reilly Burke) in his home. Michael has a wife, a teenage daughter and a younger daughter. Arkin has a sweet moment with the young girl Hannah (Karley Scott Collins) because it turns out he has a young daughter himself. It turns out that his ex-wife owes a lot of money to a lone shark and she has until midnight to pay him off. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, Arkin, knowning about a rare and expensive stone in Michael’s safe, decides to break in while the family is away to pay off his ex-wife’s debt. Little does he know that when he breaks inside, a masked maniac has booby-trapped the entire house and has been torturing Michael and his wife, while their wild teen daughter is out unbeknownst with her horny boyfriend. And little Hannah is no where to be found.

Arkin, who is a decently fleshed out character for the most part, realizes that it's up to him to help the very people he was about to rob. It’s sort of amazing how quickly I was on his side. You try to put youself in his shoes and you’d like to think you’d want to do the right thing, but honestly, I’d be out of there! He sees Michael all bloody and attempts to release him. He quickly discovers that every time you grab a knife or flick a light switch something sharp or pointy will go flying into your face. The maniac even pours some sort of sticky acid in one of the bedrooms which eats through shoes and books, but doesn’t seem to eat through the floor. Oh and it melts a cat. Gross.

Being a fan of gross movies I appreciate the film’s dark and twisted Rube Goldberg-ian set-ups which always result in some kind of bloody or gory death. Of course, it’s really hard to swallow that this guy could really set up all these traps. And for what reason? Just because he’s a psychopath? It seems like too much work and too little payoff if you ask me. Like where does one get 20 bear traps to fill the living room with? It was hard enough to swallow Macaulay Culkin setting up his traps in “Home Alone,” but I guess I’ll give the Collector the edge since he’s a grown up.

This is certainly a horror film through and through, but is it really scary at all? The film features a few sequences of genuine tension, but I’m not so sure I would call it scary. The Collector himself is pretty creepy and when he looms into frame and stares the camera it sent a small shiver up my spine, but otherwise he didn’t give me nightmares (Niether did the film's unrealistic CGI spiders). Overall, “The Collector” is a decent enough horror flick, with a breezy runtime, but since there have already been five movies with saw in the title, it feels a tad too little too late (Although I still think this is better than all the “Saw” sequels). And I bet you’ll never guess what it is this guy collects. It ain’t stamps. GRADE: B-

She Loves You Nah Nah Nah: Simply Put “(500) Days of Summer” is This Generation’s ‘Annie Hall’

“Annie Hall” is my 9th favorite movie of all time. I easily consider it to be the greatest romantic comedy of all time. It’s a fascinating look at the beginning, middle and end of a romantic relationship. “(500) Days of Summer” could easily sit right along side it on a list of the best romantic comedies. It’s that good. Ok before I start raving, and make you think you’re going to literally see Jesus in person by going to see this movie, let me be frank. This movie may not change your life, but it simply is a pleasing and well made film that is certainly worth your time. It features terrific performances, original direction, a hilarious and heartfelt script and a killer soundtrack. All the sights and sounds are perfect, what more can you ask for in a movie?

Like the narrator states, “(500) Days of Summer” is not a love story it's a story about love. Yes it shows how a young man named Tom (a too-good for words Joseph Gordon-Levitt) falls in love with Summer (a perfect Zooey Deschanel). The problem is what happens when you fall in love with someone who doesn’t even believe in love in the first place? The film jumps back in forth in time, with various numbered title cards indicating how far or early into the relationship Tom and Summer are. We see around the 280 mark that things are not going very well. But we jump forward and see that things are blossoming circa day 40.

Of course we get to see day 1 where Summer is hired as Tom’s boss’s assistant at the greeting card company he works at. He sees her and, who can blame him, is instantly smitten. It’s ok that I used the word smitten because this is the type of movie where people become smitten with each other. Look at the trendy way Tom dresses; he’s a cool, easy going, slightly geeky, laid back type of guy. The one who isn’t afraid to show his emotions and fall head over in heels in love with a girl. While he finds Summer attractive he learns from her own mouth that she doesn’t want a relationship, although it doesn’t stop her from making out with him in the copy room. She doesn’t want the baggage that comes along with spending all of her time with the “love of her life.” Of course Tom is very much the opposite, he wants a woman to love and wants love in return. He even says that loneliness is overrated.

