O Brother Where Art Thou? “Charlie St. Cloud” is Harmless, Charming Schmaltz

You wouldn’t assume that a kid who starred in made-for-TV movie called “High School Musical” would become such a successful movie star. There are always unexplainable things in the universe and that’s just one of them. The fact is though is that Zac Efron, for all the tween girl obsession that he receives, isn’t actually a horrible actor. Ok, he’s not really a great actor, but he does have some presences and enough ability to carry a movie. Even if it’s one about playing an adult in a teen’s body or playing a teen who plays catch with his dead brother’s ghost. I’m confident that one day Mr. Efron will find a project that will fit him well and sort of give him some street cred. I thought that was supposed to happen with “Me and Orson Welles” but I guess not. But here in “Charlie St. Cloud,” the story of a young guy who loses his little bro in a tragic accident and then somehow gains the ability to see dead people, he’s decent enough to not make me feel embarrassed for actually paying money to see this movie in the theater.

If you’re not sure what Charlie St. Cloud is about, think “what if The Sixth Sense had been originally written by Nicholas Sparks of The Notebook fame?” And then you get Charlie St. Cloud. Throw in a little mix of Ghost and you can see where this is going. And I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t totally shocked by a third act plot development. Sue me, I didn’t see it coming. But then again, I didn’t really get all of “Inception” either. So there you go. Efron plays Charlie St. Cloud. He’s a sailor. He races boats. He’s about to graduate high school and attend Stamford in the fall. Everyone in town knows him. He’s the guy all the teen girls in the town dream about dating. Ya know much like Efron himself. He has a special bond with his younger brother. It seems as though their father is either dead or somewhere else. They are like best buds. Cue the drunk driver who smashes into Charlie’s car, killing poor little Sam (played by Charlie Tahan). Cut to the funeral where Charlie is so verklempt , he can’t even throw his bro’s baseball glove in his open grave. He proceeds to run into the woods, where he runs smack into little Sam. He makes a promise to him that he’ll play catch with him for an hour every day before sundown.

We then flash-forward five years later. It turns out Charlie gave up on his dreams as characters in movies like this tend to do. He never went to school and has chosen to work as a groundskeeper in the graveyard where Sam is buried. Now he’s not only known as the town heartthrob, but the town nut as well. He hasn’t even gone sailing since his brother’s death cause it was something they loved doing together. He does catch the eye of a pretty girl he went to high school with named Tess (Amanda Crew), who is also a sailor, and has plans to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. Who wouldn’t want to do that? So they sort of start a fling, and now Sam starts to feel left out, as dead people usually are left out of the loop.

I won’t delve that much deeper into the plot, and to be honest, do you even really care? This is a movie tailor made for the tween/Twilight set and they ate up every single minute of it. I couldn’t believe the squealing I heard whenever Zac made puppy dog eyes at Tess and stared blankly into her eyes. I want to actually tell you more of what happens. But I won’t tell you that Sam is not the only dead person Charlie sees. Whoops I said it. Director Burr Steers, who also worked with Efron on “17 Again” does like working on stories with some kind of fantastical element, and it seems to fit well here. This just feels more like candy coated melodrama, but you know what? I was entertained by it.

“Charlie St. Cloud” is Efron’s attempt to become a more dramatic actor. He’s certainly on his way, but he won’t make it too far if he’s stuck in schmaltzy stuff like this. Granted it’s exactly what his fans want, and I believe that he will crossover as a mainstream actor one day. Just look at Leonardo DiCaprio, he was a teen heartthrob stuck in romance epics and now he’s an Oscar-worthy actor working with today’s top directors. Fans who know what they are getting into with this flick will enjoy themselves. Anyone else who’s being dragged? Hunker down and pray for daylight. GRADE: B

A.I. Artificial Insemination: There’s Nothing Artificial About the Funny and Touching Domestic Dramedy “The Kids Are All Right”

What has great performances, a witty and amusing script, and a hip, indie look and feel? “The Kids Are All Right.” This is the latest flick to come out of Sundance and it’s almost guaranteed to be a mainstream hit. Think “Little Miss Sunshine” or “Juno.” I’m not sure if it’ll catch on like those two, but it certainly deserves to stand amongst them. It tells the wonderful story of an upper middle class lesbian couple and their two children and the wrench that is caused in their lives when the kids decide to bring their biological father into their lives.

