The Naked Fun: “Love & Other Drugs” is a Good, Though Flawed, Dramedy

If you go to see “Love and Other Drugs” you will see naked people. Those people are Anne Hathaway from “The Princess Diaries” and Jake Gyllenhaal from “October Sky.” They have certainly grown up. But those who saw Brokeback Mountain have already seen what these two have under their clothes. So let’s pretend that you don’t want to pay money to see these two young hot stars get naked and hump each other for two hours. Let’s pretend you actually want to see a nice story about a hotshot pharmaceutical rep who falls in love with a young woman with a rare case of Parkinson’s. If you see it for this reason you’ll get a nice story with great performances, however there are some weird slips the film makes along the way, but ultimately I found it satisfying.

A drug is a substance that’s alters a person’s physical well-being. In other words you have a headache? Pop an aspirin and you feel better. The ultimate metaphor for a drug in “Love and Other Drugs” is, yes, love. Jamie (Gyllenhaal) has never known love; in fact he’s never even told his family he loves them. Maggie is similar. She’s a free spirit who’s more into meaningless sex more than settling down with “the one.” However what happens when these two personalities connect? Well besides lots of hot, sweaty sex love happens duh! And it changes them as if they were taking…a drug.

Director Edward Zwick sort of pushes the drug metaphor a lot and I think he wants to comment on the current state of the pharmaceutical industry, but I’m not so sure he’s as biting as he needs to be. I think he sorts of wants this film to be like “Thank You For Smoking” but spends too much time on the romance of his lead characters for that biting satire to happen. But that’s ok because I actually enjoyed the romance between the two leads. The two actors have great chemistry, which the proved a few years back in “Brokeback Mountain.” Gyllenhaal is great at playing that smooth-talking sales guy and he is rather charming. Hathaway is equally good as a woman who is so scared about her uncommon condition that she hides behind of façade of free spiritedness. She’s wonderful and if this year wasn’t such a great year for women, she’d probably get awards recognition for it.

I did say that there are a few bumps along the road in “Love and Other Drugs.” I’m not quite sure the tone of the film is completely solidified. The film seems like a straight comedy from the beginning, but begins to devolve into a bittersweet serious romance. But then there are these moments of almost strange raunchy comedy that seem more suitable to a Judd Apatow film. For instance one scene has Jamie and his Jack Black look-a-like brother Josh (Josh Gad) attending a ritzy “pajama party” where Jamie becomes involved in a three-way and taking a little blue pill. He awakes a few hours later with an erection that won’t go away and his brother rushes him to the hospital. And then the sequence just sort of ends. There’s no pay off, so to speak. What a bummer.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film involves the film’s period setting. The movie is set in 1996 just as the, err rise, of the popularity of Viagra was hitting its stride. The movie isn’t so much about Viagra as it’s more about the guy who ended up selling a lot of it, but like I said this isn’t that movie. And there’s the surprisingly clichéd scene at the end where the man realizes he made a mistake and actually loves the girl and he has to track her down and plead with her that he is in fact in love. After all Jamie isn’t really sure at first if he wants to begin a relationship with such a sick girl. And Maggie isn’t sure that Jamie is the type of guy that would want to stay with such a sick girl.

“Love and Other Drugs” has plenty of great things going for it: great performances, it’s pretty funny, it has an interesting story that sometimes meanders, and it has lots and lots of sex. If you’re seeing it for that least reason you’ll be more than satisfied, but if you see it for the other reasons…oh please who am I kidding? We just want to see hot people bone don’t we? GRADE: B

Hip to be Cher: So Sue Me, I Enjoyed “Burlesque”

Yes I enjoyed “Burlesque.” When someone’s 10th favorite movie of all time is “Showgirls” can you really blame him? Sure “Burlesque” imitates lots of other movies including the aforementioned “Showgirls” and also “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Flashdance,” “Cabaret,” etc. But who cares? It’s flashy and entertaining and clichéd or not, it’s a razzle dazzle musical that might even work better as a stage show. As a film it’s campy fun and never dull.

“Burlesque” tells the story of a young girl named Ali (Christina Aguilera) from a small town in Iowa who has big dreams of making it in the big city. She makes two much better decisions than Nomi did in “Showgirls:” don’t dream about working in Vegas and don’t hitchhike there. Ali moves out to Los Angeles and takes a bus (one way of course!). There she looks for a showbiz job, where she stumbles upon The Burlesque Lounge. Lucky for her Cher is the owner of this little theater. Ok Cher’s not really the owner, but she player her. Her name’s Tess and she doesn’t like when strangers are in her mirror. Ali pleads Cher, er I mean Tess, for a job; any job. She meets Jack (Cam Gigandet), a bartender, and she begins waiting on tables without anyone’s permission. It’s because she’s so determined, duh! Let’s just flash-forward a little to where Tess and her gay BFF/stage manager Sean – Stanley Tucci, reprising his Devil Wears Prada role - finally let Ali into the show as a dancer. However, unbeknownst to the employees at The Burlesque Lounge this young waitress turned dancer has one of the most powerful voices they’ve ever heard. I mean it’s Christina Aguilera for God’s sake!

It wouldn’t be a musical without a romance right? Since Ali is new in town and doesn’t really have anyplace to go, her new bartender friend Jack let’s her crash at his place. It turns out he’s actually straight even though he wears eyeliner at work. Too bad Jack has a fiancé that’s conveniently 3000 miles away. No one’s surprised when they fall for each other, but they have good enough chemistry and they’re easy to root for. But there are bigger worries then whether Ali and Jack will eventually hook up, the Burlesque Lounge is in financial trouble! Tess needs money to keep the place open and Ali’s talented voice may be the only hope.

Ok, so if you haven’t figured it out by now “Burlesque” is a pretty corny movie. But you know what? Burlesque itself is pretty corny. I mean it’s a bunch of women in gaudy outfits dancing to random songs. And people find this stuff entertaining? The movie kicks things up a bit once Ali begins singing at the shows instead of lip-syncing which is the standard practice at the B. Lounge. Tess insists that customers come to see people dance, not to hear them sing. Of course Ali’s powerful voice is enough to make fellow performer Nikki (Kristen Bell) really jealous and I was waiting for a backstage catfight that never quite happened. Although Tess does take out Nikki’s car window with a tire iron at one point. But let’s face it, people go to see musicals for the music and the musical numbers are where the film really delivers. First time writer/director Steven Antin stages the scenes well and there’s plenty of energy radiating from the screen. And all of the singing and dancing is done on the stage, so there’s never that awkward “breaking into song” moment.

Let’s face it, most people will label “Burlesque” as a clichéd guilty pleasure. I don’t think the performances at that bad and Cher and Tucci actually work tremendously well together. It’s not really an atrociously bad film like the Razzie-winning “Showgirls” and it’s not as prestigious as the Oscar-winning “Chicago.” It fits comfortably somewhere in-between. Anyone who’s a fan of campy fun will find a good time to be had at “Burlesque.” GRADE: B+

The Trouble with Hairy: Although CGI, “Tangled” is a Worthy Addition to the Disney Animated Canon

What is it with Disney princesses? They’re always getting into trouble aren’t they. They long for something bigger something greater. Some of them don’t even know they’re princesses. Take Rapunzel as seen here in the newest addition to the Walt Disney Animated Classics collection (number 50 to be exact) “Tangled.” The film’s title is almost borderline dreadful mostly for what it actually represents. The Disney suits were worried that a Disney animated musical about a princess named Rapunzel would not attract of the film industry's favorite customers: boys. So they changed the title and decided to put the focus on the film’s male hero Flynn Rider. He’s a thief with a heart of gold and you won’t be too shocked to find out who he falls in love with.

“Tangled” is a movie musical in the tradition of the greats like “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid” and like those films it centers on a strong female character who wants to know about what’s “out there.” It turns out Rapunzel was the daughter of the King and Queen, but she was snatched away by Mother Gothel (voiced by Donna Murphy). Gothel used the power of this special healing flower to keep herself young and beautiful for years and years. This same flower helped the Queen from dying as she gave birth to her baby. It turns out that magic healing powers were transferred to Rapunzel through her golden hair. With just a song she could harness her hairs powers, which Gothel was jealous of and needed in order to stay young and beautiful forever. She kidnaps the Princess and raises her as if she were her own, locking her away in a tall, tall tower, never able to set a foot into the real world.

