Movie Reviews

ZOMBIELAND

Perfect timing to see a movie about zombies…but if you’re in the mood for a film on all hallows eve, Zombieland isn’t it.

It’s not all that scary, but it’s not really supposed to be. This is a comedy. The problem is, it’s really not all that funny.

Unless you think Woody Harrelson, scouring the Earth for the last Twinkie, passes for humor (I’m even someone, with a sweet tooth, that could appreciate a quest like that).

Here’s the premise – the world has been taken over by zombies. Nerdy Jesse Eisenberg (who I’ve never seen at the same time or in the same place as Michael Cera), hooks up with badass Woody Harrelson, who is a gun totting muscle head (who doesn’t have time to kick back and smoke a joint). He’s shootin’ zombies and taken names.

They run into a couple of females, who they end up taking along for the ride. One is played by Abigail Breslin, who I loved so much in Little Miss Sunshine a few years ago. She’s a bit older here, and a bit more annoying (although in her defense, that’s how the character is written).

Bill Murray has a very funny cameo, but it hardly makes the laugh ratio high enough for my tastes.

If you remember the trailers for this movie, they played Van Halen’s “Everybody Wants Some” and had some interesting stop-action freeze frame thing going on, as the zombies were getting stabbed, shot, and beaten by the few remaining humans.

It looked interesting, just because it looked so different. When the movie becomes this road trip picture, with two completely different personalities that butt heads the entire time, it just loses steam fast.

A better bet is the romantic comedy Adventureland, also starring Eisenberg, which is a surprisingly cute, humorous teen comedy. One of the best pictures of the year, actually.

I’m wondering what “land” movie Eisenberg will do next.

Zombieland gets a D+, but I can guarantee most critics are going to like it. And I think most movie goers will do. It just wasn’t humorous enough to work for me.

AMELIA

Amelia is the type of bio-pic I really look forward to. That’s because all I really know about this aviator (note to self: find out if a female pilot is called something else, like aviatress). I know she disappeared while flying over the Pacific in 1937, attempting to fly around the world (gee…and I can’t drive to Vegas with a woman that doesn’t want to stop four or five times to go to the bathroom).

Although, I was wondering why this movie didn’t delve more into the marriage problems, the World Wars, the Great Depression, and other historical moments. I’m guessing the filmmakers thought it would bog things down, but the slow pacing of this picture could’ve used more of that.

Director Mira Nair did The Namesake in 2006, a movie that had a great first half, and a horrible second half. In 2001, she did Monsoon Wedding, an Indian picture I absolutely loved.

Hilary Swank, a usually reliable actress, doesn’t pull it off here. She struggles with the voice (it reminds me of Kevin Costner trying to do Robin Hood with a British accent).

Ewan McGregor does a decent job, but I don’t care for Richard Gere in his role. He brings to much into baggage claim.

And, to stick with the airport puns…this movie just never takes off (that line was to easy).

I’m giving it a D+, for some nice cinematography.

EXTRACT

I was all prepared to say that Extract will be the next huge hit from Mike Judge. The one that will be as big of a cult hit as Office Space was.

Now, let me remind everyone about how bizarre the Office Space thing was.

The movie made something like $25 million at the box office, and was considered a flop.

The guy that was so successful with Beavis & Butthead and King of the Hill, had a movie that was hysterical, but nobody went to see.

And a funny thing happened on the way to Blockbuster. Everyone started quoting it in their cubicles and at the water cooler. They might say “Looks like another case of the Mondays.” Or they’d talk about what they were going to do to the copier. Oh, the quotes are endless (and so are the “oh” faces).

I’ve been disappointed with Judges other films, especially Idiocracy, which many of my friends raved about (a great concept, a horrible film).

Extract is the story of a guy who owns a flavor extract business (played by Jason Bateman). He has a wife that may be cheating (SNL’s Kristen Wiig), a stoner friend that offers goofy advice (Ben Affleck), and a right-hand man who steals every scene he’s in (the always reliable character actor, J.K. Simmons). Another great character actor – David Koechner – has a great role, as does Clifton Collins, Jr., as the plant employee that loses a testicle in a freak accident, and is being persuaded to sue for big bucks.

The cast is rounded out nicely by Mila Kunis (That 70s Show), and a small role for Gene Simmons, who is interested in buying the extract business.

This is a comedy that’s hard to recommend by saying how funny it is. A lot of the humor is real subtle.

Sure, there are some laugh out loud moments, like when Koechner, as the annoying neighbor always trying to bug Bateman into various pyramid schemes and things he’d rather not hear the second he pulls into the driveway.

Another hysterical scene involves an older woman working on the plant floor, who gets mad at everything, and she never seems to even understand the facts behind what she’s getting riled up about.

But there were so many scenes that I was laughing at, as the rest of the theatre sat quietly; facial expressions Collins had, or Simmons, after listening to an idiotic employee complain about something.

Anyway, I thought Funny People was going to be this huge comedy hit, and it wasn’t. This leaves me little hope for thinking Extract is going to be as big as it should be.

Don’t let this little gem slip by under the radar. Check it out. I doubt you’ll be disappointed.

I’m giving it a B+.

DISTRICT 9

Tomorrow a movie opens that I’m guessing will be one of the biggest success stories of the year.

It was a “little” science fiction picture that for some reason, got a lot of buzz going for it.

District 9 has been talked about for months, and now it’s finally here.

If you thought E.T. was cute, well…these guys look more like the aliens from Alien, but a little more cockroachy. Oh, and they love cat food.

The movie is made in the Cloverfield/Blair Witch vein – shaky cameras sometimes, and documentary style, as if the military is recording their activities.

I found it odd when I saw the review by Roger Ebert, and his big beef is that the ship that broke down and has hung over Johannesburg, South Africa, doesn’t seem to be forced to the ground by gravity. Well, I’m dying to know of Ebert had that same complaint when he saw Superman, flying around with merely a red cape and blue tights, as if they’re made of material that somehow allows him to leap over tall buildings.

The aliens (“prawns” as they’re called in this film) are told they have to move from the place they live, into a ghetto (how can you not think of apartheid as you watch this storyline unfold?)

The movie is narrated by a hapless military guy, who has his heart in the right place. Instead of showing up and angrily telling the aliens to hit the road, he offers them cat food and tries to make the best of a bad situation.

That actor is played by Sharlto Copley, someone I know nothing about (he reminds me of a character from Flight of the Conchords).

The movie drops the ball a few times. For example, these weapons and chemicals the military wants to use so bad…I’m not sure why the aliens don’t just use them against the humans, and say “We’ll stay right where we are, thank you very much.”

The movie starts out as a sort of E.T., but quickly turns Fly on ya. And, with the (relatively) small budget of $30 million, the special effects are all a lot of fun. Overall, I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. And the ending is spectacular.

I’m giving it a B.

FUNNY PEOPLE

On Dennis Miller’s radio show the other day, I heard an interview with Adam Sandler. Miller said Funny People was one of the best movies he’s ever seen. He then mentioned some big-name classic comedies that this should be compared to.

Now, I’m used to actors appearing on the late night shows, and the hosts saying how great the latest film is. I see it, and wonder what they were thinking. Until I then have to wonder what I was thinking. No person doing interviews wants to tell the star of the film that they didn’t like it.

This is almost addressed in this movie, when we see a poster for a film called “Mer-man.” Sandler is a male mermaid, and admits it was a horrible movie but a huge paycheck. When people see the poster they always say, without much conviction, “Good movie.”

But there’s no way Dennis Miller would’ve praised it as much as he did if it weren’t great. Even if he did Saturday Night Live with Sandler for years.

And at the screening the following day, I have to say, I was very pleasantly surprised.

I remember the Tom Hanks/Sally Field movie Punchline. I thought it was awful. Mainly because, the comedians that hit the stage weren’t funny (I remember one critic said “That’s the point. Not all comedians are funny.”)

First of all, that wasn’t the point. And second, if that is the point of Punchline, well…you have a movie about comedians that’s unfunny.

It would be like if Backdraft came out, and none of the firefighters were putting out fires. And the explanation for that would be “Firefighters usually go a month before they have to put out fires. They spend their time playing cards or shooting baskets at the fire station. This is more realistic.” Yeah, maybe; also less entertaining.

Funny People gets it right. It shows comedians that are actually funny. And even the one comedian that isn’t so funny (played well by Aziz Ansari)…might not be hysterically funny, but you can see why a crowd would be into him (he’s dirty, and has lots of energy). I’m guessing a lot of comedians will watch this film and compare Ansari to Dane Cook.

Some people might have a problem with the plot – a famous movie actor is diagnosed with a terminal illness – and decides to return to his roots. He remembers the times doing stand-up as being the best of his life, and he returns to the stage. He also thinks about the love that got away (played nicely by Judd Apatows real wife, Leslie Mann).

I have to admit, as great as she was in the movie, that part of the film does drag a bit.

Seth Rogen is playing the same character we’ve seen so many times now, but it’s great to watch in this movie.

His roommates, played nicely by Jonah Hill as a sharp comedy writer (and very competitive), and the big ego of Jason Schwartzman who has the starring role in a sitcom about a hip teacher. The money is great, but the comedic material the show provides is awful.

There’s a scene where Rogen is hired by Sandler to write some jokes for a private show, and he gets his first taste of the high life. And he likes it. Who wouldn’t? He’s in a limo, has a nice meal on a private jet, and gets to listen to James Taylor open for him. Although he does ask Sandler a very interesting question: How the hell do you follow Fire and Rain?

The sad moments of this film don’t really work for me, for a number of reasons.

Sandlers character is such a jerk, it’s hard to ever root for him. His ex-wife is a bit flaky, so it’s hard to root for her.

I do love the realistic touches the film provides.

As much of a jerk as Sandler is, we see him being nice to his maid and gardeners. It’s not one of those Hollywood clichés where the star is just bashing every person that works for him.

Because the comedy in this film is so crude, I’m guessing many critics won’t be fond of it. It’s a shame, because there’s no doubt this is going to be on my top 10 list of best films for the year.

If you don’t mind your comedians working blue, catch this movie.

I’m giving it an A-.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER

I really can’t believe I liked (500) Days of Summer. Oh, don’t get me wrong. There were a few things I didn’t like about it -- starting with those stupid parenthesis in the title. What does “(500)” even mean?

I understand the number. It refers to the 500 Days Joseph Gordon-Levitt dated Summer. Well, not all 500 of those days are devoted to the dating. Those days include the times he first spotted her as the new employee working with him at the greeting card company (Are there really jobs like this? I love the idea that Hallmark might have 25 people sitting around a room throwing Father’s Day jokes at each other for cards).

Zooey Deschanel the indie darling, who has always annoyed me on screen (Failure to Launch, which I hate admitting I saw, and Jim Carrey’s Yes Man, as the love interest). She’s now dabbling in music, as a singer in the duo She and Him. And this movie hits just the right notes for her.

With her beautiful blue eyes, as she gazes at her boyfriend or a building she likes…I’m reminded of Margot Kidder staring at Superman.

This movie is so smartly written in so many ways.

Levitt is clever and interesting, but he’s not like one of those smart movie characters that don’t exist in real life (the way I felt about Juno).

I also like the way the relationship dealt with ups-and-downs that seemed realistic. For example, there’s a fight at a bar with a big lug that won’t leave Daschanel alone. Levitt ends up in a fight with him, and he’s a bit proud of himself (no need to spoil how that fight scene goes, but you’ll love it). Like most women in real life, she’s not impressed. She realizes it would’ve been easier to just ignore the idiot, instead of ending up in the hospital or being arrested.

There’s the scene that ever romantic comedy seems to have these days – karaoke. And the usual idiot best friend has to sing while he’s drunk out of his mind. But the conversation the group has at a table, discussing love, is actually one you can see people having. And the drunk guy isn’t so annoying, that you wonder why Levitt would be friends with him. Even in his drunken state, he makes some decent points.

Among the most innovative things the movie does – a bizarre dance routine after the first time Levitt has sex with Daschanel. It’s to a Hall and Oates song, and has the whole town getting involved. I don’t remember a scene this fun since Ferris Bueller gets the town all riled up on a parade float lip-synching Wayne Newton and Beatles songs.

There’s also an interesting split screen at a dinner party, that’s flat out amazing screenwriting. It has what is actually happening at the party, and what Levitt wanted to happen at the party.

Oh, and just the fact that the 500 days are taken out of sequence, makes for a more interesting film. This also gives an interesting perspective on how the two of them see the relationship.

Early on, one of those days is when Levitt’s happy and he has a blast at a record store, making fun of different album covers and being flirtatious. When he’s depressed about losing her, and that same day is shown again, you realize that Deschanel is actually getting bothered by the same tired jokes (his making fun of Ringo, her favorite Beatle), and the scene becomes painful. Yet it’s the exact same scene. We just watch it knowing things we didn’t know previously.

I didn’t care for the whole premise that Levitt is really an architect with loftier goals, and they have to sit around talking about, or drawing buildings, as if that’s so much more profound than creating a clever greeting card.

I also could’ve done without the little sister. This is the cliché character that has been around forever.

I remember that character being done nicely in John Hughes’ Some Kind of Wonderful. In this movie, the girl is just a lot smarter than someone her age would be. And sure, the advice she gives her heartbroken brother can be funny (and it’s also great advice). It’s just really hard to buy that these things would come out of a kids mouth.

The soundtrack (even the Hall & Oates) is perfect.

This is a comedy that the hipsters will love, but even 50-year-olds will get a kick out of the unorthodox love story.

I’m giving this an A-.

BRUNO

I was familiar with the characters Sacha Baron-Cohen did because I was at a party years ago, and someone raved about how funny his Ali G. character was.

When half the room wasn’t familiar with it, the DVDs were brought out.

Ali G. is a character that speaks with a thick accent and talks/dresses like a rapper. He is able to score interviews with some big name people. It’s sort of a one-trick pony, as we’re supposed to laugh by the uncomfortable situation that ensues.

The interviews were interesting enough, but I prefer radio’s Phil Hendrie, who does a much better job with a variety of character on his syndicated AM show.

When Borat came out years ago, I have to admit I laughed harder than I thought I would. And there were so many big laughs in the theatre, you often didn’t hear the next line.

I had a huge argument with a few people in the lobby. It wasn’t because they spent 10 minutes trying to open their package of Red Vines a few inches from my ear, although I wanted to mention that, too. It was because they thought everything in the movie was real. I told them that was impossible.

And, that’s part of the problem with Bruno. As funny as some segments are, you know that half of it are people pretended to be offended. Now that being said, it’s still funny.

Not as funny as Borat, and a lot more offensive. Since he plays a gay fashion reporter, he’s often getting into peoples faces in a way that makes them (and the audience) uncomfortable.

There was one five minute scene that shows Bruno having sex with his male assistant, and my girlfriend and I both said the same thing – how is this movie not rated X?

Not only did it have male, full-frontal nudity. It showed a close-up of Bruno’s penis (or perhaps, as they say in Hollywood – a double). As the penis swung in circles, they super-imposed a mouth on it to say “Bruno.”

That’s a mock intro to a TV show he’s trying to pitch to (supposedly) real TV executives.

The scenes with a focus group, that clearly hate the show, are mildly amusing. Part of the problem though, is Family Guy had already done this.

My favorite scene involves Paula Abdul. She is told that she’s being interviewed by a big fashion correspondent, and she shows up at his Beverly Hills mansion to do the interview. When she mentions how weird it is that there is no furniture, Bruno says in his thick, German accent “Get in here, now!” The Mexicans gardeners working on his yard come in, and he demands they get on their hands and knees. He then tells Abdul to sit on the guys back. She looks shocked but…she actually does it! The man makes faces, as if the weight of her is hurting him, and after a few minutes, with the questions going in a direction she doesn’t like – she decides to leave. It’s hysterical that the people furniture isn’t the straw that broke the Mexican’s…errr…horses back.

In my argument with the people behind me, I said “Listen…not all this stuff was real. They couldn’t have gotten the cameo they got from Harrison Ford without him approving that.”

I can’t tell you what it was, because it might kill the biggest laugh in the movie.

Bruno is a movie you can wait to rent, unless you haven’t seen Borat. You’re better off renting that (I give it a B-).

Go see (500) Days of Summer at the theatres, which is the best romantic comedy of the summer.

Bruno gets a C-.