What “The Kids Are All Right” lacks in dazzlingly visual design it makes up for with a great script and even better performances. Julianne Moore is Jules and she’s married to Annette Bening’s Nic. They are a happy couple and they have two teenage kids in which they each conceived by the sperm of one donor. There’s Joni (Mia Wasikowska) who just graduated high school and will be attending college in the fall and her younger brother Laser (Josh Hutcherson) a typical fifteen year old boy. Laser really wants to know who their real father is and he’s not yet eighteen he enlist his older sister to seek him out. They contact him and it turns out to be a guy named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). The two kids first meet their dad and in one of the film’s many awkward, yet touching, and strangely realistic scenes.

Of course they don’t tell their moms right away about meeting dad. You see Nic is sort of a control freak, think the lesbian Carolyn Burnham from “American Beauty” except not as psychologically damaged. She’s an ER doctor and is therefore a little overprotective of her kids (and rightfully so). That also means she’s sometimes a little too busy with work for her partner Jules who’s a little more free spirited. She’s just started a gardening/landscaping business. And once the sperm donor plotline is brought out into the open, in another funny and awkward scene involving Laser and his two moms, Paul hires Jules to landscape his backyard. What follows is something weird and yet never feels forced: Paul and Jules begin to find themselves attracted to one another. I promise to say no more.

The film’s strongest suit is definitely the award-worth performances throughout the wonderful, close-knit ensemble. Bening gives a great performance and she’s particularly amazing in some of the film’s third act scenes. While her character might have some quirks that can be easily to dislike, she’s never unlikable. Bening gives Nic credibility as a woman who is always concerned and always has a wine glass firmly in hand. Moore equally matches her as the more loose Jules. Of course Moore is always a fine actress and here she’s gets an almost meatier roll because her character can quickly become the monster but she never does. You never side with just one character and I credit director/writer Lisa Cholodenko and co-writer Stuart Blumberg for creating characters we empathize with even if they don’t always make the most rational decisions. Cholodenko refuses to make this a story just about the tribulations of a gay couple and rather makes it about a gay couple who go through all the same emotions and ordeals as straight couples. Of course this isn’t your traditional family, but she makes it as traditional as possible. Ruffalo is also extraordinary as a man who’s literally thrust into this family life and the way if throws his life off balance. He makes a difficult role seem effortless. Hopefully his work doesn’t go unnoticed. And the kids are definitely all right. They give great performances as well and equally match their adult counterparts.

I can see how someone might mistake this for just a dysfunctional family TV sitcom and maybe some will see it as such. I don’t. The film doesn’t have quite the glorious cinematic look that some movies have, but I don’t think it’s supposed to. It goes with a realistic look and that suits the movie. It’s pretty amazing how the film deals with these family issues in the most organic way possible. Nothing is forced and nothing seems out of place. It’s a rewarding and touching experience. It’s unquestionably better than all right. GRADE: A-

The Dream Team: “Inception” is an Engrossing, Densely Layered Mind Trip

“Inception” is pretty much the cinematic equivalent to a Rubik’s Cube. It’s really fun to play with but nearly impossible to figure out. I’m sure even the film’s most ardent fans can’t fully decipher all of the film’s meanings but it’s such an absorbing piece of work that could only be handled by the same guy who brought us the blockbuster “The Dark Knight” two summers ago. While Christopher Nolan, who cut his teeth in the independent world has moved on to sprawling action movies with bigger budgets, he’s still managed to keep his dignity intact. He never takes the easy way out by succumbing audience expectations. He does what he wants to do it and how he wants to do it and while you can feel the influence of dozens of other films in this particular work it still feels original enough to not feel like a rip-off. “Inception” is a movie that is only successful because of the “man” getting put behind it. It has stars! It has flashy effects! It has a humungous advertising campaign. This film would never work as an art house indie, although it retains many of the ideas often found in those types of films. Here though with a bigger playground to play on Nolan is having a ball and his number one interest is the audience and giving them the time of their life.