That is until Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) a thief hired to steal the Princess’ crown, stumbled upon the tower and Rapunzel herself. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) unaware of her royal status is scared of this stranger but intrigued as well. She sends her mother off to find her a unique 18th birthday present, while she insists Flynn take her to see the Queen and King’s floating lantern display, which they do every year on their missing daughter’s birthday. There seems to be a lot of setup for a Disney movie, but there you go. So in the meantime there’s plenty of time for Flynn and Rapunzel to fall in love. And to sing songs of course! Because Disney musical maestro Alan Menken is on hand to write the music for Rapunzel and her co-stars. The songs are well done if not particularly overly memorable and sound like more modernized versions of songs you may be familiar with from the early 1990s. There’s a song about hope and wonder “When Will My Life Begin” and a song about dreams “I’ve Got a Dream” and it wouldn’t be complete if the villain didn’t beak out into song either with “Mother Knows Best.”

“Tangled” is influenced and some might even says it outright borrows elements from earlier Disney films. In fact you can probably name something in this movie you’ve seen before in the other classic films. But those are the elements Disney fans have been holding onto for years! Last year’s The Princess and Frog” represented the hope that Disney could return to glorious form that made those early movies so rich and warm and successful. With “Tangled” they’ve proven that the formula can still work even nearly 20 years later. Sure “Tangled” feels a little more modernized, with computer generated animated and not the hand drawn stuff, but the animation represents animation in the new era. (Actually the advertising for the film actually feels the most modern, what with that Pink song blasting during it). Most people cried foul when films transitioned from black and white to color and in the end that wasn’t all that bad. And I loved how much Rapunzel's hair became a characater of its own. She uses her hair much in the same way Indiana Jones might use his whip.

I still believe Disney can, and will, make good hand drawn movies in the future. I mean it’s Disney for crying out loud they created this stuff and I think they will stick to it. Sure they’ve had to adapt along the way, but Tangled is a great return to what made them popular in the first place. It has wonderful and funny characters (including a particular memorable chameleon sidekick named Pascal), good songs and lush animation to feast your eyes on. So what are you waiting for? Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t have kids, just go see it already! GRADE: B+

The Rock: “127 Hours” is a Fascinatingly Harrowing Tale of a Man’s Struggle to Survive

I wasn’t so much of a fan of Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire” when it premiered back in December of 2008, but his follow-up “127 Hours” is where it’s at. It’s so emotionally wrenching, disturbing and yet beautiful my eyes were completely glued to the screen. I sat there transfixed for 93 minutes while the true life story of Aron Ralston, played magnificently by James Franco, unfolded before my eyes. He was, and still is, a free spirit. He’s a young guy always looking for another great adventure (similar to Chris McCandless of “Into the Wild” fame, but portrayed as more likable) until he gets caught in the crevice of a canyon; a gigantic boulder pinning his arm to the rock wall. He’s trapped for days and yes we know he survives (Ralston’s memoir is the basis for the film’s intense screenplay by Boyle and Simon Beaufoy), but it’s witnessing his ordeal that makes this movie just so captivating to sit through.

We don’t get to learn too much about Aron before he sets out on his mountain bike ride and his rock climbing trip in Blue John Canyon in Utah. He’s by himself and he doesn’t tell anyone where he’s going. He meets up with two strangers. A pair of young girls (played by Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn) are also out hiking for the day, although they’re not quite as knowledgeable as Aron. They agree to hang out with him while he shows them around. They even spend some time swimming an underground crevice. They part ways, but not before they invited Aron (who they obviously feel attracted to since he’s so charming) to a party they’re having at their place the next evening. They’re even having a giant inflatable Scooby Doo. Aron won’t be making it to the party. Just a short time later a loose boulder pins him. At first he’s surprised and shocked and then the realization sets in that that rock isn’t going anywhere. Neither is he.

Aron is forced to sit there, or stand there rather until either someone find him or he dies. There’s another solution but Aron doesn’t think of until it becomes a last resort. Aron is a smart guy. He’s an experienced climber and has some equipment at his disposal. He’s got ropes and climbing gear, he has nearly a full bottle of water (sometimes Boyle brilliantly gives us his water’s POV), although he gulps down most of it pretty quickly, not anticipating being stuck for so long. It’s not long before he begins to have strange dreams and then straight up hallucinations. He sees his family and friends. He sees the mistakes he made in life as one would do if you were on the brink of death. He even has a video camera to document his incident. He even says his goodbyes. It’s heartbreaking. But you can’t underestimate a human’s will to survive. Or their ability to drink their own urine to stay alive or eventually, in Aron’s case, resorting to self-surgery. Bear Grylls has nothing on this guy.


Boyle bring such much energy to a story about a man who can’t move it’s almost unbelievable. The film is so kinetic with all his fancy editing and close-up and jittery camerawork. It’s almost an exhausting experience and you begin to feel what it might be like to be in Aron’s shoes. Boyle implements such wondrous cinematic techniques such as splits screens, beautiful visuals, a great score by A.R. Rahman and such a superb use of music and sound. There are sounds, used in the film’s later scenes once Aron realizes what he must do to survive (which includes amputating his own arm), that are so chilling they sent a tingle down my spine. There are images seen here you probably haven’t seen anywhere else and you’re all the better for having seem them. And Franco should be commended for giving the best performance of his career.

“127 Hours” is such a magnificent piece of dramatic filmmaking. It deserves to be considered in this year’s Oscar race. There are such wonderful and innovative techniques used here you simply can’t turn away. There are disturbing elements here yes, but they’re never grotesque or revolting or, more importantly, gratuitous. It’s such a triumphant story of endurance and survival it’ll probably make your life seem almost worthless, but it’s such an eye-opening experience - and ultimately uplifting - you just might not be the same after having witnessed it. GRADE: A

Welcome Back, Potter: The Flying and Magic Epic “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1” Isn’t Half Bad (But It’s Still Just Half)

The latest Harry Potter film is not a good movie. It’s a good half of a movie. You have to wait until July of next year to see the second half. Sure it’s a movie that’s split right down the center, but this two and a half our opus is certain to give even the slightest Harry Potter fan a preemptive dose of dweeby excitement. I don’t consider myself a Harry Potter fan and even I enjoyed myself. And even thought this movie is still really only half a bigger overall film, it stands up pretty well. It does have a beginning, middle and an end. Although that ending is rather abrupt and I didn’t really notice a climax anywhere since it seems like the entire second part will be the climax. Only time will tell.

Having said all that I certainly had to study up in order to understand even three quarters of what was going on in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1.” I’m probably the only human on the planet who has seen all the films but who hasn’t read the immensely popular (is popular even a strong enough word?) series of fantasy books by J.K. Rowling. And I’m ok with that. Sure I said I’ve seen the films, but that doesn’t mean I really understand what’s going on in them. I spend plenty of time studying the plots of 1-6 before climbing about the Hogwarts Express for Part 7. I reviewed terms like Horcrux (an inanimate object used by one Lord Voldemort to attain immorality, did I pass?). I’ve known what a Muggle is for quite some time, although I’m still not quite sure what exactly the Deathly Hallows are. Oh dear lord, how do kids get into this stuff anyways?

What is there really to say about this Harry Potter flick anyways? If you’re a fan you’re going to see it and judge it based on whether it’s faithful to the book or not. Is it? I don’t really know, but since they split the book into two separate films, I imagine they have plenty of room to keep the important stuff in. What if you’re not a fan? If you’ve never seen a Harry Potter film I doubt you’re going to want to start with Part 7. I’m still not quite sure if these films have much mass appeal outside of the flying and magic fan base, but it does showcase the standard adventure storytelling such as good verses evil. There is action if you like that, there is made-up fantasy stuff if you like that, there is some romance if that’s your thing.

The film is directed by David Yates who has directed parts 5 and 6 and his style seems to fit in nicely with the style the previous directors. The look and feel of all the films doesn’t feel all that different to me, or all the special to be frank, although I do like some of his directorial flourishes such as that hyperkinetic camerawork when the Snatchers are after Harry and his friends in the woods. A similar technique was seen in the opening of “Order of the Phoenix” when Harry and Dudley and are running away from the Dementors. For a second you might think you’re watching a Ridley Scott film.

I won’t even attempt to describe the plot of this movie, although I did understand it for the most part, for fear of humiliating myself (or sounded like a 6 year old). Besides you know what happens; unlike me, you’ve probably read the book! Those who complain about the plot being “Harry Potter goes camping in the woods” are seriously mistaken because the film has plenty of action and is rarely boring and that’s coming from someone who usually finds movies like this boring. All the actors do a great job in their respective roles as they’ve always done since the beginning.