Director Marc Webb takes appropriate cues from Woody Allen by doing all sorts of fun cinematic stuff. He stops the film to show us various points along the way and even gives us a happy and hilarious show stopping musical number once Tom and Summer have consummated their “love.” Cue the marching band and animated blue bird of happiness. What I love so much about the film besides its cinematic trickery (and great use of split screens) is that I simply fell in love with these characters myself. They each have flaws, but like any good romantic comedy you enjoy seeing the main characters’ romantic behaviors. This is the type of couple who sits in the park on a nice warm day and decides to play the Penis Game (oh please like you don't know how to play) or hangs out in Ikea while an Asian family looks at them awkwardly.

I enjoyed all of the quirkiness writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have weaved into their smart and highly original script. (Please Academy take note!) The sheer fact that Summer’s favorite Beatle is Ringo Starr instantly makes her unique. I loved the sequence in which Tom, all depressed over Summer, goes to an Ingmar Bergman triple feature in which he imagines himself in the films. Woody Allen would love that! And while the film does a lot of cutting back and forth, you’re never lost because of Webb’s masterful direction (and a big thumbs up to the music supervisor).

I can’t say enough positive things about “(500) Days of Summer.” It’s a movie that’s so enjoyable I just wanted to give it a hug after it was all over. Yes I just said I wanted to hug a movie, if it was at all possible. Or maybe I just wanted to hug Tom and Summer because I wanted to be their best friends, not that there’s anything wrong with my real best friends. I’m just sayin’. Please see this movie; I dare you not to fall in love with it ‘cause it’s one of the year’s best. GRADE: A

The Comedy of Errors: “Funny People” Isn’t Really That Funny

I didn’t think “Funny People” was very funny. I know I know, I realize it’s supposed to be more a drama than a flat-out comedy. I knew it was about Adam Sandler’s character realizing he had a terminal illness. I knew all of that going in. but that still didn’t make any of the other funny parts very funny. I am one of Judd Apatow’s number one fans. I loved “The 40 Year-Old Virgin” and loved “Knocked Up” even more. I loved all the other movies he’s produced since then… “Superbad,” “Pineapple Express,” “Walk Hard,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Heck I even liked “Drillbit Taylor” for crying out loud (and I even had Lisa Lampanelli, who has a small cameo, sign my Blu-ray when I met her and she even said, “This was a cute movie wasn’t it?”). So it is with my trepidation that I’m hear to say that I didn’t really enjoy Judd’s third film “Funny People” very much. There are a few scattershot laughs and although the movie’s never boring, it never quite gelled for me.

I’m not really much a fan of Adam Sandler. I enjoy some early Sandler, including “Happy Gilmore,” “Big Daddy” and “The Wedding Singer.” I don’t like Billy Madison, his Waterboy character is annoying, I refuse to watch any of his bits from SNL and his Hanukah Song is severely overrated. Having said that I guess I can blame him for 60 percent of the reason why I didn’t enjoy Funny People. He gives a decent enough performance as George Simmons, and Adam Sandler-like actor/comedian who learns he has a terminal illiness. He handles it rather strangely by confronting wannabe stand up comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) that he wants him to write jokes for him and be his assistant. Ira is the only one he shares his secret with and he’s forced to confront his own mortality. After all, stand up comedians don’t live forever.

Blah blah blah. I frankly didn’t like Sandler’s character that much and I’m not even sure if Sandler’s fans will enjoy the character that much. I realize Judd, who wrote the film, is making him purposely unlikable, but I think he goes too far. Rogen is likeable as always and is definitely one of the film’s bright spots, as are his roommates Leo (Jonah Hill) and Mark (Apatow newcomer Jason Schwartzman) who are constantly teasing Ira because they have roles on a popular NBC sitcom, which looks awful. I wish Apatow had focused more on this group of people, but if he had it would have just seemed like Sueprbad-lite or something, so I understand why he felt he needed to be more “serious.”