“Inception” takes place in an alternate (though realistic) world in which people have been able to “hijack” people’s dreams. By hijack I mean enter a person’s dream and steal information that can only be found in a person’s subconscious. Let’s just say Freud would have a field day with this flick. And who knew that rain in your dream means you have to take a leak? Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb who is part of a dream heist team. He’s the “extractor” the one in charge of getting whatever info his team needs to get. There’s Ellen Page’s character Ariadne who is the architect; she can actually design the dream world. Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is the point man. Eames (Tom Hardy) is the forger who can impersonate the target in the dream world. Think of this team as sort of an Ocean’s Eleven but instead of getting inside a safe they are getting inside someone’s mind. They even dress the part with most of them spending the film dressed like they’re about to shoot a GQ photo spread. It turns out what they really want to do is plant an idea inside the mind of the mark – Cillian Murphy’s Robert Fischer – and they have the ablity to enter into the dream world of people who are already in a dream.

Does this sound confusing? Because it sort of is. There are several different dream levels. Once they’re in a dream they can go to sleep within that dream and enter a new dream and so on. They do this because every time they enter a new subconscious state real time slows down dramatically and let’s them accomplish more in less time. The last third of the film takes place within minutes of real time and yet they have what seems like hours to complete their mission. Nolan does a great job of constantly making sure we know where we are and when. We know what dream we’re in and who is where. The crosscutting between all these dream worlds is pretty astounding. I smell Oscar.

All of the actors give great performances although Leo probably has the juiciest role. You see his deceased wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) appears in his dreams and tends to disrupt his subconscious heist plans a lot. He had to leave his two young children behind for reasons I won’t get into here. But what really stands out here are the film’s jaw-droppingly awesome action sequences which are like nothing you’ve ever really seen before. Sure you’ve seen similar stuff in movies like “The Matrix,” but most of this stuff is pretty photorealistic and Nolan employs as many practical effects as he can. A sequence in which Arthur must battle some bad guys in a rotating hallway is simply astonishing. Not since “A Nightmare on Elm Street” has a rotating room had so much personality.

While I’m still a little confused on random bits of the plot and sometimes everything doesn’t quite gel as quickly as you’d like, Inception is a wildly imaginative and fun ride. It has awesome visuals an interesting story and a wonderfully epic cinematic feel. It’s pretty close to rivaling “The Dark Knight” as the de facto “intelligent” summer blockbuster. Sorry “independent” Nolan fans, he’s playing in the big leagues now and I think “Inception” is a home run. GRADE: A-

Victoria’s Secret: Bella Must Evade an Army of Vampires and a Love Triangle in the Improved “Twilight Saga: Eclipse”

Well all I can say is that “Eclipse,” the third chapter of the wildly successful vampire melodrama, is a vast improvement on the second part “New Moon.” While I didn’t howl with delight at this third entry, I was mildly amused and I think we all credit the improved direction from David Slade (Hard Candy) and better performances from the young cast. I guess they say third time’s the charm and that’s pretty much the case here cause I can definitely see how non-fans of the first two films might actually find something worth watching here, whether it’s the “army of vampires” storyline or the previously mentioned better acting and better directing (it’s darker and more serious). While I can’t call Eclipse an epic, must see, I can say that it could have been a lot worse and it has enough positives to make it worth sitting there for two hours.