This “Harry Potter” features all the elements of a watchable film. The effects are good, I loved the music score by Alexandre Desplat, it has some nice warm humor, and the film has high production values all around. And even if I’m not the biggest fan in the world, “Deathly Hallows Part 1” didn’t cause me pain and actually makes me excited for the concluding chapter. It’s the rare flying and magic movie that works. Call it a miracle if you want. GRADE: B

Bore of the Worlds: “Skyline” Succeeds in Creating the Most Snooze-Inducing Alien Invasion in Cinematic History

If anything, "Skyline" is just a missed opportunity. It was an chance to create a story of an alien invasion from the sole point-of-view of regular people like you and me with the use of a low budget yet with cool special effects. But we already have similar movies like “War of the Worlds” (told from the point of view of average people) and “District 9” (low budgeted but with cool special effects). Hey at least the movie’s trailer was awesome. Even if the movie wasn’t just a conglomeration of other alien invasion movies, it could have at least been interesting or decently entertaining. Two things the film is sorely lacking.

“Skyline” tells the story of “normal” people. I’m hesitant to use the word normal because it implies they are normal the way you and I are normal and yet I know you and I are not this stupid. If you don’t like characters who do the wrong things are precisely the wrong time then steer clear of this movie. Let’s forget for a minute that this movie has a shoestring plot with forgettable characters. (A couple attends another friend’s birthday party in LA. They’re staying in a swanky high-rise. We find out the girl is pregnant. Cue alien attack) Most people will go see a movie with aliens because hello there are aliens in the movie! The aliens here are almost cool looking except that still look like they’re still in the process of actually being completely rendered by the visual effects people. They’re not SyFy Original bad, but decent enough. Ok find, I’m willing to throw this lame movie a bone. And I liked how the giant aliens spit out sticky tentacles, but again not enough to salvage the movie.

Yeah there are human characters here, but like mentioned before they’re pretty forgettable. The film’s biggest stars include Eric Balfour who was on “Six Feet Under” and in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” remake. His best friend is Donald Faison, who you may know from either TV’s “Scrubs” or as Murray from “Clueless.” These two guys aren’t bad actors by any stretch of the imagination, but they don’t give particularly amazing performances. The ladies on the other hand fare much worse. Balfour’s girlfriend played by Scottie Thompson is just sort of whiny although she’s not as bad as Brittany Daniel, who I’m not sure why is even a paid actress. She has slummed it up in movies like “Little Man” and “White Chicks” where she always plays a Paris Hilton-like bimbo. And poor Batista from “Dexter” is equally horrendous here. Although most of the blame should be put on the writers for making him utter pretty atrocious lines.

Of course, let’s focus the blame on those who deserve it and that would be “the Brothers Strause” who are special effects guys who try to make movies. They’re last effort “Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem” was met with a collect meh from fanboys alike and here they don’t do much better. Colin and Greg should stick with their visual effects jobs and leave the directing work to… directors. I admire their attempt to tell this story from the point-of-view of average Joes and having the film’ story confined to one real location, but in order to do that you must give us characters to root for and keep things constantly moving forward. Things have to be kept interesting or else you’ll lose the viewer. The characters mostly stay inside their penthouse suite mostly because you can tell the screenwriters didn’t know what else to do. Yes I’m looking at you Joshua Cordes and Liam O'Donnell. There is such a horrible sense of pacing to the whole thing too I began checking for the time half way though. I won’t even mention the laughable moments in the film’s concluding minutes or any of the other many laughable moments for that matter.

“Skyline” is the type of movie that as you watch it you actually think to yourself, wow, I really wish I could be watching a Michael Bay movie instead. Admittedly there are some cool concepts here (I sort of liked the parking garage sequence) and seeing a bunch of human bodies being sucked up all at once into a giant spaceship is a pretty horrifying thing to see. So is the movie. GRADE: D

Strangers on a Train: The High Speed Thriller “Unstoppable” is a Triumph of Energetic Suspense

Great Scott! Finally, we have a movie that fits director Tony Scott’s frenetic directing style. His camera is always moving this way that way, zooming in zooming out. And since “Unstoppable” is about a train that wont stop, his herky jerky camera perfectly fits the story of a runaway train and the inevitable disaster that awaits if it wasn’t stopped. His camera constantly has momentum and that’s exactly what we’re given here in a movie that doesn’t stop to take a breath (and neither will you). “Unstoppable” is a great action movie because it gets everything right. It gives us characters to root for, it gives us suspense, cool action scenes filled with plenty of crashes and a great sense of timing and pace. It’s really just one long awesome chase scene. In fact, this could have been and should have been “Speed 2.”

Something I have to say upfront and I know it may sound ridiculous is that one of my favorite aspects of this movie is the way Tony Scott gives the train personality. This train as seen right at the start during the opening titles just sort of looks – evil. The train is given a level of malevolency I’ve never really witnessed in an inanimate object. Not since Spielberg’s tractor-trailer truck in “Duel” has a vehicle been so menacing and ominous. The way it’s shot and lit and the moody music that blares on the soundtrack, just gives us a feeling of doom. You know something scary is going to go down. After being introduced to train number 777, we introduced to some human characters which includes Will (Chris Pine) who’s a young and recently trained railroad conductor. He’s set to work with train engineer Frank (Denzel Washington) by doing some industrial freight train stuff. Meanwhile a sort of clumsy railway worker accidently lets his train get away from him where it slowly begins picking up speed, enough so that the poor goof can’t climb back on board. Freight train 777 (which is a half mile long and pulling loads of hazardous chemicals behind it) is on an unmanned course of destruction through southern Pennsylvania ready to destroy anything or anyone who gets in its path.

It’s really amazing how simply this whole story is and how well it actually works. You can’t help but think along the lines of, “how does this happen.” Well it did, because this is based on a true story. Of course many liberties were taken with the actually events, because let’s face is this is just a fun popcorn movie, not a biopic about the guy who freed India from British rule. Scott places all sorts of things in the train way including a train of school kids on a field trip and our hapless heroes Will and Frank. We do get a little backstory as the film progresses. Enough to make us care but not too much where we’re constantly wanted to see what train 777 is up to. Frank is being forced to retire while the corporation who owns the 777 train is intend on replacing older works with fresh blood like Will. Train dispatcher Connie (Rosario Dawson) is the one who makes the most rational decisions she can make as she watches the train barrel mile and mile through populated towns. The news media have a field day capturing the runaway train on their skycopters ready to capture anything that gets in the train’s way. It looks like Frank and Will might be Connie’s only hope to stop the train and it’s simply a fascinating experience to see how they’re going to do it.

“Unstoppable” is simply a wonderfully suspenseful action thriller. However it’s not just mindless. Am I the only one who thinks there’s more here than meets the eye? Could the unmanned train perhaps represent our current economy chugging out of control with the once seemingly secure American way of life headed for utter disaster? Maybe I’m looking too deeply here because let’s face it this is still just a well-executed action thriller. It's about ordinary people caught in an extraordinary situation. I’m still not quite sure how Scott was able to get some of the shots he did get, but one thing I’m certain of is that this is a movie worth catching up to. GRADE: A-

The Brother, Sister: “Conviction” is an Arresting True Life Drama

One of the main things that the terrific film “Conviction” has going for it is it’s a wonderful story about the bond between a brother and a sister. Not in quite a while have I seen such a touching relationship portrayed in a movie. Betty Anne and Kenny are the type of siblings who really depend on each other. They had a rough childhood. Their father died when they were young and they had a mother who was nearly absent just as much. They were sent from foster family to foster family but were never able to break their special bond, even whenever Kenny would egg on the two of them to do something wrong (like sneaking into a person’s home and pretending they had an actual happy life). Kenny’s borderline repellent behavior wasn’t enough to stop Betty Anne from standing by her brother even when he was accused of murdering a local woman. While he was at first cleared of charges, a person especially close to Kenny would later be responsible for him actually being tried and convicted for a crime he never even committed. And the story of “Conviction,” which is based on actual events, is especially intriguing because it dares to let us care about a person who if in different circumstances, we might as just as well assume the man was guilty.