CRAZY HEART

When I saw the commercials for Crazy Heart, I thought it was Jeff Bridges playing Kris Kristofferson, in a version of Tender Mercies.

Even though the subject matter is something we’ve all seen before (it’s got a little bit of The Rose and a lot of The Wrestler), this is still a good movie. And I’m one of those guys that at a party, when the subject of musical tastes come up, always say “I like all kinds of music, except country.”

The songs here, most of which were written by T Bone Burnett (he’s the one that gave us the wonderful collaboration between Alison Krauss and Robert Plant, among many other things), are catchy.

Most people don’t realize Bridges has sung before; not just in The Fabulous Baker Boys or as Lebowski singing along to his CCR cassettes. Bridges has released a few CDs of his music. I bought one at Music Trader on Midway right before it went out of business (it was only a dollar, that’s why).

It’s hard not to laugh as Bridges sings “I used to be somebody/Now I’m somebody else.” Not because his vocals are weak; he’s playing an aging alcoholic singer who is on the downside of his career…relegated to playing bowling alleys and dive bars. His voice works, because he’s singing these words and…well, we wonder if he really is playing somebody else. Sure, the performance got him an Oscar nomination (and let’s face it, a guaranteed Oscar win). But it’s not the most original character. That means you’re going to see him barfing, missing gigs, getting in car wrecks, and sleeping with groupies (nice to know that even if you’re at the point in your career to playing bowling alleys that offer you “all the free bowling you want”, you’ll at least be able to snag a woman). Come to think of it…that bowling offer that turned Bad Blake off would’ve thrilled Lebowski.

Many people are comparing the Blake character to Merle Haggard (has a name ever been more appropriate? [for both singers]). That would make Blake someone that’s hard to take, but in this he’s charming enough to have us rooting for him.

And while Bridges reminds us of various country legends, Colin Farrell plays a famous country singer that makes me think of, well, George Michaels (maybe it’s the earring and 5 o’clock shadow).

The cast is rounded out nicely by the Oscar winning Robert Duvall and Oscar nominated Maggie Gyllenhaal as the reporter and love interest.

It’s easy to see why the much younger Gyllenhaal would fall for Blake, although the romance is a part of the script that has sloppy writing. That’s easy to forgive with these catchy tunes to tap your toes to. And when your feet touch the sticky theater floor of melted bon-bons and spilled Cherry Coke, heck…it’s not hard to imagine it’s the spilled beer of a dive bar in Oklahoma that Blake is inhabiting.
EDGE OF DARKNESS

I read one review on Edge of Darkness, where the critic talked about how funny it was when Mel Gibson told an evil politician in the movie “You have to decide…are you up on the cross or are you the one drivin’ in the nails?” Somehow that became the transition to talking about Gibson and his religious views and his rant against the Jews.

I found it funnier when a clever hitman in the film tells Gibson he knows he doesn’t smoke or drink. The later being something that fueled his racial tirade.

And as someone that is half Jewish (the top half, in case you were wondering), I was a bit bothered by what Gibson said. But I was more bothered by the way he treated the female police officer. There’s something about disrespect for law enforcement that really rubs me the wrong way.

But this is a review of a movie, not the bizarre rants of Mr. Gibson.

And instead of looking back at the past conversation he’s had (both with police and with media lately), you can look at the past movies he’s done; because Payback, Conspiracy Theory, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max and, well…it’s probably easier to list the movies Gibson did that aren’t borrowed from. That would be: Braveheart.

For fans of Mad Mel, this is like someone anxiously awaiting the next Rolling Stones album, only to find out it’s a “greatest hits live” package.

Sure, the supporting cast is great (including John Huston’s son) and Ray Winstone, who is quickly becoming my favorite heavy in films. I loved him in Departed and 44 Inch Chest (but those movies disappointed me as well).

The action scenes in Darkness are fun. I just tire quickly when there are so many plot holes in a film.

I understand the director did a few Bond films and at times, this feels very Bondesque. The thing is, we treat James Bond like a super hero. We don’t mind the plot holes, or the bullets that never seem to hit him. When a movie is trying to be serious and is dealing with corrupt politicians, police, and ruthless bad guys…we want it to at least seem plausible.

I read a piece Roger Ebert wrote on the film, and he complained about the factory filled with bad guys being so visible on hillside, instead of in a warehouse hidden somewhere. Well, that didn’t bother me. They explain how this company is able to get away with the crooked stuff they do for the government.

When Gibson fires shots into a car that’s speeding at him, and quickly moves out of the way after hitting his target, I thought about his partner Danny Glover doing that in Lethal Weapon. And with all the lines on Gibson’s face these days, I was waiting for him to use Glovers line of “I’m too old for this s***!” It’s a line that many in the theatre could’ve said as well.

Gibson handled the grieving father parts well, and he pulled off the Boston accent better than Nicholson did in The Departed. Although, it seemed the first scene in the movie had him speaking without it. I was prepared for a performance like Costner in Robin Hood, where he went in and out of the British accent.

Apparently, Edge of Darkness was a BBC miniseries. And I noticed in the credits, the BBC was involved with this film. It reminded me of how fans of The Fugative were so worried the film adaptation would ruin the memories of an interesting TV show.

That movie showed you what a good action picture can be, and what they seldom are.

And if I was grading this on an “action picture curve” it would get a B+. On it’s own as a movie, it gets a D.

There are just too many other movies out there to spend your money on, making it the perfect film to Netflix. The man can watch it, and his wife can do other things when she quickly grows bored. I’m guessing the man did the same, making his way to the garage, while she watched The Notebook.

AVATAR
I was at a party at James Cameron’s mansion in Malibu a few years ago. Oops…something fell off my desk. Oh. It’s just a name I dropped.
One of the perks of having a stepfather that was in a Cameron picture and hey, I want to brag about sneaking into a party at his place.
At one point Cameron took a handful of us into his private movie theatre and showed clips of 3D films he made. I yelled out “Let’s see some Avatar.” He laughed and said it was top secret.
A few of his close friends told me, as we waited for our burgers to be cooked, that this would be the biggest movie ever. I laughed. They didn’t. They tried explaining all the new technology and how amazing it would look visually. I sarcastically said “Spending over $250 million to make a movie -- and the biggest star is Sigourney Weaver -- it’ll be lucky to make that money back.”
Boy was I wrong.
And I was really hoping it would be awful. After all, he said something rude to my mom. But that’s another story for another day.
Yes, the movie was predictable. Yes, it was derivative of so many other films. There’s a little Jurassic Park in some places, District 9 in others. A love story that’s Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. And some Battle for Terra as well (the last film being the only picture on that list that people aren’t familiar with).
Avatar is worth every penny.
It pained me to see Michelle Rodriquez and her squinty face (she’s replaced Renee Zellweger in that annoying I-smell-something-bad facial expression department for me), but she played her part well.
My favorite performance was from an actor I barely knew anything about – Stephen Lang – who played the war happy Colonel and commanded the screen.
Giovanni Ribisi, who I enjoyed so much in Boiler Room a decade ago, played the bad guy well enough. At times though, it sounded like he was talking with a mouth full of marbles.
Sure, the story is a bit cheesy at times. The script could’ve been tightened up.
But this is the best experience I’ve had at a movie in years. It reminded me of being a kid and seeing Star Wars in the theatre. And probably what it was like years earlier when people saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in a dark theatre (or Clash of the Titans in the 80s; King Kong in the 30s).
So…I can deal with one dimensional characters, when I’m seeing this 3D stuff that is so dazzling. And, I would’ve been a guy working on the film that would’ve bugged everyone with small details. I would’ve said to Cameron “Can’t we have one of the arrows come at the screen, to make the audience flinch?”
I would’ve asked Cameron why early in the movie, the arrows hit the helicopters and merely bounce off the window, but hours later in a battle scene, they’re able to break through and pierce the humans.
I might also ask why the thing the humans are after is called “unobtainium.” That might’ve been cute during rehearsals or a table reading of the script, but it distracts while you watch the film (much the way it does when a character in some film yells out “Call me. I’m at 555-5555”).
Your jaw will drop to the floor at the visuals you see (or should I say “probably dropped” since within the first few weeks of its release, most people that wanted to see it probably already have).
It baffles me that Hellboy II, which was awful, got better reviews than Avatar. Sure, the stories got cheesy at times, but they worked for me. I was into the romance (rumor has it a graphic love scene between the Na’vi was edited). Another story dealt with a Marine that lost his legs and has to decide which of the three sides he’s on.
“Magical,” is the best adjective I could think to describe Avatar. I’m sure the critics that didn’t like it will talk about how formula and pedestrian a few aspects of the script are. And I immediately think about how Forrest Gump only got about 75% good reviews from critics across the country.
I sometimes offer to pay for my friends movie tickets if they go see a film I recommended and they don’t like it. I saw Avatar for free in Clairemont the first time, and the following week my girlfriend and I paid $19 a ticket to see it in 3D at the Imax screen in Mira Mesa.
And we’ve talked about seeing it one more time before it leaves theaters. For someone that’s used to getting free concert and movie tickets (and is a cheapskate), that’s saying something.
UP IN THE AIR
Jason Reitman’s latest film “Up in the Air” has been praised by all the critics. It would’ve gotten an Oscar nomination even if they didn’t increase the nominations to 10.

It doesn’t live up to the hype.

If I were to give this movie a grade, it would get the same grade I’d give Reitman’s two previous films (Juno, Thank You For Smoking). It would receive a B-.

All those movies are serious comedies with dark aspects, which is fine. The problem arises when you have silly scenes that seem preposterous.

In Juno there are at least 10.

Thank You For Smoking has fewer bad scenes. I couldn’t decide which was worse – Aaron Eckhardt screaming profanities at his ex-wife, or showing up at the Marlboro Man’s house and being fired upon with a shotgun (only to have Sam Elliot change his mind on being angry after opening a suitcase full of money).

Up in the Air not only has a few scenes I saw coming down Broadway, but they had characters doing things they would’ve never done (Clooney leaving in the middle of a paid seminar to go after the girl. And that woman doing a number of things she would’ve never done).

I have no problem with Clooney getting praise for this role. He’s the modern day Cary Grant, and he really pulls of this player you can root for. He does his job well and actually has sympathy for the people he fires.

The supporting cast isn’t too shabby, either. Vera Farmiga’s flirtatious conversations with Clooney work, although I’m guessing the line he used to get her back to the hotel room, probably wouldn’t work for any guy that didn’t look like George Clooney.

Danny McBride -- who I keep claiming to not care for -- once again is perfectly cast as the dopey dude that Clooney’s sister is about to marry (he uncomfortably tries to reel George into a pyramid scheme at the rehearsal dinner).

The buzz this movie got for casting real people that had recently been fired was real lame. I felt it took away from the film, and besides, it was sprinkled with actors (most notably, bearded comedian Zach Galifianakis and the bald J.K. Simmons).

There were enough funny one-liners and interesting scenes to make this picture work. I certainly wasn’t disappointed I saw it. Of course, in this economy, that adds something to the mix as well.

I was very pleasantly surprised with the great soundtrack (songs from Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings, who recently rocked the Street Scene…as well as Dan Auerbach, CSN, and Elliott Smith).
After a scene that attempted to be profound but fell flat (with Sam Elliott again, this time as a pilot); I was glad to see an ironically narrated ending that worked perfectly

But if you watch Michael Clayton after viewing this, you’ll see the difference between a good film and a great film. And for all the Top 10 lists this movie made, I don’t think it would crack my top 25. Although, the other “Up” movie from this year does.

I left the theatre realizing the film wouldn’t stay with me long, but hey…I did learn how to get through airports a lot quicker.

THE BOOK OF ELI

Why didn’t The Book of Eli get the love it deserved from the critics? Okay, there have been too many post-apocalyptic movies coming out (The Road a few months before Eli). And sure, this movie borrows from a lot (Mad Max, anyone?).

It’s just hard for me to dislike a film that starts with a cat being shot and a groovy Al Green song on the iPod. And what a creative way to tell a story. Just as Brick was film noir as told like a teen comedy, this is post-apocalyptic done as a western. Good times.

Training Day, which I hated, seemed to thrill everyone (especially Julia Roberts, who went nuts when Denzel won his Oscar). This movie is so much better, although the friends I saw it with, merely complained about the preachy religious aspects. I’m an agnostic who isn’t spiritual in anyway, but I had no problem with this guy walking around with his bible and occasionally sounding like a prophet. Or sounding and acting like Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction. And on the subject of Pulp Fiction, the first scene that shows Washington killing bad guys under a bridge, filmed all in silhouette, is so interesting I don’t doubt that Quentin Tarantino will steal it in the future.

Instead of watching this movie and thinking about how it’s similar to Kung Fu or a Twilight Zone episode, just enjoy this amazing ride, with an amazing cast. Jennifer Beals (Flashdance) as the blind, tortured wife of the evil Gary Oldman (is there anyone better at playing the heavy?)

Our former local musician Tom Waits plays the bizarre electrician/pawn shop owner in a small town.

Malcolm McDowell shows up, with weirder hair than Waits, in an interesting spot.

Sure, Mila Kunis always has that voice that makes you think of That 70s Show, but you settle into her rather quickly.

Many critics are talking about the plot holes, and yes, there are a few. I’d just like to ask them what movies they’ve reviewed that haven’t had them. It’s even more interesting when you read what their complaints are. One talked about how odd it is that Eli’s iPod works 30 years into the future. Well, they cover how that’s possible twice in the movie.

Lots of other critics complained about how much ammunition everyone has in the future. Again, that was covered in an interesting and subtle way. One bad guy sees Eli’s gun and wonders if it’s loaded. His partner says “The guns never are.”

Later in the film, the bad guys have an arsenal. Well, that’s not hard to believe, as they hire “hijackers” to go around stealing books and other items, from the travelers they encounter.

What? It doesn’t sound like the “feel good film of the year” yet? Well trust me, it actually is uplifting.

You can avoid the few plot holes (like Eli saying he’s walked for 30 years looking for the west coast), and just enjoy this fresh take on a tired topic, that’s filmed in a very atmospheric and interesting way.

I had to see it twice, to see if I could catch a few of the tricky twists.

THE BLIND SIDE

I had to wait for football season to end before writing about The Blind Side.

And I felt so bad during the season, when I’d catch a Baltimore game and hear the announcers talk endlessly about Michael Oher, the real life player the film is “loosely” based on.

After a discussion about drive-ins and their disappearance, I decided to see Blind Side at the one left in Santee. Imagine my shock when the sign said “No dogs” and my girlfriend and I had to throw a blanket over our pooch as if we were guys in those 50s films smuggling in their friends via the car trunk.

I was a bit surprised at the price, too. It was only a couple dollars less than a regular theatre. I guess now that you can hear the film perfectly on a radio station in the comfort of your own car and without buying an $8 popcorn, they’ve got to make their money somehow.

Now, my first instincts after seeing a film based on a real character, is to Google. I officially ended that practice after loving Cinderella Man so much, and finding out a lot of bogus stuff the movie included (you can always count on Ron Howard for that).

I saw a Disney film about the first all-black starting college basketball team that I enjoyed a year later. I was able to refrain from Googling, but happened to read a Sports Illustrated article that talked about all the things made up for the film.

One well-known critic who I’ve argued with before (his name rhymes with “Dodger Alert”), mentioned in a book on the 100 greatest films (a great read, by the way), that the movie JFK doesn’t have to be real because it’s a movie. I feel that’s completely wrong. If you want to do that, write a movie like The Rose. People might be reminded of Janis Joplin, but it’s a fictional character, so you can do what you want with it.

Going blindly into The Blind Side, I already knew it would have a happy ending. That doesn’t mean you don’t enjoy the ride, no matter how clichéd a sports film it becomes. You’d have to have a heart of stone (no Roberto Duran reference intended) to not get misty eyed.

It’s nice to see Sandra Bullock make a good film. And please, don’t try to argue that Crash was good. It was okay at best.

I know Tim McGraw, her husband in the movie, is a country singer. I don’t know anything about his music, but was a fan of his dad Tug -- the man with the worst name in baseball history.

It’s a shame that Bullock will win the Oscar for this role. It’s a bit schmaltzy. But then, maybe the Academy just can’t wrap their minds around a rich, Republican from Texas helping out a poor kid.

The script has a few fumbles along the way and was almost in danger of looking like a polished up after-school special or Lifetime movie of the week.