George then contacts an old flame named Laura (Apatow’s real life wife Leslie Mann) who has now started a family with Clarke (a game Eric Bana). The film’s third act involves George and Ira visiting Laura and her kids while he attempts to woo her back. Eric Bana gives a great performance, in his native tongue, and while he’s almost portrayed as the stereotypical “angry, unfaithful husband” he gives the role enough originality to break free from that mold.

Probably one of the more surprising qualities of the film lies in its cinematography. I’m not usually one to mention the director of photography when it comes to comedies, but since Apatow has employed Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski. Some shots literally look as if they had been deleted frames from The Diving Bell & the Butterfly. The film has a beautiful and interesting look, but all I can say is it really necessary? Good work, as always, Janusz. And lastly the film has a great soundtrack with a sweet and simple score from cast member Jason Schwartzmen. And remember people he used to play the drums for the band Phantom Planet.

And lastly, not to be Debbie Downer or anything, but I’m honestly not the biggest fan of stand up comedy. Yeah there are the ones I like such as Kathy Griffin and Ms. Lampanelli whom I mentioned earlier, but none of the comedian jokes that were mentioned throughout the film made me laugh. What did make me laugh were the standard Apatow-isms, like when Eric Bana recounts his trip to China and Seth Rogen mentioned it seemed like a scene from “The Deer Hunter.” It’s jokes like that that are worth laughing about, and sadly, there isn’t much in “Funny People’s” overlong runtime worth dying over. GRADE: C+

Not Without My Daughter: There May Be Something Wrong with Esther, But There Isn’t Something Wrong With “Orphan”

Esther is one mean bitch! She is evil incarnate and she certainly shames little Damien from “The Omen.” Heck, even Macaulay Culkin from “The Good Son” would be crying for his mommy if he ever met Esther. Esther, a little Russian 9 year-old orphan, is played brilliantly by Isabelle Fuhrman. Dakota Fanning better watch her back cause a new child actor is in town! “Orphan” is an “evil child” movie in which a child, who is the main focus of the story does evil things and there’s a mystery to discover a) why a child is doing such evil things or b) figure out an explanation for why evil things are occurring. Of course when it comes to b, we the audience usually know what’s going on but the other characters don’t. In fact Orphan is pretty neat in that it gives us both a and b. We know there’s something up with Esther, but we don’t really know what. We know she’s bad and scary but we don’t know why. And we enjoy watching the other characters fumble around trying to come with an explanation about why children are getting pushed off playgrounds and why nuns are getting hammered. Literally.

We’re introduced to all-American Connecticut couple Kate and John (Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard) who has just lost a child. Kate recently miscarried and its taken a huge toll on her. We see her in therapy and we learn she is a recovering alcoholic. Even though Kate and John have two other kids - a young daughter named Max (Aryana Engineer, super cute and super good) who is almost completely deaf and an older son named Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) – they decide that they want to adopt a child. They end up at a local school for little girls and there is where they meet Esther. She paints instead of playing with the other youn girls; and there’s a reason. She Russian and she wears dresses instead of more traditional little girl clothes; and there’s a reason. She’s proper, articulate and intelligent; and there’s a reason.

Kate and John think they’ve adopted the nicest young girl on the planet but what they don’t know is that she’s a conniving little bitch who kills people and has serious mental stability problems. She even pushes a fellow schoolgirl off the playground when she’s made fun of early in class. What is great about “Orphan” is knowing right away that Esther is evil. We’ve all seen the TV ads, so we’re not surprised when ominous music begins to play whenever she’s comes onscreen. Why don’t know why she’s evil or where she really came from and that’s what makes the movie fun to figure out. First time screenwriter, David Johnson has actually crafted a pretty decent script for such a standard type of thriller. And Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra – who gave such a surreal and creepy vibe to the “House of Wax” remake – manages to wrangle out some pretty tense situations. His handling of certain scenes with the deaf Max, who Esther implicates in some of her dastardly crimes, is very well done. He even manages to make a labyrinthine playground a chilling location.