Kenny Waters, played here by the wonderful Sam Rockwell, whom I especially loved in the underrated “Matchstick Men,” is a person that is difficult to like. And that’s why Tony Goldwyn’s direction and Pamela Gray’s script are so great, because they get us to care about someone who’s really difficult to care about. Kenny has anger management issues, he gets in fights, sometimes he’s just unpleasant. His sister Betty Anne Waters (Hilary Swank in full Erin Brockovich mode) doesn’t care about his personal issues. When he’s finally sentenced to life in prison for a murder she honestly believes he didn’t - and more importantly wouldn’t commit – she makes it her life mission to get him out of jail. And she does so by first getting her college degree and eventually getting into law school. She’s willing to put her life on hold and even disrupting her marriage to a guy even more unlikable than Kenny. She’s willing to become a lawyer just to help her own brother. How many of us would do that for a sibling?

The outcome of the film’s story isn’t what’s important here, it’s the events leading up to it that counts. And that includes plenty of stumbles and road blocks along the way. Luckily Betty Anne befriends another older woman in her class named Abra (Minnie Driver), mostly because they’re “the only ones in class who’ve gone through puberty.” Abra also makes it her mission to help Betty Anne because like her she’s a strong woman who’s willing to help out a friend who’s in a desperate situation. At first I wondered, once betty Anne becomes a lawyer, what is she really going to be able to do to help her brother get out of jail. I mean, not to be Debbie Downer, but he’s already been convicted. What is she really going to do? Of course there’s a lot more to this story than you or I even knew about. I’m hesitant to use the word “conspiracy” but there’s a lot going on and it’s fascinating to see how much is really going on…and as one character once said in Minority Report: “dig up the past and all you get is dirty.” Well Betty Anne is about to be covered.

The film does have a happy ending and it’s sort of remarkable how you really related to this woman and her struggles. Sure on the surface this all seems like made-for-TV melodrama, but it’s not melodramatic. Sure there’s nothing especially fascinating in how the film is shot, but that’s to be expected in a character based drama. And the film is wonderfully littered with great although brief supporting turns from people like Melissa Leo as a dirty cop, Peter Gallagher reprising his “OC” role as a lovable lawyer, and Juliet Lewis who is great a trashy key witness.

Let’s face it, “Conviction” doesn’t have the emotional punch or flashy goodness of “Erin Brockovich,” but it offers much more substance than “The Blind Side.” It tells a fascinating story in an entertaining and easily digestible way. It features excellent performances from a completely reliable cast and tells a beautiful account about a brother and his sister who refuses to give up hope. Whether Swank gets a nomination or not (does Bening have to watch out again??) it doesn’t matter; what matters is that “Conviction” is a movie worth anyone’s time and money. GRADE: A-

The Mourning After: “Hereafter” is a Beautiful Film That Dares to Show us an Afterlife

Do I believe in an afterlife? I don’t know. Do many people believe in an afterlife? Yes. Do I believe in an afterlife after seeing Clint Eastwood’s gripping drama “Hereafter?” I don’t know. “Hereafter” is a wonderful film, not only because it’s well made and entertaining, but also because it chooses a divisive subject matter and doesn’t force an opinion onto you. What does Clint believe? What does the writer Peter Morgan believe? You won’t really know after seeing this movie actually because this is a film that says “hey what IF an afterlife exists?” but refuses to say “this IS definitely what happens after you die.” I like that. The film features an interesting plot structure and great performances and some truly heart wrenching scenes of moving drama.

The film actually tells three seemingly unrelated stories, which happen to take place in three different countries (think “Babel”). The film opens with a French woman leaving her hotel room and experiencing a near death experience. A giant tsunami rages onshore killing thousands of people, but Marie (Cécile De France) amazingly survives. Of course she practically drowns and is unconscious for a while, until two guys are able to bring her back with the help of CPR. She experiences strange “visions,” of which she simply cannot shake. Meanwhile, a man named George in San Francisco played by Matt Damon, is nearly always being forced to give people psychic readings. He has to turn people down because he just can do it anymore. He’s a legitimate psychic that we’ll learn later in the film comes from a near death experience he had as a child. He’s now able to communicate with the dead, but for him it’s become more of a curse than a gift. And lastly we’re introduced to a young set of twin boys in England. They’re extremely close, as twins tend to be, but mostly because their mother is a fall down drunk. She means well, and I believe she actually loves her two sons, but she’s a complete mess. And they spend most of their times covering for her so they won’t be sent away. Tragedy strikes however, and one of the boys is in dire need of someone who knows how to speak to the dead…

A somewhat fantastic story, almost supernatural if you will, sounds like an odd directing choice for Clint Eastwood who’s given us such great and poignant films recently. “Million Dollar Baby,” “Mystic River” and “Gran Torino” are just a sampling of his fantastic directing work as of late. Those gritty dramas seem a far cry from a story revolving around the possibility of an afterlife, but his style just simply works for this story. He tells human stories with realist people. And that’s exactly what we get here. We get winning performances from the cast and his sort of gloomy and washed out look that could have easily made the film feel macabre but instead feels just right. Peter Morgan’s original screenplay gives us three fascinating stories which seem like there’s no way they could come together, and yet they do. And whether you think the end of the film is predictable or cheesy you can’t deny the power that Eastwood has built as each story gets progressively more interesting. Even a movie revolving just one of these stories would be fun to watch, but he gives us three!

I was pretty impressed with some of the imagery in “Hereafter.” The tsunami opening is equally impressive and disturbing. The story about the twins is heartbreaking. And you really feel a connection with Damon’s character as we slowly learn what it’s like to live with such a powerful ability. We learn, after he begins a friendship with a woman, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, that even getting involved in a romantic relationship just isn’t very easy for a guy who sees dead people every time he shakes a stranger’s hands. “Hereafter” is a moving and emotional film that, doesn’t make you feel drained (nor depressed), nor does it force any sort of opinion down your throat. It wisely takes religion out of the equation and makes it appealing to everyone, no matter what you believe yourself. GRADE: B+

V For Villain: “Megmind” is an Outrageously Fun Take on Superhero Clichés

This is the animated superhero film I’ve been waiting for. Some will say “Megamind,” a funny new animated comedy from the DreamWorks gang, is not much more than a retread of Pixar’s “The Incredibles.” Whether that’s true or not is debatable, what’s not debatable for me is that Megamind is leaps and bounds more entertaining than that Pixar film (Relax! It’s the only one I feel lukewarm about). And if Megamind proves anything, it’s that the villain 9 times out of 10 is more interesting than the good guy. Megamind revolves around the villainous Megamind (Will Ferrell) and what happens when he actually ends up defeating the good guy the heroic Metro Man (Brad Pitt). You see a supervillain is nothing with a superhero.

The film begins by introducing us to how Megamind and Metro Man came to Earth. They came as infants, “Superman” style of course! Metro Man landed in nice neighborhood where a nice couple took him in where his superpowers were harnessed for good. Megamind, however, landed in a prison yard, and was instructed by the inmates on the ins and outs of being bad. These two grew up together in Metro City (or “Me-troc-ity” according to Megamind) and the general public is infatuated with Metroman and they obviously hate Megamind, who is able to escape from prison with the help of a wristwatch that can disguise him as anyone he wants ala Mystique from “X-Men.” With the help of his evil minion called Minion, a fishy alien head with an android body (voiced by David Cross), he returns to Metro City with the intent of kidnapping roving reporter Roxanne (Tina Fey) to use as a hostage to trap Metro Man. In so doing, he actually ends up killing his archnemesis! Now he can take over Metro City, which he does, to the tune of Bad to the Bone.

Of course being a supervillain is no fun with out the superhero, so he decides to create one. He accidentally zaps Roxanne’s goofy camera guy (Jonah Hill) and he becomes “Tighten” (the only name he could get the rights to). But nothing is always as it seems in Metro City and sometimes your expectations about who is really a villain and who is really a hero will be a little off. Which is why this movie works so well. There are plenty of original twists and turns, even if it doesn’t necessarily add anything overall new to the genre. It features a terrific screenplay (by first time writers Brent Simons and Alan Schoolcraft) and top notch voice work by its cast. The animation is great which really helps and the film is actually worth paying the extra bucks for 3D. The film is funny and witty, will great pop culture references, that won’t make you roll your eyes, but will have you laughing. Megamind is actually one of the more memorable cartoon characters as of late.