I’ve always said from the start that I’m not Twilight’s target demographic (tweens aged 13-17 and cougars aged 45-51), but I found something oddly enjoyable about the first film. I kind of embraced its cheesiness and the exaggerated teen angst love story abut teenage outcast Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) falling for eternally teenage vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). It was fun following Bella as she learned about the mysterious pale-faced boy with wild hair that never seems to move and his close-nit “family.” The next film in the series, “New Moon” boringly followed Bella’s frustration with her Edward leaving her (for her safety of course!) while she bonds with teen werewolf Jacob Black (perennially shirtless Taylor Lautner). To call “New Moon” a snooze-fest would be giving it too much praise because everyone likes a good nap every now and then. Luckily I didn’t find myself falling asleep as much in “Eclipse.”

We remember from the end of the first film, (which technically makes the second film borderline unnecessary and pointless), that the evil vampire Victoria (now played by Bryce Dallas Howard) wants to seek revenge on Edward Cullen because he and his Cullen brothers killed her lover James. Does she want to kill Edward himself? Not really, she’d rather kill his lover Bella because he would ruin his (eternal) life. She begins creating an “army of vampires” by first turning a young college student Riley Biers (played by Xavier Samuel) into a vampire during the film’s opening moments. From there they create new vampires who are thirsty for human blood. Why Victoria doesn’t kill Bella while she’s vulnerable, like in the shower, is beyond me. After all, it worked wonders for Norman Bates. But I digress.

The Cullen family decides to team up with the local werewolf clan whom they have a century’s long feud with. Jacob and his hairy brethren decide to put their issues at rest for now, to help save Bella from the bad vampires. He even uses his stinky b.o. to help mask Bella’s human scent. There is some great tension between Jacob and Edward because let’s not forget that Jacob is in love with Bella too although she’s not certain if she feels the same. Ahh teenage love triangles are the epitome of dramatic tension. There’s plenty of that for the fans, but at least Bella doesn’t do anything too stupid this time around like cliff diving and such. There is a great scene involving a tent that seems to be a fan favorite and actually finds both Robert and Taylor with some fine acting ability. And I enjoyed learning some more about the various Cullen clan, one of whom is completely envious of Bella’s human status. The Volurti, the all-powerful vampire-ruling coven from Italy, show up as well. Yet again they are extremely poorly shoehorned into Melissa Rosenberg’s script and therefore given hardly anything to do, except confuse viewers who haven’t read the books. Thanks for nothing Dakota.

I sort of with the film ended on more of a cliffhanger so that I could feel the urge to want to continue watching this series but it doesn’t really. In fact it could end right here. No need for a weird vampire baby, or whatever it is that happens in the next book. Overall this is an improvement over New Moon, and while the film has a more serious and less corny tone as the first film, I still think that one’s slightly better. You Twihards can judge for yourself. GRADE: B-

To Catch a Predator: Get to the Theater and See the Commendable Action Flick “Predators”

One thing’s for certain: most old-school “Predator” fans will enjoy this new vision from B-movie maestro Robert Rodriquez (believe me I know). While he only produced the film, although that whole “Robert Rodriquez Presents” stuff can be slightly tricky, it’s definitely a worthy follow-up to all other sci-fi action flicks starring those creepily dread-locked alien hunters. Even fans of Arnold’s original action hero will be glad to know that Adrien Brody almost comes close to matching Schwarzenegger’s rippling body muscle per muscle. This ain’t the scrawny guy who you remember as the Holocaust survivor in “The Pianist.” It’s good to see the Predator franchise return to it’s action roots after a couple silly, albeit entertaining, confrontations with the extraterrestrials from the “Alien” films.

We see our main characters literally drop out of the sky and into the deep jungle. We’re introduced to several tough-looking dudes, and one woman, who all seem to have a few things in common, they don’t remember how they got here and they are all some kind of trained killer or soldier. One guy’s just a plain ol’ criminal who happens to be on the FBI’s most wanted list. Brody is Royce is seems more concerned with himself to care much about the other people dropped into the same situation. Of course they stick together and slowly realize they’re not exactly in a very familiar jungle. And is that some Jupiter-looking planet up there in the sky?