Of course don’t be fooled, cause there are going to be people who think this movie is garbage and over-the-top violent trash which revels in disturbing behavior caused by a preteens, but you know what? It’s well-made trash and has a few scares and even some pretty dark humor as well. Some of Esther’s lines are priceless and there are even a few scenes in which I was rooting on behalf of Esther’s badassness. I guess we can look at “Orphan” as an “anti-adoption” parable, but if Brangelina have so man adopted kids and not one of them has killed anyone, I think it’s safe to say that Esther is certainly the odd one out. GRADE: B+

Fashion Faux Ha! “Brüno” Ist a Very Funny Film (and It’s Much Better Than Cancer)

Has it really been three years since Sacha Baron Cohen unleashed “Borat” on an unsuspecting America? My how time flies! Now he has unleashed the fabulous 19 year old Brüno, a hip flamboyant homosexual fashion personality. Bruno follows the same mockumentary style as “Borat” so in one way it sort of feels like a retread, but Bruno contains enough fresh and utterly shocking moments that certainly makes it worth seeing. Cohen is such a brilliant comedian that you never once think Brüno is a made up character. He’s even gone all out in all the marketing for the film and only appears as Brüno. He really sells this stuff.

Let me just get this out of the way first. Even though it’s only July I can easily say that “Brüno” is already a lead contender for the newly announced Golden Gallo Award category for Best Talking Genitalia Award. Enough said. The film begins in Austria, Brüno’s home country where he has his own TV show. After bad incident during a fashion show involving an outfit made completely out of Velcro, he moves to the United States in hopes of becoming a famous celebrity.

Here, we see Brüno’s many attempts at celebrity. And I think this is really what the film does best. We all have an idea of what makes a “celebrity” and how celebrities are born. Sometimes celebrities are born because they are good looking, or because they have their own TV show, or they’re caught in a sex scandal or even because of their humanitarian efforts. Brüno’s various attempts basically mocks every celebrity cliché out there and it is downright hilarious trying to see Brüno’s failed attempt after failed attempt.

His first attempt is to have his own TV show in the United States. He films a show and brings it to a test audience. And lets just say it bombs. These people, who we’re supposed to believe think this is actually real, are completely disturbed at what they see including interviewing someone about whether Jamie Lynn Spears should abort her baby or not and dancing naked for camera and “interviewing” Harrison Ford. In fact one person in the test audience says the show is worse than cancer. Brüno even attempts to make a sex tape with none other than US Congressman Ron Paul, who he mistaks for drag queen RuPaul. He even flies out to the Middle East to help solve the conflict between Palestine and Israel. And there he confuses Hamas with hummus. He even insults a terrorist by telling him that Osama bin Laden looks like a dirty wizard. This is all shocking and hilarious, and I’m still amazing Cohen made it out of there alive.

Brüno then figures if Brangelina and Madonna can adopt children from Africa why can’t he? He goes on a local talk show hosted by Richard Bey and bring out his Black baby (complete with “Gayby” T-shirt) whom he names a traditional African name: OJ. The entire Black audience is hilariously outraged and Brüno even gets his child taken away by child protective services. After his child is taken away, he figures if he really wants to be famous he should become straight. After all some of Hollywood’s biggest celebrities are straight like manly men John Travolta and Tom Cruise. There Brüno meets with a Christian “gay converter” and learns how to repress his homosexuality. There he enlists in the Army and even spends some quality heterosexual time with a group of hunters in Alabama. These scenes are absolutely hysterical and show how ignorant some people in this country really are.

The film culminates in one of the movie’s most shocking and outrageous scenes as a cage fighting match turns into a gay love fest between Brüno and his assistant’s assistant. I can’t even tell you how disturbed this dumbed-down middle American audience really is and it’s actually pretty disturbing to see their reactions. How they couldn’t tell that the whole this is staged is beyond me and guess there are most stupid people in the world then we realize.