“Megamind” is a great movie. If you love animation or comedies or adventure or superhero flicks, this movie will be more than satisfactory. It’s a highly entertaining and original take on a genre that beginning to get a little worn out. Sure maybe it doesn’t have the prestige of Pixar but it’s definitely one of the best animated movies of the year. GRADE: A-

Cut and Waste: The Jigsaw Saga Finally Comes to a Close with “Saw 3D”

To see or not to see “Saw 3D.” That is the question. This one is easy. If you enjoy seeing intestines and other various internal organs being thrown at you, see “Saw 3D.” If you enjoy watching someone’s jaw being ripped open by a reverse bear trap see “Saw 3D.” If you enjoy seeing someone’s arms being swiftly ripped off see “Saw 3D.” If you enjoy seeing someone’s eyeballs being gouged out by something pointy see “Saw 3D.” You see where I’m going with this right? Ok, if you’re still with me and not above the toilet bowl ready to puke, I’d like to say that while I admire the Saw films, I’ve never really been a hardcore fan. I like blood and guts as much as the next horror geek, but something about the way these films are usually shoddily shot, edited and sewn together just never really quite sat right with me. Their plots were always a bit too convoluted and you’d have to wear rubber boots just to wade through all the backstory the writers would throw at you. Having said that I didn’t really hate “Saw 3D,” if anything it nicely wraps up this surprisingly popular horror franchise (hopefully) and offers plenty of gore for us sickos. I mean seriously, how’d this film get an R rating anyways?

The most disappointing aspect of Saw 3D is not the writing or acting or editing, but rather has much more to do with the 3D part of its title. Was this movie really shot in 3D? because to me, the filmmakers didn’t really have many cool 3D shots. Horror and 3D really go together and I was slightly disappointed to realize that I could have been watching this movie in 2D and my experience wouldn’t have changed one bit. I mean it’s nice to have an internal organ thrown at you, but it didn’t nearly happen enough. Horror 3D is supposed to be gimmicky, you’re supposed to watch the movie months later at home and roll your eyes at all scenes that would have looked cool in 3D but will just look dumb now that you’re watching it on TV. The filmmakers are supposed to throw stuff in your face and that just didn’t happen here. Lame!

Now I know you’re just on pins and needles waiting to find out what happens in “Saw 3D” (the series’ seventh chapter in case you’re keeping track). The film opens up with a familiar face… hey that’s Dr. Gordon (Cary Elwes) from the oringal Saw. We see him crawling away, one footed, presumably minutes after cutting off his own foot. We see him burn his bloody stump on a hot pipe to cauterize the wound. It’s a nice, and comforting, flashback to a time when Saw was just its own thing and the term “torture porn” wasn’t even on the horizon. Then we cut to a completely pointless scene of two guys in a glass box, trapped with saws near their chests and a woman hanging above them with a saw below her midriff. It turns out they’re in the middle of a crowded city, not the usual grungy basement Jigsaw’s victims usually find themselves in. The girl ends up getting sawed in half (cue the aforementioned intestines) while the onlooker continue to snap pictures on their cellphones (one lady tries breaking the glass with her briefcase to no success) and look mildly entertained. Could it be that all those sick onlookers are actually representing the sick audience that continue to ingest these “Saw” movies? Who knows. Only director Kevin Greuter knows that for sure and we’ll have to wait for his DVD commentary on that one. The rest of the flick involves the cops trying to find Jigsaw’s evil successor Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), but don’t worry Jigsaw himself makes a couple brief appearances. The movie doesn’t spend too much time in boring backstory but spends most of its time killing off its cast members. Seriously does anyone actually survive this movie? The main character who must learn an important lesson is Bobby (Sean Patrick Flannery) who pretends to be a Jigsaw victim and is too busy promoting his new book to realize that he’s about to actually become a Jigsaw victim.

The acting is bad in this movie (Betsy Russell who plays Jigsaw’s wife really sucks at life in this one) and the movie really looks cheap. It also has the standard obligatory Saw Twist Ending which is equally cool and stupid. Did I mention the acting is horrible? But on the brightside (for gorehounds anyways) are there are some pretty sick and twisted kills in this flick. You’ll probably flinch more than once. Is it really scary? Not at all; but you’ll certainly get your money’s worth in blood, intestines and severed limbs. That kind of stuff counts for something, at least when you’re watching a movie called “Saw 3D.” GRADE: C+

The Fear Hunter: You’ll be Scared like a Baby If You See “Paranormal Activity 2”

“Paranormal Activity 2” is not “Blair Witch 2.” Thank God for that. Sure it cost more money ($3 million versus $15,000 for the first one) but it’s still grounded in that made-on-the-cheap look of the original. It still employs shaky, handheld cameras shot by the actors themselves, but this time we also get to see action through stagnant security cams. There are more characters and more scary “stuff” going on here, and this time, the intensity is turned up to an 11. “Paranormal Activity” was an ingenious little film. It was made for cheap, but it was well-made. And it had a savvy marketing campaign. It seemed real and the filmmakers wanted you to think it was real (there weren’t even any titles or end credits!) and the same goes for Part 2. Is it better than the first one? I don’t know, it’s definitely as good. If you were scared of the first, you’re bound to be scared of this. That’s good enough for most people.

The first film shook me up, as it did to many other people. We were introduced to a young woman named Katie who started feeling a strange presence in her home that she shared with her boyfriend Micah. The fist film had scenes of Katie literally being dragged out of bed and eventually becoming possessed, or something like that. Micah was killed, perhaps by Katie’s own hands. There was a demon that was after her. It was never really explained why, if you want to know more you’d better see this new film. What many viewers probably don’t know is that this second movie is actually a prequel. We see Katie, unpossessed and we see Micah not dead. This time however it appears a demon is after Katie’s sister and her husband, stepdaughter and new born Hunter (none of these actors are listed on imdb). A serious “break-in” rattles the family; more so because nothing was actually stolen. The house was just torn up. They install security cameras and so then we get to see each night, in eerie blue night vision. Everything seems normal but as every night progresses more and more creepy things happen. Sure this is practically the same premise as the first film, but this film has enough differences to make it stand out.

Since most of the footage is seen through the security cameras we don’t really get that nauseating shaky camera feeling like we usually get in movies like this. It doesn’t really bother me too much, but I know some people need to take a Dramamine . Since not much really happens during most of the first half of the film, we get a really good layout of the house, so when something moves even an inch, we know it. Our eyes are drawn to it. Of course no one really thinks the house is haunted except for the family’s Hispanic housekeeper. Minorities, and usually animals, are pretty susceptible to knowing of supernatural beings and after the housekeeper begins blessing the house with incense she is promptly let go by the Caucasian and naïve family. The dad is the most naïve and refuses to listen to his daughter’s plead that something weird is going on. She then uses a Ouiji board. Hasn’t she ever seen “Witchboard” or “The Exorcist” even? It seems this time the demon, or whatever, is after poor little Hunter. He even drags the poor baby out of his crib. But don’t worry, Hunter is left unharmed.

I refuse to say anything more about the other spooky goings on in the film. There are scary things that happen during the night which will probably either make you bite your nails or make you yawn, and if you think the daytime scenes won’t be scary think again. There are plenty of fun BOO! Scares and you’ll definitely jump more than once. The film is extremely suspenseful and some images will certainly cause a shiver up your spine.

Is “Paranormal Activity 2” just a rehash of the first film? Some will say yes. It is similar in style and structure. But is it still scary? You bet. I’m glad they didn’t do something radically different like they did with “Blair Witch 2.” They even go more into the mythology about why a demon is after this particular family. There’s definitely enough disturbing things going on here to easily recommend this flick to anyone who wants to be scared. And for God’s sake won’t anyone save poor little Hunter?? GRADE: B+

Old Dogs: “RED” is a Wonderful Action Comedy for the Older Set

Helen Mirren is a great actress. She won an Academy Award for her simply divine portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in “The Queen.” She’s British. She’s regal. And in the movie RED she is simply bad-ass. In fact, they should have called this movie, “Kick-Ass.” “RED” which stands for “retired, extremely dangerous” is a great story, based on a graphic novel for anyone keeping track, and it features lots of action and humor with a more adult audience in mind. Sure it stars Bruce Willis which will get the fan boys in the seats, but it also features the likes of Morgan Freeman and Mirren who have not been this fun and exiciting in a long time. They certainly let loose and seem to be having a wonderful time. And the audience does as well.

Like all good action comedies there is a romantic element. We begin by being introduced to Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) who’s living in suburbia. He’s constantly making calls to the pension department where he chats with Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker). He’s been getting his checks, but he’d rather rip them up and have a reason to call Sarah. Sarah just so happens to want more excitement in her life. And as luck would have it Frank is a retired CIA agent and Sarah’s life is about to get just a little more…exciting. It turns out that when you’re a retired CIA agent, sometimes there are people who want you dead. So he drives out to meet Sarah, ends up practically kidnapping her and taking her on a wild adventure, trying to evade the bad guys. He meets up with his former team members including Joe Matheson (Freeman), Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich) and Victoria (Mirren).