Turns out they’ve been brought here by those warrior-like alien predators who enjoy hunting the most intelligent and sophisticated game they can get their hands on. Human killers and soldiers of course! We learn pretty quickly what all the characters deals are including Topher Grace’s Edwin who seems wildly out of place. Turns out he’s a doctor and from what I can tell has been brought there to help heal those who might become the predator’s victims. How exactly you repair someone’s ripped out spinal column and skull is beyond me, but heck I never went to medical school. So not only does these band of survivors have to evade the sly predators but they must try and figure out a way to get the heck home! And luckily a half-crazy Laurence Fishburne shows up for some needed exposition.

I was pleasantly surprised to the find that the film had a good sense of atmosphere and an overall sense of dread. I credit director Nimrod Antal who made the harshly underrated thriller “Vacancy” a few years back. While I didn’t necessarily relate to many of the characters, including the most wanted guy (The Sheild’s Walton Goggins) it was sort of enjoyable to see him attempt to shiv the predators with his tiny knife while the others are equipped with massive machine guns and handguns. And with that said there’s plenty of blood and guts for those who enjoy that sort of thing. I’m talking about myself of course. I could have done without a certain character revelation in the film's last act, but that's really nitpicking here. Otherwise the film is swift, action-packed and suspenseful.

“Predators,” call it a reboot or a sequel (it references the events of the first film), is a fun time at the movies if you enjoy this kind of thing. It takes an already established and highly regarded fan favorite franchise and respects it (I loved composer John Debney’s homage to Alan Silvestri’s original score). You can tell Rodriquez is a fan of the series and only wanted to attempt to please those who enjoy the original while maybe garnering a few new fans along the way. “Predators” is definitely worth seeking out. GRADE: B

Air Pollution: M. Night Shyamalan is Out of His Element with “The Last Airbender”

There was one thought I couldn’t get out of my mind while watching “The Last Airbender,” a story about a world in which the four natural elements (earth, air, fire and water) are an integral part of the plot: Where is Captain Planet so he can take out this garbage? I realize there are many fans of the Nickelodeon Asian-influenced animated series “Avatar: The Last Airbender” and maybe they’ll get more out of the movie than I would, but still I think they’ll be throwing rotten tomatoes at the screen assuming they were smart enough to bring some to the theater. The latest dreck from once cinematic master M. Night Shyamalan just sort of sits there like a dead fish. I wanted emotion. I wanted to feel involved. I wanted to be entertained. None of that happened while watching “The Last Airbender.”

I knew nothing about the original series which takes place in a magical world. There are four nations and they each have their own natural element. Some people in each nation can manipulate the element with martial arts moves. There is always one person, however, who can manipulate all four elements and is required to help maintain tranquility amongst all four nations. This person is known as the Avatar. And he isn’t a blue alien with dreadlocks. It turns out that little Aang (Noah Ringer; a far cry from Haley Joel Osment) is the last of his air bending tribe and just so happens to be the Avatar. He’s discovered frozen in an iceberg by Katara (a wooden Nichal Petz) and her older brother Sokka (an almost as wooden Jason Rathbone). They get him out and Katara feels the need to protect him. Then the ridiculously confusing story begins about Avatars and the evil Fire Nation and then Dev Patel from “Slumdog Millionaire” shows up as the flawed bad guy with corny martial arts moves.

I can tell you that after actually watching the first two episodes of the original series that those 46 minutes were 110 times more compelling that happens in the live action movie. I think there are several reasons why it just doesn’t work. Shyamalan who no one doubts is an original filmmaker who likes to tell creative stories just somehow can’t develop his characters well enough for anyone to care about them. Perhaps he was just assuming everyone who would see the movie would automatically have seen the show? I think Shyamalan works better telling ghost stories and is really good at getting the audience to think about the unknown. There’s actually too much going onscreen. The action feels jumbled and looks confusing. And then there are the actual martial arts-inspired moves the characters use to manipulate the elements. These characters just look silly because the choreography just looks dumb. The effects themselves are ok, but nothing to write home about.