Overall, and while it follows pretty closely the style and plot of Borat (which makes sense since Larry Charles directed both and they share some of the same writers) there are enough outrageous and shocking moments that certainly makes Brüno a welcome addition to this summer’s line up. The film is under 90 minutes long and you’ll most likely be either laughing our sitting there with your mouth agape. It is offensive, trashy, un-PC and utterly ridiculous. In short, it’s uber-funny and a great time at the movies! And please do me a favor, please slap your head when you watch Paula Abdul actually sit down on a Mexican person who has been forced to become a piece of Brüno’s furniture. GRADE: A-

New York Stories: Woody Allen Finally Returns to the City That Never Sleeps in “Whatever Works”

Woody Allen’s last four films have taken place in Europe. He has said the reason he has shot so many of his recent films in England and Spain was a purely fiscal: it was cheaper to shoot in Europe. His clever “Match Point” was even written to take place in the Hamptons, but was able to modify it to London once he realized no American studio wanted to give him money, basically whatever works. So is the philosophy of his new New York City set flick “Whatever Works.” He had no money, so he went to Europe. He mad some pretty decent movies over there and now he’s returned to his old stomping ground for a mildly engaging “feel bad” comedy, that mostly works.

In this new movie Larry David (creator/star of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”) is Boris Yellnikoff, Allen’s latest onscreen alter ego. Yellnikoff is a New York intellectual who has no time for “inchworms” or stupid people like you and me. We know this because he speaks directly to the audience, however, the other characters don’t seem to see us sitting there. He’s miserable and crabby and super ADD – he sings Happy Birthday, out loud, twice while washing his hands. Life sucks so much for him that when he tried to kill himself it didn’t work. He even divorced his wife simply because they were a perfect match.

Enter Melodie. Melodie (played by Evan Rachel Wood) is a young woman from the South. I almost want to say this is the first time such a stranger foreigner has garnered such a large role in one of Allen’s films. She is sort of cliché… she’s dumb and naïve. But what is true, is that’s how New Yorkers view Southerners. But Allen has a point in turning Melodie into a cliché because his characters even have full-on conversations about clichés. So because Boris, god bless his cranky heart, is such a nice guy and his philosophy is whatever works, he takes this homeless girl into his and gives her some food and even lets her crash there. He even shows her the ways of the busy intellectual New Yorker and they form an unlikely friendship and maybe even more…and then Melodie’s mother shows up.

Could another one of Woody Allen’s actresses earn yet another support actress nomination come February? As Melodie’s crazy bible thumping mother Marietta, Patricia Clarkson simply radiates. She shines so bright I needed sunglasses. Ok that was super lame, but I really enjoyed her. And no only is she a funny scene stealer (who tries to hook her daughter up with square-jawed Brit Henry Cavill of “The Tudors” and ends up in a threeway relationship), but it’s fascinating to see her character’s story arch. Say what you want about any one of Allen’s personal life, but what he simply does best is create dynamite roles for women. And for that I simply can’t complain. If you’re a female actress you need to get yourself into a Woody Allen movie stat.

I wouldn’t easily describe “Whatever Works” as an instant classic. It’s a decent enough comedy although I’m not so sure it feels like this is the movie that should have been his big return to New York, but I will take it. He has some really genuinely funny moments, mostly because of a) Boris’ shrill view of life and b) Patricia Clarkson. I am and always will continue to be a huge Woody Allen fan, and for me “Whatever Works” works. So whatever. GRADE: B

Note: I’d be lying if I said I sort of wish (and nothing against David’s great performance) Allen himself had played the role of Boris, but whatever works.

American Gangster: I’m Not Too Big a Fan of “Public Enemies”

There is nothing really technically wrong with Michael Mann’s John Dillinger crime saga “Public Enemies.” Let’s just say I wasn’t living in gangster’s paradise. In fact, there were some parts where I could barely keep my eyes open. But maybe that was because I was tired (I went to a 4:50 PM showing ha!) or because the surround sound wasn’t quite right. I’m officially convinced I could have recreated a better audio experience with my Blu-ray home theater system, but I digress. Besides the fact that the flick, at times, looks like something you could easily access for free on YouTube, Public Enemies will appeal to fans of classic gangster pictures, of which I’m completely indifferent about.

I’m a fan of Michael Mann’s Collateral because it is suspenseful and draws you in from the opening scene. Even Mann’s early Hannibal Lecter flick “Manhunter,” which sort of gets forgotten about since Anthony Hopkins became Hannibal, is completely enjoyable. I’m going to go on record by saying, and I don’t think I’m alone here, that “Miami Vice” was completely and unabashedly horrendous. So in comparison to that movie, Public Enemies is amazing. And yet I felt mostly underwhelmed by the experience. I mean, Johnny Depp as John Dillinger is great, which really isn’t a surprise. Christian Bale is good as well, although he’s not really around that much. And I enjoy Oscar winner Marion Cotillard who, as one of the film’s few female characters, shows up here as Dillinger’s love interest. Apparently according to the credits Stephen Doff is in there but I didn’t even recognize him.