It’s a shame, too, that the few times I was really getting into a scene, there were distractions from the drive-in crowd.

One person started high beaming the screen. Another time, a car alarm went off for four minutes; the equivalent of a cell phone going off in a regular theatre.

It’s strange that some are hailing this the best movie of the year. I can name 100 better sports movies, and at least 15 better football movies. One from this year called The Express, starring Dennis Quaid (he also did a football film called Everybody’s All-American that easily surpassed Blind Side).

Although this was the conventional sports drama you expect (do sports films even need trailers?), the performances all worked. And sure, I felt like pulling an Elvis and shooting the screen when I saw the words “based on a true story.” I felt like shooting the screen a second time when I saw a weak opening sequence on what should’ve been a powerful scene (Bullock talking about the importance of linemen and the gruesome career-ending injury of Joe Theismann).

Mike Ochs struggled in school, but his story on film pulled a B-.

Sandra Bullock will pull the Oscar win for this. I’d just love to see a baseball card with her movie credits listed on the back like statistics. It wouldn’t be the pretty picture you see on the flip side.

IT’S COMPLICATED

I would love to write a review for It’s Complicated, the way someone wrote a review in This is Spinal Tap. They had an album called Shark Sandwich and were perplexed by the fact that one critic did a two-word review that simply said “S**t sandwich.”

It’s Complicated. It’s crap.

(That doesn’t have the same ring to it)

I hate saying that, because there are obviously a few fun scenes. I just expect more from such a stellar cast.

I thought Streep could do no wrong. Even an overrated chick flick like Bridges of Madison County was watchable because of her presence.

Alec Baldwin played the same womanizing character that he did in the much better film from last year – Lymelife.

John Krasinski, so great in The Office, has yet to make a good film.

I know a few critics that said he was the best thing in this movie. I find that odd, as he played that comedy clichéd character of knowing the couple is having the affair, and trying hard not to let anyone else know what he knows. It got old quick, and no amount of cute facial expressions made up for that fact.

I overheard a couple in their 50s leaving the theatre. One said “It’s great that they can make a good adult comedy.” I wanted to grab them and scream “Just because adults are in it, doesn’t make it a good adult comedy!”

This movie reminds me a lot of Sex and the City. It was a great show, but an awful movie. That’s because you had interesting characters that didn’t do or say anything all that interesting or funny.

Now, let’s talk a little about the story. Meryl Streep runs a successful bakery. That means we get the scenes that were so great in Big Night (and out of place in Inglorious Basterds. That’s the scene that shows close-ups of delicious pastries being made and eaten.

She has a huge house, but she needs to make it huger (note to self: find out if “huger” is a word). I’m not sure why. Her kids are all going off to college.

Streep also has a few interesting girlfriends -- Rita Wilson, Mary Kay Place, and Carrie Fisher. Yet all they do is sit around gossiping about her affair. They add nothing. I’m guessing in real life, if you put those women in a room (along with screenwriter/director Nancy Meyers), that would be a fun conversation to hear.

So, Streep starts to have an affair with her ex-husband. Now right there, you have a great premise for a film. You also have great chemistry with those characters. Yet, we get into this love triangle with Steve Martin, and it goes nowhere that’s interesting. In fact, you watch it not knowing who to root for, or even caring.

We’re forced to watch scenes of Baldwin peeping in the kitchen window while Streeps new suitor and her enjoy coffee. Predictably, he falls on his back into the bushes. Did the couple behind me think that was an “adult comedy” scene? I remember laughing at scenes like that as a kid watching Benny Hill and Revenge of the Nerds.

When Baldwin grabs Streep in a certain area while in bed, it was funny. It almost rivals the scene of Dustin Hoffman grabbing Mrs. Robinson their first time together. Instead of the awkwardness of a naïve young man, it’s the confidence of an older man who has “been there/done that.”

And that scene was one of the few funny moments the trailers didn’t give away.

I’m not sure why Meyers, who obviously has talent as a writer, made Streeps character so pathetic. She is the one actress in Hollywood that others are envious of because she gets the great roles. Yet here she’s playing a person jealous of the younger woman her husband married (after cheating on her); she seems sex-starved, she annoys her kids, she feels sorry for herself, and is seeing a shrink.

I thought of the perfect way to describe this film. Since her baked goods play a supporting role in this, I can compare the movie to one of those fabulous desserts you see on the menu. It’s $14, and you think about a time you used to buy similar ice cream from the ice cream man as a kid for $1. You and your spouse share it, and quickly realize it’s not as good as the picture on the menu made it look. You also realize that after two bites, you’re getting full. You leave half of it in the bowl, feeling guilty at how stuffed you are and the calories you really didn’t need; and even more guilty when you see a homeless person outside the restaurant.

You could save the money on the dessert, and this movie. I thought it was one of the most disappointing films of the year.

MY NAME IS KHAN

I Google women.

Okay, wait. Let me clarify that.

I’m not someone that uses the computer to look for naked women in any capacity, or uses Google search for anything perverted.

My stepdad uses Google to find out about an old Mustang he’s doing engine work on, or some fact about the Civil War he isn’t sure about. Me? I Google women, wondering why they aren’t more famous.

The first time was when I saw Cocoon on HBO 10 years ago. I wondered who the gorgeous alien woman was. I found out she was Tahnee Welch, the daughter of former San Diegan Raquel Welch.

A year after that, a friend let me borrow Say Anything. It was the one 80s movie I had never seen. It wasn’t as good as any of the John Hughes films, but was a decent effort from Cameron Crowe. The actress in that caught my eye. I Googled, and found out she was Ione Skye, daughter of 60s folk singer Donovan.

Now, I don’t Google to see photos of them. That’s just one of the perks. I’m more curious as to how they didn’t parlay a nice role in a film, into a movie career.

Rarely do I Google actresses in current films. I figure if they have any talent, I’ll be seeing them in more roles and various talk shows.

But when I saw My Name is Khan the other night at the Gaslamp Theatre, I had to see who the Indian actress was. She was just so adorable on screen.

Her name is Kajon Devgan and has made a big career in Bollywood films. I think some of those films hurt her character in Khan, because at times she seemed a bit too cartoonish in what was a very serious picture. There were times she’d be loud and it were as if she was acting in a completely different film.

The movie started out with such a powerful scene.

We see a Middle Eastern man checking a computer to see President Bush’s travel plans. He then acts weird at the airport, which gets him detained and searched. After security goes through his bag and questions him, we see them looking at an “autism alert” card he is carrying.

And what should’ve been a great scene that ended there, we instead have to listen as security insults him. I found that hard to believe (although it sets up an obvious joke that comes later in the movie).

The actor playing Khan (whose real name is Shah rukh Khan), was flat out amazing. It’s a shame the script wasn’t up to his caliber of acting.

I so wanted to love this movie. It has its heart in the right place.

You feel like you’re watching a Bollywood Rain Man. At the hour and a half mark, you feel like it’s more of a Bollywood Forrest Gump. No, wait. Kajol teaches him he can be less afraid of new things if he videos everything. It’s now a Bollywood Being There, with a bit of Network thrown in (I only say that because of the catch phrase “I’m mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore!” In this, it’s “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist.” It breaks your heart every time Khan is forced to utter it.

In some movies, I balk at the romances that pop up. In As Good as it Gets, it wasn’t the age difference between Nicholson and Helen Hunt that bothered me, as much as the fact that he was such a jerk to her, I didn’t see her ever coming around to liking him.

In this romance, it’s the fact that Khan is autistic. Sure, he’s high functioning, but one that she can’t have normal conversations with. A guy she can never hug or touch. Yet, she decides he’s great with her son and would be a good father (which he is). Sorry, it’s just way too much of a stretch.

The film stopped abruptly in the middle, with the word “intermission” on the screen. I haven’t seen a movie with an intermission in 20 years.

After 30 minutes of various ads for local Middle Eastern and Indian businesses, my friend went to ask when the intermission would end. They weren’t sure why it was that long, and started the movie a minute later.

The film goes back and forth between a time right after 9/11 and how this autistic Muslim man deals with the stereotypes. There are other dramas, including a thinly veiled Hurricane Katrina storm that thrashes a poor town in Georgia.

And as we watch Khan traveling across the country in search of the President, you go between rooting for him to reach his goal, and hating his wife for kicking him out.

Scenes that are done so well, always blow it at the end.

One of those scenes involves a hotel owned by a Muslim man that has befriended Khan. Some rednecks throw a brick into the window, and instead of an interesting reaction from the owner, we get a fun gun shots at a truck, followed by a long rant about bigotry that doesn’t really work.

This movie should’ve cut an hour out and not tried to be the epic picture it was shooting for.

That being said, as disappointed as I was, many elements of the movie stayed with me.
There was a scene where Khan pays $500 to have lunch with the President, only to be told he couldn’t attend because it was for Christian groups. It was a fundraiser for poor people in Africa, and as Khan disappointingly walks away, the woman tries to hand the money back. He says, “Keep it. Give it to the poor children there that aren’t Christian.”

And of course, there’s the beautiful Kajol Devgan.

But then, you can save your $11 and just do what I did -- Google her.

SHUTTER ISLAND

People are either going to love this or hate it. I’m not sure why. I thought it was good, but not great.

It might’ve been a great Twilight Zone episode. It might’ve been a great film, if 30 minutes were cut out and some of the uneven elements worked on.

The movie was an Escape From Alcatraz meets One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.

While watching it, you might also think about Cape Fear, The Shining, Spellbound, and a handful of other pictures.

Martin Scorsese doing a psychological thriller -- that probably wouldn’t have worked in the hands of other directors -- is good here. Sure, it would’ve been better in the hands of Orsen Wells or Hitchcock, but this is still better than most movies out in theatres right now.

On a rare rainy day in San Diego, to walk in and see the stormy weather and atmosphere on screen, is a decent way to spend the evening.

Someone once asked my definition of film noir. The first thing I said was “They smoke a lot of cigarettes, wear a lot of hats, and some character usually has a band-aid on his face.”

Check to all that here.

The film takes place in 1954, and you get some very powerful flashbacks of a Nazi death camp that Leonardo DiCaprio helped liberate.

He does a fine job in this movie, but it’s really time for Scorsese to give him a rest. And some might not even pull off the rugged, tortured cop he’s supposed to be playing. It’s perhaps the reason child actors have such a hard time transitioning into adult roles, but more so when they still have a baby face and continued making movies without a break. It’s hard not to think of the goofy Titanic when Leo is on the front of a ferry. Instead of saying shouting that he’s “king of the world,” it’s king of the commode. He suffers from sea sickness.

The rest of the cast is superb, but can you really go wrong with San Diego’s Michelle Williams, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Mark Ruffalo – one of the most underappreciated actors around. And then there’s Jackie Earle Haley, who seems to have cornered the market on creepy guys.

(Wait a second. Did I just give Michelle Williams top billing?)

If Kingsley wasn’t enough as the evil doctor, he has a “partner in crime” in Max von Sydow, who I’ve been watching play the old, bad guy in movies in the 70s. I’m guessing he’s going to keep doing these roles splendidly for another 30 years.

I thought the cinematography was top-notch. And the score reminded me a lot of Cape Fear, and worked wonderfully at setting the mood (if the stormy weather and eerie mental hospital didn’t do the trick).

It’s a shame that the movie wasn’t as suspenseful as it could’ve been; or as scary as the trailers made it look.

Many viewers will feel their mind was messed with as much as the patients on Shutter Island. And many people will leave the theatre disappointed (at least they did in the showing I saw).

I had a blast staying in my seat as the credits rolled, and discussing what the last line by Leo meant. And of course, watching the credits. I found that Robbie Robertson (The Band) was the “music supervisor” – whatever that means.
And there’s nothing more fun then seeing actors listed in credits as “dying commandant,” “manacled woman,” “tattoo’d man,” and “wild-eyed man.”

PRECIOUS

I remember when Seau’s the Restaurant opened in Mission Valley. I thought it was the stupidest name for a restaurant. I told my friends, as we were in line to watch a boxing match there, and none of them seemed to mind the name.

I said “Why not just ‘Seau’s’?” One friend replied, “You wouldn’t know it was a restaurant.” To which I said, “Do you think people would go there thinking they sell football gear or something? Okay, then…they could go with Seau’s Restaurant, and drop the ‘the’.”

I didn’t realize two movies would come out the same year, both with titles more annoying than Seau’s the Restaurant.

Nicolas Cage starred in a film last year called Bad Lieutenant the Movie.

Okay, that was a joke. Although, it’s a better title than what Herzog went with. His movie was called Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans.

A slightly worse title (but a better movie) was Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire.

I have no clue why it wasn’t just called Precious, or Push, or anything other than what they went with.

Under the long title on the movie poster, there should be a tagline that states: The feel bad movie of the year! You’ll laugh, you’ll cry.

No, seriously…you’ll do both; more of the latter.

Enough about that. Let’s talk about the cast.

Gabourey “Gabbie” Sidibe is wonderful, and well-deserving of the Oscar nomination she got. When you see how funny and friendly she is in interviews, you realize that in her movie debut, she truly is acting. And how can you root against her winning the golden statue? Especially when a small part of me thinks she may have had a few problems in real life growing up, and I’d like to think she can enjoy the accolades she’s getting now.

Mo’Nique will definitely win the Best Support Actress Oscar, and it will be well-deserved.

I had seen clips of her stand-up and her horrible TV show. I think she should stick with acting. She’s got the chops. She plays such a horrible mother here…a mix of Joan Crawford, Nurse Ratchet, and Jason; a lot more evil than those three.

When I realized in one scene, she was considering her daughter a romantic rival to the awful man she was dating…I got a lump in my throat the size of the Bon Bons I was eating.

Mariah Carey got a lot of attention playing a caring social worker. She was okay, but I found it odd she got so much praise merely because she didn’t wear make-up. I guess for a diva, that’s the equivalent of DeNiro gaining 40 pounds for Raging Bull.

Another musician pops up in this – Lenny Kravitz – as a caring nurse that all the school girls fall over.

And let’s not forget about Paula Patton as the caring teacher. Simply the prettiest woman to grace a movie screen in years (on a side note: why the heck did she marry Robin Thicke?!)

It’s such a pleasant surprise to see a movie that deals with a classroom, in what seemed like a real way. There have been so many films where an Edward James Almos comes in and turns the gang members around. Or Michelle Pfeiffer, Lou Gosset, Jr. [insert actor here] comes in and used tough talk and karate to shape-up the kids.

This group seemed very realistic. They could be mean some days, and thoughtful and caring the next.

At times, directly Lee Daniels was a bit gimmicky for my tastes. The first fantasy sequence Gabbie did were cute. I’m not sure by the third or fourth, I cared for that technique.

This movie was a modern day Color Purple, that moved from the south to Harlem. And I thought it was better than that critically praised picture.

Steve Spielberg, who did that film, also did Schindler’s List. He did a great job of throwing in some really joyous moments in such a horrible situation. Perhaps Precious could’ve used a few more of those, to help lighten such a dark picture.

But hey – Oprah and Tyler Perry produced this, not Spielberg.

I remember Siskel & Ebert arguing about telemarketers after the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. I wondered if people left this film arguing about the importance of welfare.

Precious is a tough picture to take, but I think it’s a movie experience worth having.

It’s also one of the few movies I can guarantee, nobody will say they liked the book better.

AN EDUCATION

Okay, listen up class! Sit down, we have to get started. We have a lot of ground to cover today. Stop talking and shooting spit balls.

Who wrote “chalk” as my middle name on the blackboard? That’s not funny.

We have a new student, and movie, to introduce you to. She’ll remind you a lot of Audrey Hepburn. And all you boys sitting around her, please refrain from constant talking and note passing.

It turns out Precious isn’t the only movie with a young girls break-out performance.

In An Education, Carey Mulligan plays this 16-year-old perfectly. She isn’t too precocious. She’s also not so naïve.

When we see the much older Peter Sarsgaard drive up and put the moves on her, she’s well aware of what’s going on.

And the audience falls for his lines, too. Maybe it’s just human nature to give someone the benefit of the doubt. After all, she was walking in the pouring rain with an expensive musical instrument. He may have just wanted to help her out.

To me, that’s a great achievement in a film. So often, a movie is made with characters falling for each other and it’s hard for us to figure out why. In this movie, you can clearly see why. That makes it all the more heartbreaking when things happen in the middle of the film that made it hard for me to really have sympathy for anything that happened to anyone in the story. I didn’t buy the rest of it at that point.