Why these former agents are being killed off is what drives the story forward. It’s sort of complicated, but not so much where we aren’t having a good time. In fact, were much like Sarah, who doesn’t really know what’s going on. Slowly we learn what these agents deals are. Much of the film reminds me other buddy type comedies like this past summer’s “Knight and Day.” Those who refused to see that film since it featured the borderline crazy Tom Cruise will probably enjoy “RED” since they are similar stories. The scripts from writers John and Erich Hoeber is definitely competent and whatever clichés or tired trappings we’ve become accustomed to in movies like these are instantly forgiven due to the great performances from a top-notch cast.

RED doesn’t reinvent the genre, and it’s not trying to, but what it does do is offer a familiar premise with actors you usually don’t see in these types of movies. See this movie because Bruce Willis is back kicking ass, but stay because Helen Mirren fires a bad-ass gun. And she does it with such class you almost imagine the real queen practically giggling in delight. GRADE: B

Invitation to Hell: Wes Craven’s “My Soul to Take” is a Nightmare of the Worst Kind

Oh dear lord. Where do I even begin? Bad Wes Craven! Bad bad bad Wes Craven! I’m almost offended by the fact that the man who has directed some of my favorite movies (ie, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare and the Scream series) has made the complete mess of a film called “My Soul to Take.” About half way through I begged someone to take my soul as long as it meant I didn’t have to keep watching. I know it’s my own fault, I didn’t listen to the naysayers. I had to see this train wreck for myself. It was 107 minutes of pure rubbernecking. A movie like “My Soul to Take” shouldn’t require the amount of concentration that it takes to watch something like “Inception” or “Mulholland Drive.” At least those movies actually make sense once you piece everything together. “My Soul to Take” makes no sense whatsoever and will make you leave the theater with a sidesplitting headache. It could be all forgiven if the thing was at least semi-scary or even remotely suspenseful, which it’s not.

I honestly believe “My Soul to Take” is a horrendous movie because Wes Craven is a good filmmaker. Let me explain. I had read that Craven was tired of the recent “torture porn” horror trend and sick of all these retreads and sequels and remakes and reboots. I honestly respect him for attempting to do something original. And it was great to see him back in the writer and director’s chair since he hasn’t fulfilled both duties since “New Nightmare” (If anyone is keeping track, he did co-write the horrible movie “Pulse” and the borderline horrible “The Hills Have Eyes 2”). And instead of just making a simple movie that anyone could follow, he attempted to make a complex story with an attempt at social commentary. It didn’t work. His complicated storyline, which involves a serial killer possible coming back from the dead, is too convoluted to make much sense and any attempt at suspense is wasted because the audience is trying to think so hard there’s not time to be scared.

The story revolves around the town of Riverton. We’re supposed to assume this takes place somewhere in New England (it was filmed entirely on location in Connecticut). The Riverton Ripper is a killer who murdered seven people. He’s a father and family man, but he has several other personalities, one of which is the killer. It’s explained to us by a conveniently placed Haitian paramedic that this man in fact has multiple souls, not just personalities, which I guess means if he dies he’s still got like six more souls to use to keep on living. I think? Anyway, he’s taken away in an ambulance and it crashes and we’re supposed to assume he dies or the body gets lost in the river or something. The film skips ahead sixteen years where we learn that seven children were born the night the Ripper died. The kids known as the Rirverton Seven hold a special séance to help prevent the Ripper from showing himself again. Meanwhile, the Ripper does in fact return to kill off the kids born that night, but it’s possible he may not be back at all and it’s one of the teenagers who’s soul is possessed by the Ripper. Yawn.

Wes Craven attempts to create a “Nightmare on Elm Street” type of back story and it really just backfires. There’s way too much happening, and none of it interesting enough, for anyone to care about what’s going on. Freddy Krueger’s story was so fascinating and it’s not a coincidence that he became a pop culture phenomenon. The Riverton Ripper is definitely destined to do the same thing. Craven’s attempt at creating interesting teenage characters also fails miserably. He introduces us to Bug (a decent Max Thieirot) a good kid who’s shy and might have a seriously close connection to the killer. His classmates are all annoying and/or not appealing. His friend Alex is just obnoxious and has to deal with his abusive stepfather (and the two of them are obsessed with the California Condor for some reason). There’s a jock who picks on these two, a pretty popular girl who is the object of Bug’s affection, a religious girl, and a blind boy who I never realized was blind until he whipped out a white cane half way through the movie.

Ugh I can’t believe how frustratingly bad “My Soul to Take” is. It’s a pretty ugly looking movie that feels cheap. Craven’s films, at least the recent ones anyways, have a nice sheen to theme, this one just looks ugly. It feels poorly slapped together. There aren’t even any memorable death scenes! Wes, what is wrong with you! You created Freddy Krueger for God’s sake! Luckily I avoided seeing the film in 3D which I heard is atrocious and pointless. It’s really a shame, because even some of Craven’s lesser known movies like “The People Under the Stairs “or “The Serpent and the Rainbow” can be entertaining even if they’re a little silly. And heck, I’m even a fan of Horace Pinker. I still love Wes Craven, but I’m hoping that his upcoming “Scream 4” will erase all bad memories of this truly dreadful flick. GRADE: D-

Note: I know someone who worked as an extra in the film. He's in the background in one scene and he's a very good extra. The only thing saving this thing from getting an F.

The Lady is a Vamp: You’d Be Wise to Let “Let Me In” Into Your Life

“Let Me In” if you want to compare it to it’s Swedish counterpart, is every bit as good as “Let the Right One In.” It maintains the same feel without ever feeling like a rip-off. Maybe this movie doesn’t have a reason to exist except that even if it makes people want to see out the original film, it’s at least accomplished something. It’s basically just another version of the book on which it’s based (“Låt den rätte komma in”) and how many times have there been multiple versions of novels brought to the screen? Too many to count. This is just one and it’s a particularly harmless and extremely entertaining take on the recent vampire craze.

“Let Me In,” like the original film, is the anti-“Twilight.” It’s a film that takes itself seriously in a way that is impossible to make fun of. It treats the vampire mythology seriously and is much more akin to films like “Interview with the Vampire” than the recent slate of Stephanie Myers’ wildly popular pop cultural phenomenon. It’s a different take on the “teenager as vampire” in which a young girl, who’s actually most likely hundreds of years old, who must forever blend into a society as a human being even though she is a vampire. Her name is Abby and she’s played marvelously by Chloe Grace Moretz. She moves to a cold, snowy town in New Mexico and befriends a lonely boy named Owen (an equally good Kodi Smith-Mcphee). See this movie because it has vampires in it, but stay because of these terrific young performances.

Owen is a sad little boy. He lives with his mom because his parents are divorced. And director really gets into how detached he is from his mother because we never really get to see her face. He shots these scenes at home from a low level and gets right in there, similar to “Where the Wild Things Are.” Both films are from a child’s point-of-view. Owen is constantly bullied at school and sometimes its pretty disturbing. The film at first makes the bullies seem just like the “bad guys” who we want to see punished until we realize that, like in real life, most bullies only bully others because they themselves are bullied. And once a horrible act is committed against them, it’s not a feeling of retribution or justification we feel, but of sadness and hopelessness. It’s a well-done scene that equally rivals the original film’s stark and powerful images.

Abby, as a vampire, must drink human blood to live. She leaves this up to a man who’s known as her “Father” to go out find her human blood to drink. Father, played here by Richard Jenkins, has probably the most disturbing and horrible tasks to accomplish in the movie. He must go out and commit murders so his “daughter” can survive. These scenes have an eerily spooky feeling, and one shot in particular is jaw dropping and will make you wonder how it’s accomplished. You can tell from this shot alone that that man behind “Cloverfield” (director Matt Reeves) was responsible. Reeves gives us some pretty daring and interesting shots throughout the film, although I think the overall look of the original film looked more “pretty.”