I think the biggest problem here was that I just didn’t care. I think that’s really a problem that I have to deal with though. I enjoy when movies let you “root for” the “bad guy” but I guess I really didn’t think John Dillinger was all that bad. So he robs banks, who cares. By today’s standards he’s practically Gandhi. I didn’t really care if he got caught or got away. In most of these types of movies you’re supposed to be on the side of the bad guy, but like I said, I didn’t care much. and when movies like this take place in this time frame where everyone is practically dressed the same it’s sort of difficult to figure out who are the cops and who are the robbers. Ehh.

I appreciate the film’s look a lot. It’s cool that a studio would pay to produce a big epic period piece and make it look like your Uncle George’s wedding video. According to imdb the film was shot with a mix of traditional 35mm film and video, which is the same as Mann’s previous movies Miami Vice and Collateral. You can really feel the intimacy and really puts you into the action. Although I guess it totally didn’t work on me since I could hardly keep my eyes open. And some shots were so video looking, I almost cringed. It felt like I could have been the camera operator.

I guess the problem ultimately lies with Mann’s not-too-special script who he co-wrote with Ann Biderman and Ronan Bennett and that’s a shame cause Biderman wrote one of my favorites “Copycat.” I just didn’t find this story fascinating, but I could see how others would. The film is technical achievement in terms of the recreation of the 1930s, but for me for you dawg, it was just ‘aight. (And Billy Crudup who plays J. Edgar Hoover, doesn't even cross dress once! Talk about historical inaccuracies...) GRADE: C

Mechanical Failure: “Transformers Revenge of the Fallen” is Big on Robots, Effects and Clichés, Short on Everything Else

I enjoy mindless action entertainment as much as the next guy, but the Grinch said it best: “One thing I can't stand is the noise, noise, noise, noise!” I wouldn’t say I was the biggest fan of Michael Bay’s first Transformers movie, but I thought it was enjoyable for what it was: a loud, CGI-laden action spectacle; the world’s longest toy commercial. Well if the first film is a loud, CGI-laden action spectacle, then its sequel, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a loud, CGI-laden action spectacle ramped up to a cinematic 11. Make that 11 thousand. “Transformers 2,” (who wants to keep writing Revenge of the Fallen?) is really loud and dumb and makes the first film look Oscar-worthy in comparison. If “Transformers” is “Jaws,” then “Transformers 2” is the pathetic “Jaws the Revenge.” And wouldn’t you know both titles share a common word.

The thing that remains the most interesting in both films is one Shia LeBeouf as Sam Witwicky, who you’ll remember in the first film unwittingly purchased a car that was actually a robot from another planet. But he was a good robot; an Autobot. But for every good robot there is a bad robot; the Decepticons. So poor Sam, who just wants a cool car and a girlfriend, gets stuck in the middle of an ancient war of machine vs. machine. At the end of the last movie everything was right in the world. The bad guys were defeated… or so we thought.

A piece of the “allspark”, a cube device that the robots were fighting over so they could control the universe (and who wouldn’t want to control the universe?) is unknowingly left in Sam’s sweatshirt and it somehow lets the “defeated” Decepticons come back to life. Or something like that. Let’s not get caught up in plot details because there are lots of explosions and chases, and guns firing and military personnel looking at flashy computer screens and shouting gibberish that you and I don’t understand. And if you couldn’t tell from the ten thousand explosions, this is a film directed by Michael Bay! So we get lots of “hero” shots of characters moving in slow motion and outrunning explosions, which I’m pretty sure is impossible, but I’d have to check with the guys from Mythbusters first.