I remember seeing a movie called Blue Car about eight years ago. What made that so tough to take was the teacher (the very talented David Strathairn) is so much older, and he seduces the girl in a way that’s very forceful. In this story, both parties seem to be getting what they want out of the relationship.

She gets to go to Paris and buy expensive perfumes, as well as attending concerts that her lower-to-middle class family can’t afford.

That family consists of an actor that’s been a favorite of mine since I saw him in Boogie Nights – Alfred Molina. He’s such a strict father that I found it hard to believe he would be so easily seduced by Sarsgaards charm and various stories.

I think it’s a travesty that Molina didn’t get an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actor. Sure, Waltz deserves to win it for Inglorious; but Molina is better than Matt Damon and Woody Harrelson (who was in the underrated military film The Messenger).

I wonder with Oscar nominations, if it’s the same thing that happens in sports when a player wins the MVP award. Sports shows always debate if it should be the best player in the league, or the player that is the most valuable to his team. Certainly that’s why Stanley Tucci got the nomination in the poorly reviewed Lonely Bones.

The sports comparisons work well with this movie because, Sandra Bullock is going to beat out Mulligan for the Oscar, and Mulligan’s performance is so much better. And, if I wanted to throw in yet another sports reference – a Mulligan in golf means you get a “do over.” After seeing Carey Mulligan in this, and a small part in Brothers…she’s an actress that most directors probably wished they cast in their films the last couple years.

Nick Hornby (High Fidelity, About a Boy) writes some of my favorite fictional pieces, but this screenplay of his was based on a real story from a well-known journalist. I’m guessing this type of story will resonate more with women, many of whom probably have a similar story about being seduced by someone they knew little about.

That hardly makes this a “chick flick” – a phrase I’ve never cared for. I feel a good movie is a good movie, and we don’t need to label them unless we’re stocking the shelves at Blockbuster.

Okay, the review is getting a little long at this point. You can have recess now, play some four square, go to the bathroom…We’ll meet back here in 20 minutes.

Alright class, where were we?

It’s the second movie in the span of a few months that takes place in England in the early 60s (A Single Man being the other). I enjoyed both, even with their flaws.

There won’t be many coming-of-age stories better than this. The way Mulligan grows past her peers, but never gets arrogant about things, is a joy to watch. Even when she gets snotty with a teacher who seems to be stuck in a dead-end job, you can see where she’s coming from.

I heard a critic on TV mention the statutory rape aspect of the movie, and I’m not so sure that is something worth mentioning in a movie like this. It’s not the way it was in the previously mentioned Blue Car. And heck, many peoples favorite movie is Harold & Maude. Did anyone mention statutory rape or child molestation in those reviews?

As I said, the teenager in this film knows what she’s doing. She even enters into a sexual relationship with Sarsgaard on her terms, not his. Sure, he might be tweaking the heart strings a bit, but doesn’t every man do that?

One thing I do wonder about the age difference. So many folks in Hollywood seem to not hold Woody Allen or Roman Polanski accountable for their transgressions (thanks for that word, Tiger). Would they watch this movie and think Sarsgaard did anything wrong? I also wonder if a film like this would be a good educational tool for anyone with a teenage girl that wants to date an older guy. It would surely pack a harder punch than a kid that’s used to her dad putting the kibosh on everything.

This film was beautifully shot, and has such engrossing performances. It makes it that much harder when the “character logic” as I call it, doesn’t always follow as it should. That doesn’t just go for her dad, but her. There’s a scene where she watches her lover and his friend steal a painting, and she leaves him. Well, that lasted about two minutes (literally). At that point in the movie, is anyone going to have sympathy for her if something horrible happens later?

We only have a few minutes until the bell rings, class. So I’ll just ask you if, after watching this movie, you think it would be more productive to further your education at Oxford. Or, would it be better to just marry someone that has a lot of money?

You might think your dad would say one thing, but hey…you’re saving him a fortune on tuition.

Class dismissed!

LEAP YEAR

I read an interview with Warren Beatty 15 years ago and he tried to explain Ishtar. He said the script had a few laughs, and he figured it was a sloppy comedy that would work well enough once they started filming.

If a filmmaker as talented as him can’t spot such a clunker while reading a script, I often find it hard to knock other actors that can’t.

But when filming started, the talented Amy Adams (who was so great in Sunshine Cleaning) and Mathew Goode (who isn’t living up to his last name, after doing the bad period piece Brideshead Revisited and now this)…should have been able to tell this material wasn’t working.

A car rolling back into a lake; an unexpected downpour while they admire a castle; the usual cliché of only one bed being available and the guy being forced to sleep in the shower. I could go on with the goofy stuff that filled this unfunny “rom-com,” as these movies are now called. I’d like to call them “lob-com”, since they are comedies you’ll only find humorous if you’ve had a lobotomy.

I believe multiple screenwriters worked on this movie. It’s hard to believe that not one of them could punch some life into it.

Things start off well, with John Lithgow as the wacky dad. It was his only scene.

And about 30 minutes into the film, I laughed at a scene that had Goode walking in on Adams as she was changing clothes. Her reaction was priceless.

Aside from those two scenes, nothing else in this movie worked. Oh wait…the Irish countryside was beautiful. The castles were nice to look at (although when Adams stands on the edge of a cliff, you are almost rooting for her to jump, I sure wished I could’ve at that point). If I want to look at the green, scenic landscape of Ireland, I’ll fish around for that postcard someone sent me years ago.

And really, I could watch Amy Adams read the phone book. I just can’t watch her in dreck like this.

I’ve heard actresses complain that no good characters are out there for women. Well, how about actresses boycott films that write the female lead as if she doesn’t have an IQ above her shoe size?

I really don’t expect romantic comedies to break new ground, but it doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to make an entertaining one that works.

Leap Year comes around every four years. And that’s about the rate a good rom-com does, too.

THE HURT LOCKER

This may be one of the most overrated movies of the year. That doesn’t mean I didn’t like it. I did. I just don’t think it lives up to the hype.

I went into it dreading yet another war movie. I remember seeing Platoon my senior year of high school and wondering – how many Vietnam movies will they continue to make? And how many movies will continue to borrow from Apocalypse Now (Platoon borrowed in one of the weirdest ways – instead of Martin Sheen narrating, it was his son Charlie).

Casting the unknown Jeremy Renner in Hurt Locker was a good move. He doesn’t bring a lot of baggage to the role as a man that defuses bombs in Baghdad. Speaking of baggage, he often considers his protective gear to be baggage, and recklessly takes it off before going to work (and I’m not sure why he doesn’t like utilizing those robots they have).

I never really figured out why that was, either. I certainly can understand how he gets antsy when he’s at home with his wife, instead of enjoying her company; and enjoying the fact that he’s not being shot at or bombed.

As much as I liked the casting of actors I wasn’t familiar with in key roles, it was a bit distracting to have a scene with the people like Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes. But hey, if I could get them into my movie, I’d probably jump on that, too.

Director Kathryn Bigelow has done some disappointing films, and I’m happy this one works. It’s so bizarre to think that she’s going against her ex-husband (James Cameron) in the Best Director category.

I can’t believe Cameron does a film this year that is the biggest money maker of all-time. He got the most Oscar nominations, and he’s going against a woman that he used to be married to. Maybe he really is “king of the world”. I’m rooting for Bigelow to become the first female to win the award.

The movie was nominated for just as many Oscars as Avatar, but I’m guessing it won’t win as many. Renner would probably have an easier time actually trying to figure out how to defuse a real bomb than how to upset Jeff Bridges.

The Hurt Locker employs a lot of interesting techniques. The hand-held cameras, which I thought took so much away from NYPD Blue, are used perfectly in this. They add a gritty element that amplifies this intense war picture.

The countdown of the 38 days Renner will be in Baghdad adds a nice touch of suspense, and a very interesting scene at the end of the film.

Since I’ve heard that Bigelow talked a lot with Cameron about this movie while it was being made, I wonder why he didn’t suggest any of the technical wizardry he’s so fascinated with; not 3D bomb debris coming at the audience, but perhaps seats that would shake when a bomb explodes (I believe they’re testing one in the Hazard Center Ultra-Star).

And on the subject of bombs exploding, what great facial expressions Renner has as he’s working on them. I kept thinking he’d grab a walkie-talkie and tell someone in his unit “I’ve learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.”

He did love his bombs. Or maybe he’s just a guy that does his job well, and it merely appears he’s cocky and loving every second of it. By the end, you’ll have an answer to that question, but the many layers he brings to this character are fascinating. And the fact that this is also a character study and not just a war picture, made me enjoy it more.

It’s also a war movie that deals with a job people do other than shooting guns. The last war movie that comes to mind that did that was Gardens of Stone, from the 80s.

I was really disappointed in the third act, and surprised that most people didn’t have a problem with the direction they went with the story.

The movie is gripping and intense, but for those critics saying it’s one of the best war movies ever…well, it’s not even the best war movie this year. That would be The Messenger.

I think everyone will enjoy the fact that nobody is trying to push an anti-war or pro-military message on you. It’s just a movie about some intense individuals and what they do for a living.

It’s still in some theatres. If you haven’t seen it, get there soon.

UP

A few weeks back, I caught TV icon Ed Asner in a one-man show called FDR at the Poway Center for the Performing Arts. I’m not usually a big fan of these types of performances. I think I fell asleep in the Mark Twain piece that Hal Holbrook did.

Since I didn’t know a lot about FDR (I also fell asleep in some classes in high school), it was interesting to learn about the White House during the Depression and World War II. And, everyone knows about his famous fireside chats, but I had no clue he was involved in an affair.

Clinton had Lewinsky – Roosevelt had Lucy. And, he was a four term President.

Ed Asner did a few movies last year and it seems he’s everywhere.

With this being the month of the Oscars, I thought it would be a good time to talk about UP, which will win the Best Animated Oscar, and it surprised a few people by getting nominated for Best Picture as well. Although with 10 movies nominated, unless it was Hellraiser 6 that got nominated, nobody should be surprised; especially since Up was arguably the best movie of the year. I’m saying that as someone that doesn’t give a ratatouille about animated films.

I never saw Wall-E, Monsters Inc, Cars, and so many others that people praise. I remember being disappointed by Shrek and at that point, not rushing out to see animated films that all do the same thing. They pander to the audience, with childish bathroom humor and celebrity voices. There are often inside jokes designed for adults that don’t work.

When it comes to Pixar though, I’m beginning to think these guys can do no wrong.

This is the most emotional I’ve ever been watching an animated film (although I was a kid when I saw Bambi and Dumbo).

When I caught it at the Reading Cinema on Carmel Mountain, I had just missed the 3D showing. But even the regular version was fantastic. It’s out now on DVD, and it made for a great birthday present for the girlfriend. It’s the gift that the giver gets to enjoy as well.

Christopher Plummer, who was so good in The Last Station, plays an adventurer/aviator that’s a Howard Hughes type. He’s the only celebrity voice I recognized.

I had no clue who the boy was that played the Cub Scout character, but he was great. Your heart breaks when he tells the grumpy Asner about his dad living with his new girlfriend.

And instead of talking dogs that are voiced by famous actors, the humor and fun lies with what they are saying. All of us dog owners could’ve guessed that “squirrel!!” would’ve been 80% of their vocabulary, but it’s so much fun watching them shout it and stop in their tracks.

I still can’t wrap my mind around the fact that after the first five minutes of this movie, I was balling my eyes out. It’s a montage done without dialogue, that lets us see this old couples life together.

I’m guessing this part of the movie is what saddled it with a PG rating, which is really a shame. It may deal with a death, and even a miscarriage (one of my friends didn’t even realize it was a miscarriage, so I’m guessing children wouldn’t catch that, either).

I once argued with a psychiatrist I played basketball with, because he wasn’t letting his kids see The Lion King when it came out. The children were around 5, and he thought with the death of the father lion, it wasn’t appropriate. I thought that was odd, because often times when things are well done like this, it becomes a great educational tool for children. But hey…he’s the one with certificates written in Latin dangling from his office wall.

In Up, when the cranky codger flips the proverbial finger to the big business that takes over the land his house is on -- and it flies up, up and away on a beautiful balloon…err…thousands of balloons -- your heart will soar with him. We had already seen an intro that has us siding with why an old guy would be so stubborn about leaving his house, possessions, and other things that remind him of his wife/life – to go live in a retirement home.

I did wonder why the balloons looked more like gumballs. I also wondered why I loved the vibrant colors so much, yet I’ve had eye doctors tell me I’m colorblind.

But I digress.

And just when you think the beautiful balloons can’t be topped, we see the breath taking South American landscape that the house soars over (note to self: find out of an animated picture can be nominated for Best Cinematography).

I didn’t care so much for the third act, which had dogs involved in a “dog fight” high above the clouds, but I’m sure those action scenes kept the kids happy.

I’m guessing “Up” is the shortest titled film to ever been nominated for an Oscar. And, with it going against “Up in the Air,” they become the only pictures to be nominated that start with the same word (excluding “the” and “a”).

There’s no way it will win Best Picture, but I bet it’s the only movie nominated in that category that everyone agrees was excellent. All the other pictures got mixed reviews and lots of debating (just check out the Avatar posts on this website).

It just goes to show that with compelling characters and great storytelling, animated pictures can truly be a great experience for the entire family.

OSCAR NOMINATED SHORTS

The last few years, I always told myself I’d do this, and I never did. This year I got my lazy butt off the couch and made it down to the Ken on Adams Avenue to see the Oscar nominated short films. My friends all stayed for the animated shorts that followed, but after a few disappointing evenings at Spike and Mike’s thing in La Jolla, I don’t usually give those shorts a chance.

The first thing I wondered was why when there were only 10 people in the theatre, did people that show up late have to sit directly behind me? Sure, we were in the middle -- the prime seats -- but still. You have an entire theatre of empty seats to choose from.

And then I have to listen to them talk for five minutes. That is made all the worse by the fact that I don’t know if it’s appropriate to tell them to be quiet. You see, the first film was from India and had sub-titles. They could very easily tell me there’s nothing to “hear” so talking shouldn’t be a bother.

When they finally stopped talking, I had to listen to five minutes of trying to open a box of Red Vines. So, about 2/3 of this 18 minute short were ruined.

It’s weird, because Kavi was a powerful little film about labor camps that was filmed well. I just lost interest after about seven minutes (not because of the noise distractions). Most of the audience seemed to enjoy this short the most. I liked it least.

Sure, it’s heartbreaking watching a boy haul bricks around and wishing he was playing cricket with the other kids. I just felt like I was watching a PSA (especially with the message at the end telling us about slavery and labor camps).

Instead of Abracadabra would’ve been a lot better, if the amateur magician didn’t make me think of Napoleon Dynamite. And at a film festival last year, I saw a movie about a drummer that played “air drums.” He was also a Napoleon. Come on, people! Let’s be a little more creative with how you make the nerds look. They don’t just need bad hair and bad glasses.

This picture comes from Sweden and casts Saga Gärde as the blonde neighbor that’s a nurse and moves in next door (that sounds like the start of a completely different kind of movie). She has blue eyes that Judy Collins would be envious of.

It’s so strange that the magicians parents (who bug him to get a ”real” job), let him perform magic at the dads 60th birthday. He accidentally stabbed his mom attempting one of his tricks just days earlier (I don’t usually give away such plot points in my reviews, but I know realistically, most people aren’t going to go out and see the shorts).

The ending of the movie – when the blonde finally starts to come around – has perhaps the funniest conclusion you’ll see in a movie all year.

The New Tenants, a film from Denmark, was what My Dinner With Andre would’ve been if written by Quinten Tarantino instead of Wallace Shawn. My friend that loved Kavi, hated this, but I enjoyed it.

When a gay couple is having dinner and one character is being annoying and talking non-stop, I love the fact that we can see why his lover wants him to shut up. And why he would be with a person this interesting.

The cast of characters that show up at the door keep getting stranger and stranger. Vincent D’Onofrio plays a heavy that is more intimidating than the one he played in Full Metal Jacket. And listening to him accuse one of these guys of sleeping with his wife, before balling his eyes out and telling them all the problems with his marriage, is priceless.