“Let Me In” is that rare film that is as good, if not better than the original source material. It refuses to “Hollywoodize” the story of “Let the Right One In” (unless you wanna count a few instances of cheesey CGI) and instead makes its own unique mark on the film world. If anything, like all remakes, it’s fun just comparing the two and figuring out why certain changes were made and how two different visions could be accomplished from the same source. It’s all pretty fascinating stuff. GRADE: A-

Site Club: I Want to Friend “The Social Network” But I’m Still Awaiting a Reply

As a college graduate myself, and someone who spends more time on Facebook than I probably should, why do I find it nearly impossible to relate to the college-set movie “The Social Network?” Is it because I didn’t go to an Ivy League school and I’m not a genius? Is it because I relied too much on my parents while in school and no intentions of starting my own business while still being too young to even purchase alcohol? Did I just not understand the rapid fire dialogue writer Aaron Sorkin laid out in his Citizen Kane-aspiring script about a seemingly autistic real life college student who sort of unknowingly creates one of the most popular websites on the entire planet? And all from the comfort of his Harvard dormitory. “The Social Network” feels like a movie that doesn’t need to exist and yet here it is the so-called “Facebook movie” about the creation of the popular social networking website that at this point society almost depends on. Maybe it’s supposed to be a slap in the face to all of us to stop spending so much time on the computer and instead interact with our friends in real life rather than in the virtual world of “poking” and “friending” and “status updates.” I for one am guilty as charged.

David Fincher is an awesome director. Take a look at anyone one of his films, from the gritty style of his cult hit “Fight Club” to the creepiness of “Seven” and the technically wizardry of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” Fincher has provided plenty of wonderful cinematic stories that showcase first rate directorial craftsmanship. He knows how to tell a story visually and is always prepared to show you a world you haven’t quite seen before. Which is why I have to classify “The Social Network” overall as a mild disappointment. It has a lot of great things going for it. It has great performances and an interesting visual look and a clever story structure. But as a movie about college students I didn’t find myself relating to any characters and I felt like an outsider looking in. The college life in this film doesn’t seem real to me. Everything is lit so darkly, that it feels like Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and his poor roommates are living in a dungeon. And who the heck becomes part of a lawsuit and never makes one phone call to their mom and dad for advice? Who becomes an accidental billionaire without bragging to their relatives about it? And if I got arrested for cocaine possession, I wouldn’t be calling the creator of Facebook from jail.

Supposedly how Facebook was created started when Zuckerberg broke up with his girlfriend. He ran back to his dorm room and blogged about what a bitch she is. Then he created a “hot or not” type of website where Harvard students could choose between two student photos and pick which girl was hotter. That spawned an idea that a website should be made with the intentions of connecting all Harvard students. Each person could create a profile and post information about themselves all the while being able to stalk those who probably don’t want to be stalked. Zuckerberg and his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) started developing the idea after these two twin brothers the Winklevosses (played with a little help of seamless movie magic by one Armie Hammer and stand-in Josh Pence) who say Zuckerberg stole their idea after he had agreed to work with them to build a similar site. Soon Napster co-founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) gets involved and begins coaching Zuckerberg until the idea of dollar signs begin corrupting all these brilliant young minds. I really enjoyed Timberlake’s performance and I really feel the film came alive when he was on screen.

I guess I’m not too surprised by anything that happens in “The Social Network” because it’s a similar story of a young brilliant mind looking for greater power. It just so happens to be a story about the creation of Facebook, which to this day has about 500 million users around the world. Facebook, as ridiculous as it sounds, is a major deal in the world because it’s so popular, but I’m still not convinced that that movie really needs to exist. Of course you could argue the same thing about, say, “Piranha 3D” but at least that movie doesn’t take itself too seriously.

Look there are plenty of things to love about “The Social Network.” It’s a well-made film . It’s slick and entertaining. Maybe it just caught me on a bad day. I enjoyed many of Fincher’s choices and his use of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ music is a wonderful choice that fits the film’s gloomy tone. Like one of Fincher’s other recent films “Zodiac,” it may take me a while to warm up to the film, but no one can deny that David Fincher, like many out there in Hollywood, is certainly a force to be reckoned with. GRADE: B-

Shipping Up to Boston: “The Town” is a Superbly Executed Heist Flick

A movie like “The Town” is the hardest type of movie to write a review of. It’s a great movie. You want to praise it, but not over do it. It’s a serious movie so it’s hard to crack jokes about a movie that takes itself so seriously. And it stars and is directed by Ben Affleck, he’s usually the butt of jokes but not here. As a director he’s a force to be reckoned with because as of now his stance is 2 for 2. A few years back he gave us the brilliant “Gone Baby Gone” and directed Amy Ryan’s powerful performance to an Academy Award nomination. Just how is it that this guy, who stared in flops like Gigli and Reindeer Games, on a winning streak in Hollywood. Once just tabloid fodder he is now an auteur who can take simple, emotional character based stories and turn them into fascinating, addictive films. How can you joke about that? Affleck I salute you!

“The Town,” taking place in Charlestown, Massachusetts, tells the story of a man named Doug MacRay (Affleck) and his three friends who are a team of bank robbers. They’re pretty stealth and rarely come into much trouble. They have a sophisticated system that helps them avoid capture from the authorities. The film opens up when them robbing a bank wearing scary monster masks. They take a woman hostage but eventually let her go. This woman is Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall). Claire is obviously shaken up by the robbery and fails to tell the FBI specific things about her captures (including a tattoo seen on the back of Jem’s (Jeremey Renner) neck. Doug begins to follow Claire around to make sure she hasn’t said anything to the feds that could put his team away. In so doing they begin a romantic relationship.

One could easily slap their forehead and claim that Claire is the stupidest character they’ve ever seen. She has no clue that Doug is one of the men who took her hostage and it’s simply fascinating to watch their relationship develop. And it never seems forced, it blossoms naturally. We can credit Affleck and the other two screenwriters Peter Craig and Aaron Stockard (who co-wrote Gone Baby Gone). They write realistic characters who are put into such a strange situation and it makes the viewer just sit there waiting to see what’s going to happen next (The film is based on a novel called “Pince of Thieves.”) Meanwhile FBI agent Adam Fawley (Jon Hamm) suspects Doug and his friends but needs more evidence. He almost gets more evidence during a breathtaking bank heist that almost goes wrong in which the team is dressed in disturbing nun masks. You’ve seen the posters and ads, it’s a very stark image and it stays with you. Doug, who actually works for a local Irish “florist” played by Pete Postweaite is sort of forced to go on a another robbery even though Doug wants out and to be with Claire. This time he’s forced to rob the Heart of Boston itself…. Fenway Park. Oh and Blake Lively from “Gossip Girl” skanks it up nicely as a white trash mom.

I can’t even begin to describe how well these heist scenes are shot and put together. The action is incredible and I don’t even recall blinking because I didn’t want to miss a millisecond of it. The gritty photography from Robert Elswit makes the film drip with a glorious 1970s vibe that I really dug. This is sort of “The French Connection” for today’s generation.

While I don’t think it’s better than something like say, “The Departed,” I think it can easily stand beside it as yet another wonderful Boston-set modern crime film that is exquisitely acted and directed. It’s such a well-made film you sometimes wonder why Ben Affleck spent so much time in front of the camera (although his performance is good here) when all along he should have been in that damn director’s chair from the beginning! GRADE: A

Twin Beaks: “Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of the Ga’Hoole” is…a Hoot

The only thing that really drags down Zack Snyder’s high flying owl adventure “Legends of the Guardians” is what I’m calling his trademark “slow motion hero shot” in which the characters are forced into slow motion while pouncing or attacking an enemy or accomplishing some other heroic action. Twice is cool, a dozen times is over doing it. But what else do you expect from the director of “300.” His fetish for slow motion shots abound, but at least this owl flick is entertaining for its ninety minute runtime.

I never thought I’d find a story about CGI owls interesting in the slightest. I have to say that I didn’t really love the film, but it was enjoyable for what it was. It’s basically “Apocalypto” with birds. We’re introduced to Soren (Jim Sturgess) a barn owl and his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten). Like most brothers in stories like these, there’s a hint of jealousy between the brothers. They like hearing stories their father tells of these owl soldiers known as the “Guardians of Ga’Hoole.” And one day after ruffling each others feathers, Soren and Kludd find themselves knocked out of their nest and on the dangerous forest ground. Since they’re young owls they haven’t fully developed their ability to fly. They’re quickly snatched up by some scary owls who go around snatching up owlets to brainwash and form an army lead by the evil Metalbeak (Joel Egerton) and his equally intimidating Nyra (Helen Mirren). Mirren is intimating even as an animated bird.

Eventually Soren is able to escape with his new friend Gylfie. They want to seek out the Guardians to help rescue his brother and all of the other kidnapped owls. We meet a bunch of other colorful characters along the way including a Burrowing Owl named Digger (David Wenham). Eventually they find the Guardians who help them making things right again in the owl kingdom. I never realized how ridiculous this plot seems once it’s all written out especially because all of the characters are OWLS. Of course the film is based on a series of books called “Guardians of Ga’Hoole.”