For the most part I was bored by Shyamalan’s version of “The Last Airbender.” Odds are you’ll be bored too. It’s too bad because while I never was too excited about the film when the trailer first hit, the story of the “Avatar The Last Airbender” is actually more entertaining than I ever gave it credit for and in just a couple episodes it was so clear that Shyamalan’s vision is just completely sub par. I hate to compare someone’s work to the original, but even if this was another of Shyamalan’s original creations, it still just ain’t happening. I think he needs to take it as a sign because it seems like the poor guy’s career isn’t unbreakable after all. GRADE: D+

Note: The so-called “racism” involving the film’s casting didn’t bother me and isn’t a reason why the movie is so bad. Whether the heroes were played by white people or Asian people or shadow puppets, it would have been bad either way.

The Brat Pack: “Grown Ups” is Stupid and Childish and Sort of Funny

Adam Sandler never really attempts to make amazing films. And sometimes you just have to admire that. You can easily get a well written comedy by the likes of Woody Allen or Judd Apatow, but sometimes you just want dumb, dumb, dumb. Just credit Sandler as the screenwriter and pair him with director Dennis Dugan and there ya go! You have crappy comedy gold. I’m not saying that Sandler isn’t a talented person or anything; he’s made a terrific career from playing goofballs (Happy Gilmore) and idiots (Billy Madison) and buffoons (The Waterboy) etc, but he does seem to make the same movie over and over again. Of course sometimes we want to see something stupid. After all, who doesn’t enjoy “Happy Gilmore” on some level?

With Grown Ups we get more of the same childish antics and scatological jokes, constantly being performed by supposed adult characters. Here we have Sandler as Lenny Feder, a rich movie producer with bratty kids and Salma Hayek as his wife. He learns that his old basketball coach has passes away and reunites with his former buddies for the funeral and weekend in lake house with their families. Think “The Big Chill” but with no artistic merit whatsoever. In fact the whole movie can best be described as lame and with sophomoric comedy with unnecessary emotional drivel. But you know what? I actually was amused and laughed. And that’s a lot more than I can say for the Get Him to the Greek, a comedy that hardly made laugh at all.

So who are all the other “grown ups” in this movie? We have Kevin James playing Eric, who’s married to Sally (Maria Bello). As an aside I’d like to say that I enjoyed watching actresses like Salma Hayek and Maria Bello slum it up in a dumb movie like this. I take it that they don’t take their dramatic acting careers too seriously and know how to let loose and have a fun time. And besides, they can actually sometimes be funny. Eric and Sally have two kids: a rotund daughter who seems she could pass for James’ real life offspring and a four year-old son who still breastfeeds. Prepare yourself for lots of breastfeeding jokes. Then we have Chris Rock who plays Kurt. He’s married to Deanne (Maya Rudolph) and they have a couple of kids too. Deanne’s mother tags along to provide mean jokes at Kurt’s expense. The always unreliable Rob Schneider doesn’t even get a fresh character name; he plays Rob who has a thing for older women and he’s married to Gloria (Joyce Van Patten). Expect lots of old ladies are gross jokes. Then there’s the fifth friend of the group, who seems like the most unnecessary character of the lot Marcus, played by David Spade. He’s not married and comes to the lake house for the weekend by himself. He’s basically just the gang’s punching bag. In fact, 85% of the dialogue has to do with the characters insulting each other.

Since there isn’t really a plot, I won’t bring it up. So basically that’s about it. We get scenes of the guys learning some life lessons, taking the kids to a water park, where they turn the water blue in the kiddie pool by urinating in the water. Although the gag would have worked better if the water turned a different color, let’s say green, cause let’s face it, pool water already looks blue. And sue me for chuckling when Salma Hayek, while attempting to skip rocks, chucks a stone at her son’s stomach.