Kevin Corrigan, who seems to pop up in a lot of indie movies (I loved him in Big Fan from last year), plays a twitchy drug dealer perfectly. When he asks these new tenants if they found heroin he had stashed there, and he notices they look at each other (they gave it to an old lady that showed up earlier asking to borrow flour), it’s interesting that a guy so out of it, notices the way they looked at each other and starts interrogating them even harder. He seemed to channel his inner Christopher Walken.

Over the years, we’ve been used to so many TV shows giving us lame dialogue between roommates. The one here in which two guys debate whether or not to eat the potato chips that belonged to the former tenant that’s now dead (”Why would you eat a dead guys chips? You don’t know where they’ve been”), would probably be a great topic of discussion over a bowl of Doritos at the next Super Bowl party.

Australia gave us Miracle Fish. This is a film that I wished was shorter (something that never sounds like a ringing endorsement when you’re talking about ”shorts”). You never really feel the sympathy you should for a little boy that’s picked on in school (he reminds me of the boy in Kramer vs Kramer and The Shining).

When he wakes up in the nurses office to find everyone in school gone, and a book on a desk about ”alien abductions” you start to wonder. When you see a few bloody hand prints, you’re really on the edge of your seat.

It turns out, someone has gone insane and shot up the school. The boy finds this out when he answers a cell phone, and the conversation between him and the killer that walks in, is very powerful stuff. Even more so in this day and age with so many school shootings.

I usually win the Oscar pools I’m in, but this is a category I have no clue on. I’m guessing the liberal Academy voters will lean towards Kavi.

But the well-known actors and top-notch script of The New Tenants might bring in the gold statue.

SHE’S OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE

As the lights were dimmed in the theatre, I couldn’t believe I was actually going to a showing of She’s Out of My League. It just looked like another awful teen comedy (opening this weekend at theatres everywhere).

Early on I realized this wasn’t just another teen comedy. Just as Adventureland surprised me last year, this was also written in a clever way, with its heart in the right place.

The Academy Awards did a loving tribute to John Hughes, the godfather of the teen comedy. This is a movie that has him smiling in his grave.

Early on, we see that usual cliché movie character – the boss that is an incompetent jerk. To pull off that type of character believably, it has to be done the way Lumbergh was in Office Space; although, that’s considered one of the best comedies ever made.

So I gave it a pass when the boss sexually harassed a female airline passenger, and appeared to be a guy that wouldn’t have had his job more than a week.

I immediately liked the cast of characters all assembled to play the co-workers and friends of the nerdy Jay Baruchel. Again, bringing up John Hughes name – Baruchel reminded me of Duckie from Pretty in Pink. The big difference being that Duckie had some humor and hipness (remember him lip-synching Otis Redding?). I think Baruchel’s character should’ve been given a few more witty lines, to show us just how someone that’s a 5 might’ve gotten a 10 to stay interested in him.

The scene that shows the friends discussing where each of them was on that 1 to 10 scale, along with the things that lower or higher your number, was hysterical. That single scene was funnier than anything in He’s Just Not That Into You.

I think these teen comedies really need to give a rest to the scenes of guys preparing for their dates with a Norelco (and not shaving their face). It’s become tired joke.

Another scene involving an excitable boy (Warren Zevon reference intended) and a dog, gets even grosser than the hair gel scene in There’s Something About Mary.

Alice Eve, a British actress who looks like a prettier Reese Witherspoon, is perfectly cast as the love interest. And her character is written perfectly. There’s not an ounce of attitude in her, which really is needed for her to be believable, and more importantly – likable to the audience.

As is the case with these teen comedies, you’re going to have the cast rounded out with the cliché characters – the crazy ex-girlfriend, dim-witted parents, idiotic brothers, and a crappy car to drive around in. You’ll think one of them is exactly like Zooey Deschanel from a few films, another is like a Jason Lee/Napoleon Dynamite hybrid who thinks he knows everything, and has a few deep, dark secrets of his own (but boy does he rock out in his Hall & Oates tribute band).

The reason this all works, is because it’s clever with those characters. An older brother does a Chris Tucker impression that’s bizarre. Another punches Baruchel and insists they play a hockey game in the basement. They all make fun of him every chance they get.

The final scene in the airport goes downhill fast, and it had me wishing O.J. Simpson would join in the wild chase (that’s the second reference only older folks will get).

But by the end of the film, it’s like a flight you were pleasantly surprised on. There were no crying babies, the meal wasn’t half-bad, no fat guy sat in the seat next to you, and the in-flight film didn’t star Ashton Kutcher.

There were enough scenes, like the gang sitting on a moving luggage carousel discussing the meaning of life, that remind you what a good, intelligent teen comedy can be.

On a teen movie grading curve, this gets a B-.

GHOST WRITER

I remember hearing an interview with actress Heather Graham and she was talking about a film she was doing with Burt Reynolds, in which she played a character called “Rollergirl” that never takes her skates off. Along with the interviewer, I felt the movie would bomb. Perhaps go immediately to DVD or cable.

It became Boogie Nights, one of the best films of that year.

Yet, if you told me a movie was being made where Timothy Hutton works for a publishing company, and the boss is a big, bald Jim Belushi; and Kim Cattrall plays a secretary having an affair with a former James Bond -- Pierce Brosnan -- as the Prime Minister…I’d guess it was a comedy. And probably a bad one.

But these are the people Roman Polanski got for his latest (and possibly last) movie, Ghost Writer.

There’s also the legendary Eli Wallach, who has a great small role. And one of the best actors working today – Tom Wilkinson. Nobody can play suspicious as well as him.

Olivia Williams is excellent as Brosnon’s wife, who watches him flaunt his affairs right in front of her (and she isn’t shy about commenting on that in front of others).

It’s a bit distracting early on in the movie when there’s talk of Brosnan being charged with crimes and how if he stayed in America, he wouldn’t get extradited. How could you not think about Roman Polanski, who co-wrote and directed this, and all his legal problems?

Sticking to Polanski and his filmmaking, he’s real hit and miss. He’s probably praised as much as he is because when he hits, you get movies like Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist. Now, Chinatown may be on the top of my list of best detective/noir films, but Polanski’s Frantic (Harrison Ford) is on my list as one of the worst movies ever made.

Ghost Writer is a mature, taut thriller that delves into one mans paranoia. But unlike The Conversation (which is highly overrated), this film never bores you. It’s one of the best movies of the year.

Polanski channeled Hitchcock in so many scenes (a comparison I was reluctant to make, since I recently mentioned Hitchcock in my review of Shutter Island). There’s a scene near the end, as the camera pans the crowd as a note is passed to a speaker, that dazzles.

Another scene has a wide shot of a car coming around a corner, and you’re sure a huge SUV will come up behind it to run McGregor off the road (no spoiler alert, since that never happened; it was more like O.J. Simpson’s slow speed chase).

When police are interrogated the main witness of a crime, there’s no good cop/bad cop stuff. The protagonist doesn’t smart off to the police with a smug smile. The police don’t make veiled threats. It all seems so realistic and right.

Well, that is if you get by a few of the minor flaws. Okay, one being not so minor, but I can’t get into that with out giving away a major plot point.

This was a great role for McGregor to take, and I like the fact that he plays someone that’s a drinker and womanizer, but it’s only vaguely alluded to. And when he finds certain things out, he seems to start to care about people other than himself. But like I said…this is an adult thriller, and his character traits are subtle. I could be wrong on a few of the impressions I had on him.

And just as I liked the two different love scenes in The History of Violence because they were different, the one in this is the same way. It’s not cheesy Notebook music playing, while a Burt Lancaster type kisses the woman in the waves of a beach. It’s a woman who’s come in from the rain, wants dry clothes, ends up in McGregor’s bed…and they both lay there for 10 seconds looking up at the ceiling, before she finally has to jump on him for anything to start.

Some might be distracted by the fact that Brosnans character is so much like Tony Blair, or that the Vice President looks so much like Condoleezza Rice. And when you’re dealing with war crimes involving torture of terrorist subjects…now we’re really thinking Bush. But hey…I was able to quickly get over the fact that a rapist that hasn’t been brought to justice -- made this movie I enjoyed immensely.

THE YELLOW HANDKERCHIEF

I hated the title The Yellow Handkerchief at first, because I confused the title with White Ribbon, and was calling it The Yellow Ribbon. Then the Red trilogy popped up at the Ken and really confused me.

After seeing the movie, I hated the title because it gave away a key scene near the end of the film. Had it been called The Yellow Sail, it would’ve gotten the same point across without giving anything away.

The movie stars Kristen Stewart, who really means nothing to me, as I haven’t seen any of the Twilight films. It was interesting to find out that this movie was made before any of those movies, back in 2007. I’m not sure why it’s just now being released.

The movie also has William Hurt, which is a name I always thought was perfect for him. He always seems to be reading his lines as if it pains him. On this character, a grizzled ex-con, it works (just as his look and acting fit perfectly in the underrated Dark City).

In my mind, I broke into the Donovan song Mellow Yellow when I saw the opening credits.

“They call her Maria Bello…”

She continues to dazzle, playing yet another interesting female love interest (Remember those love scenes with Viggo in The History of Violence? One involved a cheerleading outfit, another involved the stairs).

This is a small, light-weight picture that is both a road trip (without the usual over-the-top wackiness of road pictures) and a chick flick (perhaps the only one ever made where women won’t fall for the male characters).

I enjoyed how the movie shows us little things in flashback, that have us guessing what Hurt may have done his prison time for. It really makes it hard to warm up to him, even if he is great with his new, young traveling companions.

One of those travelers is the kid with the car, a British actor named Eddie Redmayne, who plays a spaz better than any I’ve seen in a long while. He annoys you when he should, and he grows on you later in the movie – as he should. This kid (well, he plays 16…he’s 27 in real life) is going to have a great career ahead of him.

Stewart, as the woman of his affection (there are a few different love stories working here, a move that always seems to work well in films), plays the angry teen just perfectly; although, it was a bit distracting to see a trailer for the movie The Runaways right before this started (Stewart is playing Joan Jett in that).

I guess you can complain the movie is predictable, but if you’ve seen more than 25 movies in your life, what film isn’t? Did anyone not know who would win the battle in Avatar?

This is a character study that shows the back-roads of Louisiana after Katrina, in an interesting, and slowly paced way that gives you time to enjoy it and soak it all in.

Sure, there are times that “not a lot is happening.”
There are two different fight scenes, and a total of one punch is thrown.

How a movie gets made that has this little written dialogue in the script, is beyond me. I’m just glad it was.

And, had three other actors been in these parts, I’m guessing this lightweight material would’ve been relegated to Lifetime as a TV movie of the week.

If I carried a hanky, I would’ve been balling into it at the end, when we see the yellow handkerchief. I’m guessing most people will be moved by this.

It gets a B+.

A PROPHET

People have asked me how many movies I’ve walked out of. I tell them of the three. There was a Mel Brooks “comedy” called Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Boys on the Side (which wanted to be Thelma & Louise so bad, it even borrowed many aspects of the script); and there was a Tyler Perry movie that I only got 10 minutes into before walking out, and into an Adam Sandler movie that wasn’t much better.

I almost had my fourth movie walk-out. It was A Prophet, which got nominated in the best foreign film category at the Oscars.

The first half hour was excellent. We’re introduced to Malik, a shy young prisoner that moved from juvi to jail, to finish his last six years. This takes place in France, but it has the same stuff going on that American prison movies have -- prisoners throwing things to others attached to string, showers with fight scenes (and propositions), prison guards that can’t be trusted, etc.

Things start out interesting enough, especially with actor Niels Arestrup, who acts like Brando’s Godfather character (and looks like him, if you slapped on a white beard and added 15 years…more like Brando in The Freshman).

It doesn’t take the kid long to learn that he has to do what Niels says. And a scene with him murdering his first victim, is done splendidly. We see him rehearsing his technique, with a razor blade hidden in his mouth. And doing it so clumsily during practice, often leads to a mouth full of blood. When the hit actually takes place, it’s one of the most graphic scenes you’ll probably ever see on film. And let’s just say, practice doesn’t always make perfect.

These graphic scenes made me think of Bronson. Not Charles Bronson the actor, but the British prisoner, whom a bio-pic was made about last year. It didn’t get a lot of attention, but was far superior to this.

As the naïve Malik rises through the ranks, everyone watching the film will think of the same movies; a little Goodfellas here, Godfather there, and lots and lots of Scarface.

Cool Hand Luke is probably a prison film most won’t think of when making comparisons with A Prophet, but since that deals with a guy that went to prison for something minor, and things get major really quickly, I thought about it. Heck, I wished I had just stayed home and rented it instead.

Most critics dismissed Scarface as over-the-top fluff. Yet, A Prophet is getting praised, and I’m not sure why. The Oscar nomination wasn’t warranted, and I’m not sure how this won the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes. About half way through, I stopped caring for Malik and what he was doing and whether he’d be successful in his quest to move up in the ranks.

The premise of watching this guy turn into a thug, yet he still possess an innocence and a quest to learn -- not just in the crime world, but in the jails classrooms -- can be interesting at times. It wasn’t as clever as the filmmakers thought, having Malik learn the word “canard,” though.

There were a few things I didn’t understand. Was Malik a prophet, seeing visions of his first victim and a few things that happen in the future? And who was who in the SUV that was about to get shot up?

It’s a shame, because when that SUV is followed, lots of interesting things happen (like the characters not anticipating their victims might never get out of the car, but have delivery people approach the window).

The shoot-out that eventually happens, could’ve been great; but like other things in this movie that are done well, we’ve seen it all before (Malik not being able to hear because of guns being fired in the SUV at close range, well…that was done in The Fugative and Copland).

Of the 25 people in the theatre with me, two different couples left before it ended. And during the movie, I’ve never seen more cell phones turn on. I’m guessing, like I did, it was to see what time it was. At one point, I guessed we were almost three hours into it, and it was only an hour and a half of the two hour, 30 minute film.

I did like the songs used in the movie. We got Mack the Knife, Bridging the Gap (a rap that samples Muddy Waters nicely), and Turner Cody’s Corner of my Room. I would’ve preferred watching a video of this song than the movie. Some of the lyrics:

The lyrics are:

Now join me in the Rubicon and paddle me to FranceThe nectarine is sweeter there and we ain't got a chance 'Round hereI'm counting Lincolns And living in the corner of my roomI'm looking at the goddess of the hunt And staring at the moonMy friend's ain't got no lovin' and the babies ain't got teatsThe women are all busy gettin' smart out on the streetsThere’s a point about ¾ of the way into the movie where the words “40 days/40 nights” show up on the screen. That’s how long Malik is sent to solitary confinement. I felt like it was me that was sent to the hole. I was hoping the next words I saw on the screen where the closing credits.

The writer/director Jacques Audiard has been getting a lot of attention lately, and with this being his most praised movie, I just don’t see it.

I give the film a D+, and all the critics that praised it, a middle finger.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small.
This one from Tim Burton, well…
Asleep you will fall.

After an okay intro, and a fall into the rabbit hole, things go downhill fast. In the classic story that once reminded me of an English tea party that someone slipped something funny into your drink…this version reminds me more of someone slipping ecstasy into your drink at a rave.

And why in the world call the movie Alice in Wonderland if you’re doing a completely different thing with the characters? Maybe call it “The Rabbit Hole,” and you won’t offend the diehards that feel Burton was spitting on the source material. This movie looked more like Lord of the Rings than Alice in Wonderland.

When Johnny Depp and Burton remade Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I wondered why they remade a film that still holds up. And with those two teaming up yet again, I’m wondering if it’s maybe time for them to take a break.

Depp can certainly find other directors that will give him quirky things to do.

Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as the Red Queen, and is one of the few comedic things in the film. We chuckle as she uses animals as furniture (not in the way Ted Nugent does); and laugh when she gets angry at someone in her court and shouts “Off with their head!” It gets funnier each time she yells it.

Strangely, it’s the only funny thing I remember from the film.

Even Tweedledee and Tweedledum, who look funny with their bulbous heads, aren’t given anything witty to say.

Burton spent $150 million to make this. Why not give a few hundred thousand to a comedic screenwriter that could’ve punched it up?

It pains me to know he spent that kind of money, when I recently read a story about filmmaker P.T. Anderson not getting $25 million from the studio to make his latest movie (about a cult leader played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman). What is wrong with the film industry?

In an effort to give full disclosure, I fell asleep for 15 minutes in the middle of this, so I may have missed something. I’m guessing I didn’t.