Zack Snyder seems like an odd choice to directed a family-friendly (although the film is pretty dark) animated film from the studio that brought us the overrated penguin flick “Happy Feet.” And while at first it does seem odd, as the film progresses it makes more sense. A bunch of soldiers who are basically the underdogs trying to fight off a band of evil bad guys? Isn’t that the plot of “300?” Of course this story works much better in animated form because we’re not distracted by annoying CGI effects mixed with live action performances. The whole thing is CGI so there’s that. The movie moves along swiftly enough, maybe too fast because as many colorful characters there are here, we don’t get to known them very well. The film seems to favor action over character for the most part, but I’m not too shocked by that.

Over all I found myself enjoying “Legends of the Guardians.” I thought the animation was pretty specactualr and the film did work as a fun 3D experience. It was immersive 3D rather than gimmick 3D (my personal favorite) but it worked for the film’s style. And I simply love the song “To the Sky” by the appropriately named Owl City. This is a movie you might just find yourself giving a hoot about. GRADE: B

Girlfight: A Great Cast Barely Saves “You Again” From Being Clichéd Tripe

“You Again” is a pure “Hollywood” film through and through. It features famous actors getting caught in unoriginal and preposterous situations and then wraps everything up neatly in a bow. These types of films aren’t always so horrendous in my eyes because sometimes just the littlest thing can make a movie worth seeing. Sometimes you get attached to a character or a performer and you’re willing to stick with them through all the ridiculousness that inevitably ensues. Take for instance a scene in “You Again” in which actress Jamie Lee Curtis uses the bathroom of her archnemesis Sigourney Weaver. She accidentally knocks one of Sigourney’s earrings down the drain and decides to retrieve it by kicking the sink’s pipe, which you guessed it, begins to spray water all over her at full force. She then mistakenly rips off a piece of Sigourney’s dress and uses it as a towel. Hilarious ensues! Why is this scene in this film? Is it funny to watch Jamie Lee Curtis being sprayed with water? Not really. It’s scenes like this that bog down “You Again.” It’s a film with a wonderful premise that could have gone a lot further with its story but alas that pesky PG rating sits there with its tongue out, mocking us for seeing it without anyone under the age of 12. (Watch “Freaky Friday” if you want to see a great PG rated film with a great performance from Ms. Curtis)

Sigourney Weaver and Jamie Lee Curtis are both great actresses. How Curtis has managed to avoid being nominated for an Oscar is beyond me, but I guess that is the curse of beginning your Hollywood career as a “Scream Queen.” Here they certainly make “You Again” worth watching if only because their snide and savvy ways just simply make themselves shine. Kristin Bell plays Marni who just found out that her brother is marrying Joanna (Odette Yustman) the mean girl from high school who made her life a living hell. Curtis is her mom Gail who also finds out that Joanna’s Aunt Romona (Weaver) was her former best friend from high school. They had a huge falling out, mostly for reasons that will come to light later on. The point is that these two generations of women are forced to deal with a dark past and look at it square in the face. I wasn’t too shocked by any of the film’s revelations but at least the actors give good performances.

The possibilities with a story like this are just simply endless, but “You Again” would rather play things a little too safe. Think “Death Becomes Her” without all the dark Looney Tunes violence. This is a situation ripe for black comedy, but the filmmakers would rather go for family comedy. It’s not too shocking to find out that director Andy Fickman directed two Disney movies starring The Rock (who also cameos here). Though he did make “She’s the Man” which, as crazy as that entire movie was, sort of ran with its silly premise and never felt as restrained as things are here. Screenwriter Moe Jelline can't even really find anything funny for Betty White, as Grandma Bunny, to do. She just sort of hangs around making wisecracks here and there in sitcom fashion. She was so well integrated in last summer’s “The Proposal” it’s a shame she’s not given as much to do (save for a priceless encounter with one of her high school rivals, which should have been something the film focused on).

Overall the film was easy to sit through and I was entertained enough. But you can label this as a disappointment. I was eager to see some of my favorite actresses duke it out. And yeah there is some fighting here and there, and I did find myself laughing, but the film had the potential to be great. It was nice to see Curtis on screen again though. Why she continues to be one of Hollywood’s most criminally underused actresses is beyond me. GRADE: B-

Drag Me to Hell: Lucifer Takes an Elevator Ride in “Devil”

Poor M. Night Shyamalan. It started so high, there was nowhere else to go but down. “The Sixth Sense” is a great scary movie. It’s a great movie in general. He was nominated three times by the Academy the year of its release (as writer, director and producer). He’s gone from writing and directing Oscar nominated films, to merely producing films that will never ever be mentioned with the words “academy” or “awards.” Razzie maybe. Ok so I didn’t hate his latest endeavor “Devil” because it has a premise too great to completely ignore: five strangers are stuck in an elevator in a high-rise building and one of them is actually the devil in disguise hell-bent on taking the lives of the other four passengers. As great as is its that Mr. Shyamalan neither wrote the screenplay nor directed the film, it still has his mark all over it which will most likely turn off many viewers. The film has some positives and it has some negatives, but overall I think I in the very least enjoyed myself.

Shyamalan gets things pretentiously underway even before the story begins. We see a “The Night Chronicles” logo which flashes the number “1.” Come to find out this is the first in an intended trilogy of films based on Shyamalan’s short stories. Oh brother. But then as eyeball roll-inducing as that is, we get some near opening titles which are plastered over some jaw-droppingly cool and disorienting upside-down shots of a city skyline. We will learn by the film’s end that at the beginning of the film, things were not always “right-side up.” Director John Erick Dowdle (of “Quarantine” and the still yet unreleased “The Poughkeepsie Tapes”) makes his first mistake by not eliminating screenwriter Brian Nelson’s unnecessary and borderline obnoxious narration. I’m sure Shyamalan made sure that one stayed. He always needs to shove down his viewers’ throats that they are watching a “story” as if we didn’t know already.

We’re told that sometimes the devil comes to earth, in disguise to claim people who have done bad things. Sometimes there are bad omens which show he’s on his way, such as a person committing suicide. And nearly four minutes into the movie, a woman leaps to his death from a skyscraper. Then we’re introduced to five characters who are all sharing the same elevator. We have a black security guard who’s just a temp (Bokeem Woodbine), an elderly woman who seems harmless (Jenny O’Hara), a younger business savvy-looking woman (Bojana Novakovic), a sleazy mattress salesman (Geoffrey Arend) and a mysterious mechanic (Logan Marshall-Green). After a few mintues the elevator stops. It seems to be just a simple malfunction. Even the security guards insist they will have the elevator running in just minutes. The guards Ramirez (Jacob Vargas) and Lustig (Matt Craven) can view the people in the elevator and can even talk to them through a loudspeaker, but the guards can’t hear the passengers. Minutes go by and these people begin to get a little stir crazy as would probably be the case in real life if you were stuck in an enclosed space with total strangers. But things take a turn for the worse when the lights flicker, go out, and the younger woman gets what appears to be a huge bite mark in her back. She’s bleeding and the security guards call the cops. The detective called to the scene just so happens to be the same guy investigating the suicide from earlier in the day. Detective Bowen (Chris Messina) communicates with the people in the elevator and pretty soon the body count begins to pile up in perfect Agatha Christie style.

The film succeeds in that it is creepy and claustrophobic which I enjoyed. It was fun trying to figure out how things would play out, although I’m certainly most viewers would likely guess who the “devil” is. This is sort of a third act twist or revelation that can either be seen as contrived or pretentious. I don’t know, take your pick. One we get closing shots of the city’s skyline, now in their proper upright place and the voiceover tells us that if the devil does exists at least it means there’s a God, I felt like I should have been sprayed with Holy water on the way out of the theater. A little preachy, but I can deal with it.

Overall I enjoyed watching "Devil" mostly because I tend to like movies that take place in tight places and play out in real time (the film is a swift 80 minutes). I had been intrigued by this movie ever since it’s fascinating trailer hit the internet months ago and I’m not sure that it lived up to my expectations, but it was pretty decent for what it gave us. I thought it had genuine moments of creepiness and like true great works in horror had moments where listening to the soundtrack was scarier than anything that could have been shown. I had always been interested in seeing a film Shyamalan thought up but didn’t write or direct, but I’m not quite sure Devil was the winning masterpiece his fans have been waiting for. This isn’t “The Sixth Sense” no matter how much you hoped it would be. GRADE: B-