Grown Ups is exactly the type of movie you think it is. It’s just as dumb as any of the other scripts Adam Sandler has written before: Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy, Big Daddy etc. While Sandler has shown range in other movies like “Punch Drunk Love,” “Spanglish” and the recent “Funny People,” “Grown Ups” proves that you can take the man out of the child but you can’t take the child out of the man. Wait, what? GRADE: B-

A Knight to Remember: “Knight and Day” is a Fun Summer Action Comedy

“Knight and Day” is a loud action movie with lots of CGI effects and movie stars and explosions and bits of comic relief. It doesn’t really offer much more than that, but what do you expect from a summer movie being sold on the promise of being just a fun, action comedy? If you’re a fan of stars Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz that also helps. I find them to be enjoyable when they’re in the right movie and here they seem to be a good fit for each other. I last remember seeing them together in the weird “Vanilla Sky,” a movie I didn’t quite get as didn’t millions of other people. But “Knight and Day” is a much more normal movie. You might even call it a retread or clichéd or unoriginal (think "Romancing the Stone" meets "True Lies" with a twist of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith"). “Knight and Day” is a movie that, while not perfect, offers enough benefits that will certainly keep you entertained for its run time.

I don’t care if you think Tom Cruise is crazy, maybe he is, but he’s a decent actor and is charming nonetheless. You don’t turn into Tom Cruise if you don’t at least have some sort of talent. Here he plays Roy Miller a super spy who we’ll learn has gone “rogue.” And don’t ask me if he supports Sarah Palin. He seems to randomly bump into June Havens (Diaz) at the airport and wind up on the same plane together. Of course this is not a coincidence. It turns out Roy has the film’s MacGuffin and the bad guys (whom I’ll always refer to as in this review) want it. Poor June. She just wants to get home for her younger sister’s wedding and within the film’s opening sequences she’s already almost died in a plane which Roy has to land swiftly in a corn field because he sort of shot the plane’s pilot. But I think he was a bad guy. Long story short there are bad guys after Roy’s MacGuffin and June is forced to tag along cause her chances of surviving with Roy’s help are slim.

It’s not a coincidence that when June first bumped into Roy she was attracted to him. If June’s character wasn’t going to find Roy attractive Roy would have probably been played by Steve Buscemi or someone similar. You don’t cast Tom Cruise and not have the leading lady fall helplessly in love. So the rest of the film involves Roy dragging a smitten June around the globe with him as he evades the bad guys. He also has to protect Simon Feck (Paul Dano) who is the brilliant young man who invented the film’s MacGuffin. Along the way we also meet Mr. and Mrs. Knight, who we find out are Roy’s parents, living a quite life in New England. They think they’re son is dead and can’t understand why they keep winning the lotto and Publisher’s Clearing House. That was a nice touch.

James Mangold directed the film, who has made recent movies like Walk the Line and 3:10 to Yuma. I’m not sure you’d expect his next film to be something like “Knight and Day” to be his next logical project, but he seems like a director who is happy jumping from genre to genre. He displays some fun visual tricks which were pretty ridiculous but belong squarely in a summer action movie such as this one. I enjoyed the shot of Roy riding up along a runaway car June is trapped in, jumping off and landing right on the hood of the car. You’ve probably seen that in the trailer, it was absurd then and certainly absurd in context and yet isn’t any less enjoyable. Heck there’s even some witty banter thrown in by first time screenwriter Patrick O’Neill.

“Knight and Day” is a movie that in the wrong hands could have been a big loud mess. Here it’s not so much a mess, but rather a fun, escapist summer movie that will probably be forgotten about in a few years, but still memorable in a summer filled with sequels and reboots and remakes. Oh my. GRADE: B

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+