In the 80s, if you wanted a crazy actor to play the Mad Hatter, a good choice might’ve been Crispin Glover. I haven’t seen him in a film in years, and he plays it straight as a character named Stayne, who is the Red Queen’s right hand man (with benefits).

As with all Tim Burton films, there are some amazing visuals, but so what. Maybe I didn’t appreciate the 3D, because many elements are similar to the planet of Pandora that we just saw in Avatar (I understand a few of the same filmmakers were used).

I’m really not sure who this movie is geared towards. The 3D lovers are going to be disappointed. It’s certainly not for little kids (it’s rated PG and on the violent side). Teens and adults will probably be bored.

Burton got his start with the Pee Wee Herman movie. And Pee Wee is making a comeback and doing some live shows. Maybe Burton can hook up with him and do another fun Playhouse film, and let Depp get back to giving us interesting, serious characters.

At the theatres in Fashion Valley, I smelled people smoking pot. Maybe that’s what I needed to do to enjoy this movie.

If you’re going, skip the Goobers and bring a hookah.

I give this movie a D (for those that see it sober).

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE

Hot Tub Time Machine is in the running for the worst four-word movie title in history. It’s up against Snakes on a Plane, and Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (Or does that count as seven words? Oh, and RIP Robert Culp).

At least with a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, you don’t have that moment standing in front of the movie poster wondering what it’s about. It’s right there in the title. And with that R rating right there in the corner, you know it will be raunchy.

It’s strange that John Cusack would produce and star in a movie like this. You have to think he heard the title, and thought he was going to be forced to hold up a boom box like he did in Say Anything.

Instead of the great 80s songs by people like Peter Gabriel and U2, we hear a lot of Motley Crue and Poison. And I have to admit, those bands work wonderfully in this film; especially the Motley Crue video during the closing credits, which rivals the hilarity of the closing in The Hangover.

It’s strange that critics all think The Hangover was a better film. Am I the only person that was a bit disappointed by Hangover? Will I lose credibility admitting I laughed out loud at least 10 times in Hot Tub? And it’s not because this movie deals with guys traveling back to when it was my senior year in high school – 1986.

When things started off with jokes about a time when Michael Jackson was “still black” and Jheri Curl, legwarmers, and “Relax” T-shirts were in…I didn’t think things looked promising.

When the hot tub shined with a golden hue…I figured it could be yet another bodily function joke (the movie had about four too many). The guys were all drinking in the hot tub. Or, it could be like the mysterious gold shine in the suit case of Pulp Fiction.

I was thinking they should grab Chevy Chase, who plays the wily hot tub repairman, and bring him back to the 80s – A time when he was actually funny!

Another 80s actor popped up -- Crispin Glover, who I just saw in Alice in Wonderland. He pops up as the one-armed bellhop. It’s brilliant casting, since he not only played in an 80s time travel movie (Back to the Future), but his facial expressions when he comes close to having his arm lopped off, are priceless. Those scenes will have the entire theatre laughing with the dark, sadistic anticipation Rob Corddry had.

And how has Corddry become such a brilliant comedic actor? Sure, he was always a treat on The Daily Show, but he flat out steals this movie. Not an easy feat when you have the comedic talent of Craig Robinson, who is always great as the straight man (I’m happy to see him getting a bigger role in The Office).

John Cusack is good, but I have to say, I’m getting tired of critics praising him and George Clooney in everything they do. They play the same character every time.

I heard a scientist in an interview 20 years ago talking about how every time travel movie has flaws. Ya think? But in a crazy comedy like this, you let a lot of that stuff go. I was more impressed that they addressed one of my movie pet peeves. It’s when you have a group of friends, and one is a jerk. I always wonder why the other guys would hang around the person. This movie addresses that and even the fact that because of the characters attitude, they don’t hang around with him as much as they used to.

Listen…there are going to be critics saying this is one of those raunchy movies like Porky’s, and they’ll dismiss it. Other critics are going to use the latest catchphrase (“bromantic road trip”). They’ll compare it to The Hangover, which is fair. After all, they are four guys, with one nerd, going out of town. All of whom seem to have problems with the women in their lives. And doing things they aren’t going to tell their wives about (and debating whether it’s cheating if it’s 1986 and not 2010).

Ignore those critics. If the name of the movie piqued your interest, you’ll love it. If you were a tad reluctant, you’ll be surprised you love it. If you think guys going back in time, sleeping with women, losing fights to James Spader look alikes, and doing disgusting gags isn’t your thing…well, it’s not mine either. That’s why it baffles me to recommend this movie.

And not because I sat there saying “That’s what I’d do. I’d bet on sports events.”

The simple fact is, this movie is a crazy comedy. They throw everything out there, and most of it works. Even a scene that I thought was so disgusting and over the top, ended up not being as gross when you see the punchline.

There’s the best cameo by a marmot since Flea dropped a ferret in the bathtub with Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski.

See this movie. I give it a B on the raunchy road-trip film scale.

AJAMI

This is one of those rare reviews I’m writing at a time when I’m not sure if the movie will still be in any San Diego theatres. If that’s the case, you can consider this a warning on a rental or Netflix you might have wasted a pick on.

Ajami was Israel’s entry into the Best Foreign Film category at the Oscar’s. There was a lot of buzz regarding this movie. Heck, it was getting 95% on Rotten Tomatoes.

So it was with anticipation that I caught it at the La Jolla Landmark. Boy was I disappointed.

It was interesting seeing the ghettos of Israel. Graffiti on walls – check. Drugs passed threw a hole in the wall – check. Innocent kid working on his jalopy shot dead – check (no spoiler alert needed there, it’s the opening scene).

And most of this I liked more than Fallen or Crash. It’s one of the few times I’ve seen a movie that was sub-titled and felt that because of that, I missed a few things.

It got to the point where I was so confused about what was going on. And I don’t get confused easy. When I saw Memento, I was explaining things to a few of my friends that were lost. I didn’t realize they were jumping back and forth in the story until late in the movie. The few scenes near the end that they did that were really interesting. You got a completely different perspective, and saw how easily it is to jump to one conclusion based on only seeing a few things that happened. There just comes a point where you’re overloaded with stuff.

The love story was easy enough to follow. Parents that want their kids marrying someone practicing of the same religion. The story of an illegal worker in a restaurant, trying to raise money for his moms operation, made sense. The stories involving drug deals got confusing.

The most interesting story starts the movie off – a shooting based on revenge, that becomes a domino effect with more and more revenge being sought.

Watching Arabs, Muslims, and Christians all trying to deal with their own bigotry, was interesting. When a father is trying to comfort his crying daughter, who is forbidden to see a suitor that isn’t Christian – is done perfectly. The father isn’t just screaming at his daughter. He’s also trying to make her feel better.

And just when you think he might regret his decision towards the man working for him and courting his daughter – he pulls a move that’s awful.

There were times I couldn’t tell the good guys from the bad, and other times that those characters switched, based on us knowing the whole story. And it was these elements that were interesting, and made me want to like this movie more. I was watching peoples lives in Tel Aviv that I’ll never even come close to dealing with.

By the time it was all over, I was worn out.

It’s a movie you don’t have to fret over missing.

On the foreign film scale, it gets a C-.

PRODIGAL SONS

I can’t recall the last time a documentary came out that didn’t get raved reviews. Critics love to praise them.

Prodigal Sons is getting raved reviews (last I checked, it was at 90% on Rotten Tomatoes).

I usually go into documentaries kicking and screaming, and leave praising them. I can’t do that with this movie.

It was interesting enough. And I didn’t feel like I wasted an afternoon watching it. I just think it could’ve been so much better and so much more interesting. This felt like a Dateline I could’ve watched on TV.

The story involves three sons. One of them an architect here in San Diego, who is gay.

The other, who made the film, was the basketball hero and high school quarterback of his Montana school. It starts with him going back to his 20 year high school reunion – as a woman. The surgery is complete, and he went from being the good looking blonde valedictorian, to being an attractive middle-aged woman that you would never be able to tell was a man. He was voted “most likely to succeed”…and when I heard that, I immediately thought of those games they play at reunions. I would’ve liked to have seen them give out those awards, and have her win for “who has changed the most?”

Oh, and there’s Marc. He’s not just the third brother, he’s the one the movie ends up being about.

He was in a car accident when he was 21, which left him with a surgery that removed part of his brain. It makes him hard to deal with. And a lot in the film leads us to believe that he was probably difficult before the car crash.

He was adopted, and during his search for his real mom, finds out she was the only daughter of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth. He sees her for the first time at the funeral, in her casket (this wasn’t shown in the film, merely told to the audience).

With that type of news, and these types of stories…the viewer should’ve been more enthralled.

There was such a build-up for Kimberly attending her reunion, and we find out what a lot of people would probably find out when they expect society to just hate them for being fat, a different color, or gay – that most people really don’t care.

Sure, there was one woman that was tipsy, and tried to figure the whole thing out. She actually had a legitimate question. If Kimberly (who showed up with her female lover) liked women, why have a sex change?

Other times, Kimberly was so sure that everyone pointed and stared. At a high school reunion, sure. They do that even if you haven’t had a sex change, but merely wore an ugly dress.

When the siblings fly to Croatia to meet the longtime lover of Orson Welles, she gets mad at Marc for showing pictures of the family when she was male. She’s convinced the people making a Welles documentary were laughing at her as they spoke in their native tongue.

Who knows what they were laughing at? Maybe the cameraman said “Wow, she’s pretty now, and was good looking as a man.” Maybe he told his friend, “I would’ve never recognized this as the same person.” Kimberly immediately jumped to being defensive.

It reminded me of an episode of the Tyra Banks Show when she wore a fat suit, and claimed everywhere she went people stared at her. She showed video from hidden cameras, and I didn’t see it. Two guys glanced at her, but who knows…one of them might’ve been thinking “She’s pretty. She looks like a heavier Tyra Banks.” Not one person was rude to her or said anything inappropriate. And they didn’t to Kimberly, either. That’s great. It makes me feel better about our society. It just makes for a less interesting documentary.

As she says in the movie about her brother (in what many found a powerful line, but I felt was a bit contrived): “I felt like Marc would have given anything to be the man I would have given anything not to be.”

I would’ve liked for this film to give us more about Todd (and not just because he’s a local). And the sibling rivalry with Marc isn’t as interesting, since he’s on so many medications (I did find it extremely odd that many in the theatre laughed when he went on one of his rants. This is a sick person, people. It’s not Jack Black doing some wacky comedy).

After seeing the movie, I asked Kimberly Reed if she was shocked her high school was so warm and embracing. She said, “Yeah, that was a little surprising.” She went on to tell me more about the experience that didn’t make the film, before saying “I guess it helps when the football team is on your side.”

Since she mentioned going to film school, I asked if documentaries are the direction she wants to take her filmmaking.

“Yes, definitely. I have a script written that was based on my life, but then I ended up making this documentary. I don’t know if that movie will ever be made, but I find documentaries to be more interesting. I have two more projects in the works now.”

There were enough interesting scenes that made me enjoy the film. Nice shots of Sky Country Montana; a cute older woman at the reunion taking her photo with Kimberly, and showing a photo of them at a dance in 8th grade when all her friends were envious that she was the one he asked out.

There are just so many great documentaries that have come out recently…Bigger, Stronger, Faster; Anvil, King of King, The Cove, Spellbound (not to be confused with the Orson Welles classic)…I’d tell someone to rent one of those movies first.

And speaking of Orson Welles, his grandson reminded me of Welles in Touch of Evil. Not just his look, but the vile things he sometimes said to his family members.

I’m giving this movie a C-.

CHLOE
I’m really starting to hate French films. This isn’t a French film, but a Canadian remake of one. That’s close enough for me.

The cast is solid. We have Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, and Amanda Seyfried. Their performances are all fine. The script just isn’t up to snuff.

There’s a scene with Seyfried and Moore that should’ve made this movie rated NC17. It rivals the love scene with Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon in Bound (a great film, if you haven’t seen it).

Director Atom Egoyan is often talked about by my movie buff friends. One of his earlier movies was interesting (can’t think of the title right now, and I don’t care enough to Google it).

Chloe has great music and such wonderful cinematography. There are shots of buildings, through windows, offices, hotels… sometimes with mirrors, that I can see being taught in film school classes. It just would’ve been nice to have a story that wasn’t so damn implausible and derivative of other Fatal Attraction type films.

The first problem is showing Neeson instant messaging a female student, and quickly shutting his computer down when his wife walks in the room. We obviously know he’s cheating at that point, and you wonder why a guy that smart would do a move like that.

In case you’re going to see it, I won’t tell you the other reasons we know Neeson is cheating. I also won’t go into why the scenes in which they trick us, are done unfairly. I’ve long had a pet peeve about movies that trick us unfairly.

The film is also predictable. At least it was for my friend and I.

It reminded me of Soderbergh’s The Girlfriend Experience which critics praised (a very average movie, but better than this).

Speaking of directors, a few critics have mentioned Hitchcock when talking about this movie. They should be ashamed. Bertolucci, maybe (on a bad day).

There’s a scene where a female character that’s obsessed with another woman, is sleeping with a young man. She’s not really into it, until she sees the other womans shoes in the closet. At that point, she starts screaming with ecstasy. I leaned into my friend and said “What woman doesn’t do that when they see a nice pair of pumps?”

He laughed and said later “Your line was the only thing I liked about the movie.”

I said, “Well, the love scenes were kind of hot. I needed a cigarette after one of them.”

He went on about Seyfrieds “bug eyes” bugging him, and not being attracted to Moore’s freckly body.

This is the type of movie that Mr. Skin would love, but nobody else. It just gets too ridiculous, which is a shame. A few of the stories could’ve made for an interesting picture.

If you like this movie, you probably have a collection of Sharon Stone films on your shelf. I say rent Bound and save some money.

It gets a D.

GREENBERG

Movie titles that are just the character name kind of annoy me; and not just because I recently saw and disliked the movie Chloe. It just seems like an artsy type of mind set, and it’s not clever. It was fine in the 70s (Annie Hall, Barry Lyndon, Rocky, Norma Rae)…and it’s okay if it’s about famous people (Ali, Amadeus, Ghandi, Patton, Ed Wood).

There are just too many movies like Rebecca, Bronson, Emilia, Mitchell, Ed, Gigi, Gigli, Lola, Stevie, Tess, Marty, Gia…enough already!

Greenberg is one of the few movie name titles that actually works. It’s a shame the movie doesn’t.

It’s also a shame to come to the realization that Noah Baumbach just isn’t a good filmmaker.

He came out of the shoot with The Squid and the Whale, one of my favorite films in 2005. He married Jennifer Jason-Leigh, who has a role in Greenberg, as producing it.

I don’t have a problem with Roger Greenberg not being a likable character (played wonderfully by Ben Stiller). It’s the fact that most of the time he doesn’t have interesting or funny takes on things.

When he rants to his friend, a former bandmate from England, about the loud couple at a restaurant acting like it’s their living room – we can all relate. When he comes back from the bathroom and the waiters sing “Happy Birthday,” he gets furious. I’m sure everyone in the theatre had a smile on their face at that moment.

When he continuously writes complaint letters to companies, I thought that had possibilities. Yet he never complains in a way where we say “Yes, exactly!”

We realize quickly he’s just a boorish loser.

The film also starts out with one of my movie romance pet peeves; one that starts so quickly, without us seeing why the woman would be involved in it. In the recent She’s Out of my League, the film doesn’t show us why this woman would be interested in the guy she pursues. In this movie, nobody will have a clue as to why Greta Gerwig is interested in Greenberg. He goes to her place, barely makes small talk, before awkwardly kissing her (and doing a few other things, before the sounds of trains become to distracting).

Gerwig is perfectly cast (in a role that Jennifer Jason-Leigh would’ve played 20 years ago). She’s cute, we like her, and she’s not a Megan Fox. Greenberg’s description of her in the film works – she’s that woman at the office you’d immediately have a crush on, but once you’re away from the office, you realize she’s not that hot.

He also comments on her weight and how she’s not thin.

It doesn’t phase him that he’s got problems and the fact that she’s seeing him, much less talking to him, is a miracle.

Stiller plays Greenberg well, as a narcissist that none of us would be friends with. The first 40 minutes I was enjoying it well enough, as we got to know the characters.

There are two early party scenes that are amusing. He comments at one “This is a kids party,” when he realizes all his friends now have wives and children running around the backyard.