Ok, so why is this movie so dreadfully bad? Well first of all it’s way too long. It’s 150 minutes of mind-numbing action that isn’t very entertaining to begin with. It’s entertaining seeing the robots transform from a vehicle to a five story robot ready to kick ass, but once you’ve seen a robot transform a few times, it feels like a hundred times. And then we get the annoying attempts at comic relief. We have two “eubonic” spewing borderline racist robots who keep beating each other up. The audience laughed a lot, but I didn’t. then we get a cute little transformer who sounded a lot like Steve Buscemi who was cute until he started humping Megan Fox’s leg. And then there was that giant robot with the two large wrecking balls that were supposed to be… well you get the idea. Michael Bay has some serious issues! And I hated the addition of Shia’s college roommate (Ramon Rodriguez) who was just sort of annoying. He was just there to prove Michael Bay can direct a movie with more than just Caucasian actors. And John Turturro is more of a ham than Miss Piggy.

The most normal and enjoyable part of the movie are Sam’s unwitting and cute parents played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White. Mom eats some pot brownies while helping Sam move into college and she starts going sort of crazy. And let me just say that this is the most accurate depiction of college I’ve ever seen in a movie. Wow I can’t believe I got that out with a straight face.

Point is: This is a cliché-riddled mess (I can’t believe no one uttered “I’m so cold”) and I can’t really recommend it unless you have ADD. And I’m going to do the writers a favor and not mention them by name here. If you do find yourself in a movie queue for this flick, be sure to bring aspirin. When I was watching the movie, I heard a baby crying. I felt his pain. GRADE: D+

Home Sweet Home: “Away We Go” is a Pleasant and Funny Road Movie

I’m a fan of director Sam Mendes. The only one of his films I have yet to see is Road to Perdition. And that probably has more to do with the fact that I have no idea what the word perdition means. Although my good friends Merriam and Webster tell me “utter destruction” and “eternal damnation.” Hmm, maybe I actually need to see that movie. But I digress, his newest film “Away We Go” is very Mendes and yet completely non-Mendes. The script by first timers Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida is sort of “American Beauty” meets “Juno” with a little “North” thrown in. the story is something we come to expect from Mendes (an interesting point-of-view of American marriage) and yet the style of the film doesn’t have that glossy, high production value of his previous films. While I sort of miss the trademark Sam Mendes “look” I actually welcome the director as trying something different.

The film is about a pregnant couple (interracial!) who aren’t married. The coup[le is played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. They don’t plan on getting married. They live in a little shack. They mostly work from home and now that Burt’s (Kraskinski) parents are going to be moving to Europe, they decide to do some traveling and figure out where they’d like to settle. So Burt and Verona (Rudolph) are off to visit her former boss played by Allison Janney in another quirky showcase role that she does best. She plays Lily, who could easily win Worst Mother of the Year. She makes fun of her chunky daughter and her obvious lesbian tendencies (she’s pudgy and has short hair!). Of course she makes us laugh for the 10 or 15 minutes she’s onscreen.

Our unmarried heroes also visit Burt’s cousin who is really just a family friend. Her name is LN and she’s played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. I said her name was LN and its pronounced just as it looks (Ellen). She’s one of the those weird hippie new age mothers who still breastfeeds her 5 year old, doesn’t use strollers (she loves her child, so why would she want to push him away from her) and shares a “family bed” in which she sleeps with her husband and two young children. Gyllenaal’s performance is brief and brilliant and she does the best with the short screen time she’s given. Burt and Verona’s reactions to their odd way of life is nothing short of priceless.

Burt and Verona make other stops along the way and its mostly to show us, the audience, how there are so many ways to define “family.” There are so many different families and this journey is a way for our heroes to figure out the types of parents they want and hope to become (This brings up the fact that this movie actually reminded me of Rob Reiner’s “North” a movie that film critic hated hated hated hated). We slowly get to learn interesting pieces of information from their past. We learn that Verona’s parents died when she was just out of college and how that has affected her and her sister whom they visit as well.

Mendes gives us a movie that isn’t extraordinary (it’s not American Beauty or Juno although, like I said, it’s similar to both) but he gives us a story about two characters we get to know and care about and who are surrounded by complete nutjobs. And the performances are great. Rudolph can certainly do more than just a good Whitney impersonation, although Krasinksi seems to be playing off his goofy "Office"character, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. We’re not quite sure where exactly Burt and Verona will end up but like most movies of this type, it’s the journey that makes it fun. GRADE: B

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