Another party he tries to throw, and we watch with a smile as he watches things safely from the kitchen. His friend mentions Gatsby and his parties. It’s great dialog. It’s just a shame that the rest of the movie can’t keep that going.

Late in the film, we’re treated to a third party with a much younger crowd. It has moments that would’ve been amusing (people acting weird while on drugs, finding a dead creature in the swimming pool)…but they don’t seem fresh here.

The difference between a bad film and a good film, can be shown in two examples. In Fargo, there’s a scene where an Asian guy contacts a woman he went to high school with. We watch awkwardly as these middle-aged people have lunch together. She realizes he wants something more. It’s humorous and sad all at once, as she tries not to hurt his feelings. You think about the scene for days later, wondering why he went on and on about his wife dying from a disease, when it was all made up.

In this movie, that scene is done with Jennifer Jason-Leigh and Stiller, who dated in the past. Yet their conversation goes nowhere. Its shows us a bit more about Greenberg, as he tells her about a sick dog he’s taking care of and barely pausing when she mentions her mom being sick. It was a 10 minute scene that could’ve been funny, powerful, and interesting. It was none of those things. It merely confirmed what we thought about Greenberg already. That he isn’t capable of caring about anybody but himself. When she’s had enough and is asking the waiter for the check – we feel the way these characters do. It’s all awkward and we just want to leave.

When Woody Allen writes movies with characters like this, they’re interesting (well, aside from that one with Larry David which was awful). We were in interested in Gerwig, but she quickly becomes pathetic when she rides this rollercoaster of verbal abuse with Stiller.

Even the music, which was so great in The Squid and the Whale (I bought the soundtrack for all those Bert Jansch and Loudon Wainwright tunes). In this movie, we have Steve Miller, Duran Duran, and Hammond (a one-hit wonder with “It Never Rains in Southern California”).

There are certainly nice touches. We see Greenburg bring her a hamburger as a nice gesture, but because of what happened previously, the burger looks disgusting.

There just aren’t enough of these moments to sustain the film.

I even liked the fact that Greenberg never changes. That would cliché, and something that probably wouldn’t happen. Even to keep this woman he clearly cares about to some degree.

It also has the worst ending of a movie in a long time. I can tell you it without it ruining anything.

Stiller watches as Gerwig listens to a sweet message he left on her machine the previous day. Her with a Mona Lisa smile, and he with the same expression he’s had the entire film.

This movie gets a D+.

Rent The Squid and the Whale instead.

I’ll be hoping Baumbach isn’t just a one-hit wonder.

THE ART OF THE STEAL

Paul Simon said in an interview that he knew Simon & Garfunkel had made it when he got into an elevator and heard one of their songs playing.

Well, I finally feel I’ve made it as a film critic. No…none of my quotes have appeared on a movie poster or DVD box yet. It was a letter I got, and a phone call I received. The phone call said “I saw this movie I hadn’t planned on seeing until I read your review of it. I’m glad I did.”

The letter wasn’t as kind. It said that I sucked and I don’t like anything, so I should stay home and watch TV. It ended with a valid complaint, though. The writer stated that in many of my reviews I don’t tell enough about what the movie is about.

That is true, but there’s a method to my madness. I feel like telling anything about the movie might be giving something away. And I always hate when I see trailers for upcoming films, only to see the entire plot revealed before me.

Unless the movie is something I think the reader hasn’t heard of, I won’t reveal too much of the plot.

The Art of the Steal is a documentary most people probably don’t know a lot about. So, here’s the deal on the Steal.

Albert Barnes was born in Philadelphia, that had to work to put himself through school. He took a lot of odd jobs, and even boxed to pay the bills. He graduated from medical school, and was instrumental in coming up with a vaccine for babies that kept them from getting VD when they were born (this was the early 20s). He became a multimillionaire, and a friend exposed him to the art world.

Barnes would travel to France, and he bought up pieces by Renoir, Picasso, Cezanne, Van Gogh, Degas, Seurat, Manet, Monet, and Matesse -- whom he also became friends with. Many art critics at the time scoffed at the pieces he was buying. Years later, all agreed he had an eye for art.

In no time, his collection was worth $30 billion dollars. One painting he has is worth $500 million. A few other pieces are so rare, that art appraisers claim they might fetch close to a billion if they were ever sold.

But they never will be sold. Dr. Barnes got so upset with the stuffy art critics, newspaper men, and city officials, that he had his will drawn up so that the masterpieces could never be sold. He started teaching art students, and hiring a staff to do the same. His gallery was in a residential area that was hard to get to, but he didn’t mind.

When he died in a car accident (at age 78), everyone else did seem to mind.

At that point in the movie, it becomes an interesting look at the legal wrangling that went on.

It’s interesting to see these pieces, and hear the stories associated with them. It’s also interesting listening to neighbors complain about all of the traffic when one politician changes the hours the gallery can be open.

Someone tells a story about a woman that got a job at the gallery and sat down and cried after holding Van Gogh’s Postman.

I almost cried when I saw the galleries empty walls, after one board member successfully got around the will, by claiming the building needed renovations. This was his excuse to make money touring the paintings all over the world (and as he brags in the film – getting to have dinner with people like Princess Di).

There’s a scene involving protestors that’s interesting. When you’re dealing with art world, the people protesting are often dressed up and not just a motley bunch wearing jeans and looking like hippies. These are hardcore art lovers that care about what Dr. Barnes cared about – which was not exploiting the pieces and just trying to make money from tourists that probably don’t even appreciate them (they mention one guy that spent merely an hour in the gallery, before saying “I’ve seen enough naked fat women for today.”)

Unfortunately, the two hour film goes over the same territory repeatedly. Sure, it’s sometimes different politicians that are now screwing over the people that have the art and Barnes best interests in mind.

And since Barnes left this to Lincoln College, a black school, sometimes race plays a part in some of the debates.

I think this documentary could’ve been cut in half and been just as interesting. And, I’m sure we’re hearing just one side of things; but hey, the other side was given the chance to speak up and declined to be interviewed for the film.

At the end of the day, I certainly side with Barnes and the protestors. It’s just that this didn’t happen the year after he died. There was a 30 year period where the gallery stayed just the way Barnes wanted. And it’s hard to really sympathize with everyone when it just means that now more people get to see these works of art.

Any fan of art should see this.

People that are intrigued by loopholes in laws will also find something to enjoy. It’s certainly not a documentary for everyone.

I give it a B-.

VINCERE

Remember when you had to watch an educational film back in school? Well, Vincere surely isn’t like that. The love scenes alone mean this unrated movie probably would’ve gotten an NC17.

I kind of wish this movie was a bit more like those educational films. I don’t feel like I learned enough about Mussolini. In the filmmakers defense, I don’t think they were trying for that. Perhaps because films had been made about him before (going back to Charlie Chaplin), they felt like this would be a different take – dealing with his first wife and son, who Mussolini never acknowledges.

The movie had an operatic feel, at times reminding me of Evita. And some of those touches it had were interesting – newsreel footage and headlines across the screen.

Obviously, the filmmaker wasn’t going for a straight biopic. Since I know so little about Mussolini, I wished it were.

It starts with a strong opening scene, with him “proving” there’s no god. And his first few meetings with new lover Ida Dalser (played very well by Giovanna Mezzogiorno) are interesting.

It’s crazy enough that Dalser sells everything to give him money to start a newspaper and can be abandon the way she was. Even stranger that she had to spend 11 years in an asylum (the son was taken away, and he eventually dies in his mid-20s from some drug induced coma medication – which wasn’t shown in this movie). It made me wonder if she just went crazy because she loves him and he continued ignoring her. Or, was she a woman that did have mental problems and was the stalker type?

I was fascinated by how the silent films were shown, with the crowd getting into fights and the piano player going playing fast and furious (it’s strange in a day and age of cell phones bugging you in a theatre, to think of a time when a piano player sat in front of the screen adding the musical score to what you’re seeing on screen).

There were nice locations; and this will probably get an Oscar nomination for costume design. All that isn’t enough for me to recommend the movie.

I’d suggest you rent one of the earlier Mussolini films. There are some with talented actors like George C. Scott, Bob Hoskins, and even Antonio Banderas.

On a scale where I rate this against other historic period pieces, it gets a C-.

FALLBROOK FILM FESTIVAL REVIEWS
I saw the following movies at the Fallbrook Film Festival, and they’re going to be running for another week at the UltraStar in Bonsall. If you don’t catch them there, it’ll be Blockbuster if you want to see them (some probably aren’t worth the rental price).

I was bummed that I missed The Man in the Chair. It stars Christopher Plummer as an old Hollywood gaffer who’s the last surviving crew member of Citizen Kane. He helps a movie geek in a student film competition.

Robert Wagner plays a has-been film producer, and M. Emmet Walsh is a retired screenwriter; an interesting cast in what sounds like an interesting story.

The Art of Surfing: Carlsbad, was an interesting half-hour documentary. I had no clue that the Boogie Boards I loved growing up, where invented in a Carlsbad garage!

It talks about the pioneers of California surfing, and some top-rated surfers for Carlsbad High School.

I liked the documentary about surfing I saw last year a bit more. That dealt with two Australians that surfed in all 50 states.

I got there too late to see Unitards, which looked even funnier than the title. The clip I saw showed a bunch of high school students trying to get school spirit back with their drill team (all dressed like a mix of Richard Simmons and the Loverboy singer). The description in the program said this was like “High School Musical meets Napoleon Dynamite.”

I also missed Requiem for Bobby Fischer, a documentary that talked with many of Fischer’s Serbian friends and chess opponents.

I caught one movie that won an award and had some very powerful moments. It was La Nina del Desierto.

It involved an old Mexican man who digs graves for the mob. It reminded me of No Country For Old Men at times. Some of the shots of the sleepy desert town were interesting. Other times, I felt like there was a lot of time wasted getting to the main story. It has him seeing an apparition of a little girl in the middle of one grave he’s digging. Watching their faces as they stare each other down and have a one-sided discussion (and the powerful conclusion) makes it worth the time we invested.

There was a student film called Fiasco that the crowd loved. I thought it was a tad too corny. An Arab girl marries a gay friend so she can stay in the country. Her conservative father arrives unexpected, and it turns into an episode of Three’s Company, with a man hiding in his underwear, answering machines that can’t be turned off when risqué things are being said, etc.

It had a few cute moments, but I thought so much more could’ve been done with the story. I thought the production values were great, considering it was a student film.

The students that did Rampage Superstars really did an amazing job. It’s about a TV news crew that has the mantra “if it bleeds, it leads.” This has already gotten a few reporters a little upset with how things are run at the station.

When a school shooting starts inside a classroom, and a fellow student captures images on his cell phone, things really heat up. This movie is very well-written, and it’s a very timely statement on the society we live in today. So many things are recorded by folks with cell phones and there are so many problems with how the news reports things. It was only 15 minutes long, and you were on the edge of your seat the entire time.

Delaney was the best movie I saw over the weekend. It’s about a seedy motel on Route 66 that is involved in selling organs (don’t think pianos, but Norman Bates). This is bad news for the people that stop in – especially the creepy sales guy that thinks he’s going to get lucky with the attractive woman working the front desk.

There’s a blind dwarf, who keeps us laughing with his antics (pouring coffee into a small mug that causes him to burn his hands) and the things he says. The old guy that runs the show reminds you of an extra from Deliverance, with his leathery skin, long white hair, and overalls. There’s a cute side story with a little girl that has a crush on a boy that helps his father run a gas station. They plan to run away together.

This movie would’ve had Tarantino on his feet with applause. It had me doing that.

One of the bigger films that actually had theatrical release last year, was My One and Only. It starred Kevin Bacon and Renee Zellweger, and it’s based on the childhood of George Hamilton (who was there to speak about it). Nick Stahl has a small part, as does Chris Noth (Mr. Big to you Sex and the City fans). I loved the fact that he played a hardcore military officer that is super strict, but unlike movies that go over the top (remember DeNiro smashing a juice bottle into DiCaprio’s face?)…this guy seemed realistic. He’s someone the kids didn’t want their mom marrying, but he wasn’t being physically abusive. He was simply a guy they didn’t care for.

We root for her engagement with David Koechner (who’s fast becoming one of my favorite character actors). He might be on the nerdy side (his birds and bees speech with George consists of explaining “Women are either cold or hot, so always have a sweater handy and you’ll be alright.”)

Watching Zellweger take her kids on the road, going from city to city looking for a wealthy man to marry, is at times painful to watch.

I think with a true story this interesting, it could’ve been written a little more interesting. Don’t get me wrong, you’ll never be bored. It just seems like there’s more there that could’ve been explored.

DATE NIGHT

You really can’t ask for a better cast then was put together for Date Night. Steve Carrell and Tina Fey are both hysterically funny and on their sitcoms (and in TV interviews). James Franco and Mila Kunis can both do comedy and drama, and have a great scene in this.

There’s Kristen Wiig, my favorite cast member of Saturday Night Live. Mark Wahlberg is perfectly cast as the guy Fey enlists to help (he doesn’t like to wear shirts, and who would if they looked like him?).

The bad guys are played by William Fichtner (you’d know him if you saw him) and Ray Liotta.

The always dependable Mark Ruffalo shows up, and cavalierly talks about his crumbling marriage.

Black Eyed Peas member Will.I.Am has a cameo that makes for a hysterical scene (so many movies blow it with cameos; this is exactly how they should be done).

So with this kind of talent, and a wonderful chemistry between Fey and Carrell, why did I leave the theatre disappointed? Even the closing credits, with bloopers, weren’t as funny as you’d expect.

I’m sure critics are going to try and make movie comparisons with this. You’ll hear about the Out of Towners, North by Northwest, Scenes From a Marriage, After Hours, True Lies…but this movie is different enough than those. I just wish it were funnier!

We have a few scenes that involve the couple looking at other people in a restaurant and making up conversations the couple is having. They’re hysterical. And with the improv background of Fey and Carrell, you wonder if many of those weren’t even scripted. I was left wondering why they didn’t help make the script funnier. After all, the one scene I know about him ad-libbing in 40-Year-Old Virgin, had him yelling “Kelly Clarkson!” while his chest was waxed. We remember that and it was years ago.

I liked the fact that this is a married couple that we like. We can see that with their jobs and their kids, things have gotten stale. Yet when they go to bed and Carrell sees her putting in her “mouth guard” he mentions they won’t be having sex. And instead of other movies or TV shows where the woman has a snotty comeback, she quickly takes her mouth guard out (dripping with spit) and says she’ll rally. He doesn’t push the sex, saying they can shoot for tomorrow. This conversation makes us like both characters, and it’s also funny. I’m sure married and single people can relate to it.

At the mid-way point, the movie becomes a goofy action picture. And sure, it was fun when a taxi got stuck in the grill of an Audi they’re driving; but a little of that goes a long way.

I’m not a big fan of 30 Rock, but I love The Office. And I’m guessing you could’ve taken the worst three episodes of The Office, and still had more laughs than you did with this movie. It makes it hard to justify those high ticket prices and popcorn.

This movie did provide me with one very satisfying moment, though.

A couple sat behind me with a baby and a 5-year-old (it’s rated PG-13). The baby started crying briefly, and then I had to listen to the mom pat the child loudly on the back and say “shhhh” to him for five minutes. When a scene took place at a strip club, I had to listen to the other kid ask “Why do I have to shut my eyes?”

I turned around and looked at them for a few seconds, hoping they’d get the point. Near the end of the movie, after Fey and Carrell talk about how much they have to pay the babysitter for working so much longer…I said loudly as I glanced back “Hey…they got a babysitter when they went out for the evening. That’s a great idea!”

It embarrassed my girlfriend, but it felt great to say.

But forget the hiring a babysitter and making a date night out of this. It’s not worth it.

I give it a C-.

THE PERFECT GAME

The Perfect Game is far from the perfect film. It does throw a few interesting curve balls into the mix of the clichéd sports film version of David and Goliath.

It’s a pleasant enough time at the ballpark…err, theatre…if you want a family film to take the kids to. It will help if they’re baseball lovers, as the movie is rather long. In fact, there was a time before they played the “big game” that I went outside to do a phone interview. I came back in 30 minutes later and the movie wasn’t over. Talk about extra innings!

The film has more “Jr’s” than any cast I’ve ever seen. There’s Clifton Collins, Jr. I loved him as the hick in the underrated Extract from last year.

There’s Lou Gossett, Jr. as old Negro League player Cool Papa Bell.

John Cothran, Jr. plays a preacher, in perhaps the 3rd or 4th movie he’s played that same character (I liked him most in Black Snake Moan).

And one of the Little League players is Mario Quinonez, Jr.

The story involves a bunch of restless kids in a poor area of Monterey, Mexico in 1957. Collins plays a former locker room attendant for the St. Louis Cardinals, who had hoped to play or coach, but because of racism doesn’t get the chance.

When he returns home to Mexico, he spends his time working in a factory and drinking. That is, until a boy hounds him to put together and coach a team.

Cheech Marin has an interesting role. He’s getting high…with God up above. He’s a priest who helps mentor the children and get them into the United States for the Little League World Series (the final game is against a team from La Mesa).

When I contacted former NFL MVP Brian Sipe to tell him about the movie (since I thought in a previous interview with him, he mentioned playing on that team). He corrected me, saying that the La Mesa team he played on was four years later, adding “We grew up admiring those guys, never imagining that we would follow them successfully.”

I won’t tell you if the first La Mesa beats the poor boys from Mexico, but I’m sure you have a pretty good idea.

At times the movie was a bit too corny for me. And with all these stories that are “based on true stories,” I wonder what really is true. I’m dying for a film that simply says “The true story of…” and I’ll know they didn’t play fast and loose with the facts.

I sat next to a kid that was confused by the sign that said “whites only.” And there’s another scene where an African-American player is sitting by himself at a diner. These are some moments that will provide a history lesson for your kids, if they’re equally confused.

I had a problem with one character that is so mean to his son (after the loss of his other son) and the coach, that it’s hard to ever like him. I had the same problem with the father in Whale Rider (a much better movie on all levels).

There’s a side story involving a female journalist who has some problems in this good ol’ boys club of sports reporting. It’s interesting, but also filled with clichés.

There have been lots of better sports films, and lots of better baseball movies. But this is the family picture that opens this weekend and with baseball season underway, might be just the thing to get you a dose of baseball fever.

Grading this on a curve with baseball and family films, it gets a C.

KICK-ASS
Kick-Ass sucks ass. It’s a very disappointing film, but what makes it even more disappointing is that the movie is going to be huge.

At a screening I went to the crowd was going nuts over it. I talked to a critic in New York that told me he experienced the same thing.

It baffles me that people would love this movie.

It’s directed by Matthew Vaughn, a guy that was involved in a bunch of movies I liked (and directed Layer Cake, an underrated British crime drama staring Daniel Craig).

Kick-Ass starts promising enough. We see one kids failed attempt at becoming a super hero when he jumps off a building and lands onto a taxi. Apparently tying a red cloth around your neck doesn’t automatically give you the ability to fly.

When another nerd talks of becoming a super hero, he has a cute line he narrates as he walks by girls at their lockers. He said he had no super powers, and is only invisible to the girls at school.

Yet after these opening scenes, it falls faster than the boy in the red cape.

This is more of the fan-boy comic book garbage that is becoming so popular. It could’ve been so great. It involves super heroes getting popular with the help of the internet and people using cell phones to capture their vigilante activities.

It was nice to see McLovin (Christopher Mintz) getting some lovin’ with yet another role. He plays the son of a mob boss, and becomes a super hero called Red Mist.

Clark Duke, who was the only actor in Hot Tub Time Machine I didn’t know, has a good role in this as the best friend.

Nicolas Cage, who never saw a script he didn’t like, appears as a Batman type of character (complete with a funny Adam West type of syntax in his speech). It’s strange because Cage wanted the part of Superman at some point in his career. He even named his son Kal-el after Supermans “real” name.

It’s funny that this movie comes out the day after tax day, and all I kept thinking watching it was that Cage did it to help pay off his tax debt (which is reported to be millions and millions).

Since this movie is based on a comic book, I wondered if the book snobs that like to say “I liked the book better” will say “I liked the comic book better.”

Comic books are at least $11.25 cheaper.

This film is like Napoleon Dynamite meets Sin City; especially when an 11-year-old girl, who goes by the moniker “Hit Girl,” reminds us of the little knife thrower in Sin City. Both dispose of their victims in similar, quick gruesome fashion.

That’s another problem I have with the movie. I’m not offended by much, but something about a kid that age involved in such savage violence and using curse words (even the “c” word), I find odd. The movie is rated R, and most of the cast wouldn’t be old enough to buy a ticket to see it.

A few critics have complained about Hit Girl wearing a Catholic school girl outfit in one scene, but that didn’t bother me. She was trying to trick the mob into thinking she was a student that was lost and needed to use a phone.

It’s a shame, because the audience that would love this most, shouldn’t be allowed to see it.

There are great stunts, interesting shots, and two or three funny scenes. The scenes that involve Cage training Hit Girl, people found humorous. He’s shooting her in the chest to try out a bullet proof vest. And her birthday gifts include various butterfly knives. All because he was framed and jailed and plans on getting revenge. Isn’t this some form of child abuse? Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s a movie and you’re not supposed to take this stuff so seriously. Even a movie like The Professional (which was highly overrated), worked better because Natalie Portman is the kid being taken care of by the hit man, not the one participating in the violence (at least not until she’s older).

A lot of movies have scenes where a late night host will talk about the characters because they were in the news (Larry King is the king of those cameos). This one with Craig Ferguson (the least funny of all the talk show hosts) goes on for two minutes and doesn’t deliver a single laugh. It simply has Ferguson uttering the name “Kick Ass” over and over. Geez. Doesn’t anyone hire writers?

Quentin Tarantino probably wishes he would’ve done this movie (although he has a tendency of ruining films for me with all his craziness, too).

I hate to admit that my favorite scene was Hit Girl killing a bunch of bad guys, merely because it had Joan Jett’s Bad Reputation playing in the background.

This is a dark comedy that just isn’t funny enough.

It gets a D+.

CITY ISLAND

From the movie poster I saw walking in to the closing credits, City Island is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

I know a few people will think the dysfunctional family antics are a bit silly, but I loved it. It’s the type of movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding could’ve been if it was better written.

Writer/director Raymond De Felitta gave us this gem, which is a tour de force for Andy Garcia. He’s an actor I always enjoy watching on screen, but he’s always in crappy movies.

He and Julianna Marguiles have a lot of chemistry, but I’ve always contended that it isn’t just the actors that bring the “chemistry” but the script. Again, kudos to De Felitta.

Alan Arkin, one of my favorite comedic actors (the original In-Laws is one of my all-time favorite comedies), has an interesting role as an acting coach. He has a big rant to his class about all the pauses in their dialog that is classic. And not only is it funny, but it’s nice to see an acting class in a movie that isn’t either super pretentious or utterly ridiculous. Arkin is given advice that seems like something that should be said at an acting class.

Another example that this was a well-written film, also involving wannabe actors, has a long line waiting to audition. A few people are rehearsing, but it’s not like in other movies, where everyone in line is practicing their lines and waving their arms around manically.

Since I haven’t seen many commercials for this film, I’m guessing most people don’t even know what it’s about.

In the town of City Island, just outside the Bronx, a prison guard decides to take acting classes. He tells his wife he’s at a poker game. She suspects an affair. This leads her to contemplate having an affair – with the prisoner Garcia brings home to help him build a few things. The reason Garcia takes a liking to this kid – it’s his secret love child.

Garcia’s daughter seems interested, too. Although, she’s busy trying to make money at the strip club, so she can get back into college. She lost her scholarship and is afraid to tell her parents.

And there’s the younger brother, always the weirdest of the family in these types of films. He has a fetish for overweight women, and spends most of his time on the computer looking at them, or spying on his neighbor; sometimes both at the same time.

Emily Mortimer, who I sometimes mistake for Emily Watson, has a great role as an acting partner and confident to Garcia.

I always find it refreshing to see a man and a woman have a great friendship in a film that doesn’t lead to an affair.

Sure, this movie has its share of far-fetched and implausible moments – but we love the characters so much, and the various predicaments they find themselves in – we let it slide.

I didn’t care for Garcia’s Bronx accent at first, but I eventually got used to it. And hey…no critics complained about Nicholson’s horrible accents in The Departed and Prizzi’s Honor…so let’s not worry about Garcia’s here.

One problem films always have when the main couple fights, is that you either take sides with one, or you find they’re both jerks and stop caring about them. That’s not the case here. Even when they have horrible fights, we can understand why they stay together. And we want them to stay together.

I don’t usually look up information about a film before writing my reviews, but I was so impressed by this movie, I had to find out about the writer/director. It turns out De Felitta was nominated for an Academy Award for best Live Action Short Film. And he’s gotten praise for two CDs of jazz piano. It’s only a matter of time before he writes, directs, stars, and composes his own films.

I’ll be anxiously awaiting the next one.

I don’t usually care about any messages the movie may try to convey; but this theme of not hiding your dreams from the ones you love, was touching.

I probably wouldn’t care so much, if I didn’t love almost every scene in this film – from an audition that has Garcia doing the funniest Marlon Brando impersonation since Belushi on Saturday Night Live – to an audition where he screams like a mad man into a camera.

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, and you’ll probably look closer at the guys cleaning up the trash on the freeway. What middle-aged woman wouldn’t want to hire someone like Steven Strait to be their handyman?

Dominik Garcia-Lorido (the real life daughter of Andy Garcia) may have been kicked out of college, but this movie gets an A.

THE JONESES

Keeping up with the Joneses that live next door, well…this first time writer/director tried keeping up with the directors that have made dark satires. He gave a very strong opening sales pitch. We have a good looking cast that really sells the picture. Demi Moore has a strong presence on screen, and David Duchovny always reminded me of a better looking and more likable Richard Gere. Yet they drop the ball in the second half of the movie and can’t close the sale.

The neighbors add some strong support to the cast. There’s Gary Cole (Bill Lumbergh from Office Space) and his space cadet wife, Glenne Headly, who has some beauty products of her own she’d like to sell. Headly is an interesting actress. She’s a blend of Jennifer Tilly and Goldie Hawn, with better acting chops than the two.

It is strange when Cole breaks down and finally buys a fancy car to keep up with the Joneses. He has rap blaring from the car stereo as he pulls up (a similar joke was done funnier in Office Space). It’s a shame that in such an original and interesting story, the second half resorts to many things we’ve seen and heard before.

There’s an interesting subplot with the neighbors, but it also makes it hard for us to feel for them when they get bamboozled by their new “friends.” I’ve never felt bad for any of my dingbat friends that have purchased time shares that they now can’t trade with anyone (and they’ve grown tired of two week vacations in Nebraska each year).

Some people think I’m too tough in what I like for a film (or with my friends that want to lament crappy purchases). I don’t think I am. This movie made me think of the Dan Akyroyd/John Belushi film Neighbors, which didn’t get good reviews, but I enjoyed.

The problem is that films need to do more things right than they do wrong. This movie can’t decide between being a dark satire or not. And an interesting premise and great cast can’t carry the other clichés and flaws through out the picture.

When Duchovny tries so hard early on to be romantic with Demi Moore, it feels awkward. If they merely having a working relationship, shouldn’t we think this is creepy of Duchovny, not romantic?

When Duchovny starts feeling guilty for tricking the people in this town -- instead of me liking him more -- I wonder what he thought this type of sales job entailed.

It’s also unclear how the kids get involved in the predicaments they do. Are they really underage? If so, many of the illegal activities (underage drinking, enrolling in school, etc) don’t make sense. But to talk about flaws would waste time. This movie is full of holes. And that wouldn’t bother me if I liked the movie.

Thank You for Smoking was done a lot better, but I had problems with that movie, too.

The Joneses tries to make these grandiose statements on consumers and marketing, and I’m not sure it’s the powerful movie that it probably looked like on paper. And, when Lauren Hutton (who the producer told me before the movie started, hasn’t been on screen in 20 years) delivers a brand new Audi to Duchovny for improving his numbers (who knows how they can even monitor such things). I realize it’s the third time I’ve seen this new Audi model in movies (most recently in Date Night). It makes me wonder about the product placement we’re seeing in a movie that’s making an indictment of such ploys.

I’m not the biggest Demi Moore fan, but like Harrison Ford (who I don’t think is much of an actor), both seem to pick roles that they’re perfect for. And Moore, as the patriarch of this family, hits just the right notes.

When the family starts to have the predictable problems, as well as problems because of their character – we wonder how this group ever did this before and succeeded.

None of the romances in the film work, and a few scenes with Duchovny are awful. One involves an old friend that recognizes him and calls him by his real name (how many movies have we seen that before?). Another involves him comparing himself to Tiger Woods. Obviously this was shot before Tiger got into all his problems. You see, many people forget that Duchovny checked himself in as sex addicted a few years ago.

This movie has a few jokes that work, and for a while your enjoying the ride.

I’d glad they didn’t play the horrible Counting Crows song Mr. Jones, but would’ve loved to have heard Stan Ridgway’s Salesman thrown in somewhere.

If you like the idea of this movie, I’d recommend The Truman Show or Glengarry Glen Ross. This movie is melodrama garbage, albeit wonderfully shot and a great cast almost making the garbage presentable. I wish the Coen Brothers or Mamet would’ve tackled this script instead.

The Joneses opens this weekend, and I’m giving it a D+.

If you like it, email me and we’ll talk about some Amway products I might want you to sell for me.

TERRIBLY HAPPY

A few years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by the Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In. The other night, I was pleasantly surprised with the Danish film Terribly Happy, which isn’t very happy, but is very interesting. And it might be terribly hard to find. I think it’s only playing locally at the Gaslamp Reading Theatre.

This is like a creepy Norman Rockwell painting in a small town in the old west, with only one sheriff that’s in over his head with the town bully. And with residents that aren’t the friendliest.

Oh, and a swamp that seems to take away a lot of the towns residents; and trucks, bicycles, cows, etc.

Rod Serling was smiling in his grave at this little piece of noir filmmaking.

Every character seemed perfectly cast.

Lene Maria Christensen is beautiful, as the abused wife of the town bully; or the woman that is saying she’s abused to attract the attention of the new sheriff in town (who has a few secrets of his own). She’s not so beautiful that you wonder why she’s even in this creepy town (the way I wondered why Halle Berry was a waitress in a greasy spoon in Monster’s Ball).

And as much fun as I had watching the huge, 6’8” guy chase Robert Downey Jr. around in Sherlock Holmes, it was refreshing to see Kim Nodnia, a stocky guy who might not even be 6’…but with his western shirt, cowboy hat and unshaven face…he gives off an intimidating air about him.

The town doctor is obsessed with his card game, which has a cast of characters that would’ve fit perfectly in Deliverance. They’re always sweating, and have greasy hair. He also hooks up the local hair dresser/hooker with drugs when she needs them. Michael Jackson would’ve loved this cat. (What? Too soon?)

I’m not sure if there’s really a place called Jutland, Denmark. This town looked like someplace in Texas. Or Baker.

The twangy, Duane Eddy guitar also gives it a little of that feel.

In the second half of the movie, I started to correctly guess the things that were going to happen. I also started to wish 20 minutes would’ve been shaved off, although I did like the pacing and feel of the film. It just felt like it was longer than it needed to be.

I feel like a hypocrite for saying Kick-Ass was irresponsible for many of the things they did with their 11-year-old girl, and yet I laughed out loud when a man in this movie punches a little kid right in the face after he shoplifts (it makes more sense why it’s funny if you saw a previous shoplifting scene where the store owner is furious the cop merely gives the boy a stern warning).

Rumor has it there’s an American version of this that will be made. I’m hoping it gets into the Coen Brothers hands. They’d turn this into a classic. As it is now, I give it a B-.

THE SQUARE

My favorite thing to do in reviews is name two movies that a picture reminds me of. Ever since I saw Tim Robbins and Buck Henry do that in a Robert Altman film, I have fun with that.

I couldn’t do this with the brilliant film noir gem The Square. I wanted to say it was Fargo meets Marley and Me. This is a movie that could’ve been done by the Coen brothers. In fact, it’s better than the first Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson movies – although you can clearly see the influence they had on these Aussie filmmakers (Nash Edgerton and his brother [also like the Coens] named Joel).

There are even elements from other films. Director Nash Edgerton told me the scary scene, when a guy is snooping around with a flashlight, was inspired by a scene from Jaws. It took me a few minutes to even recall the scene.

Speaking of sharks, there is some talk of them in this movie, but none of that will remind you of Jaws. Okay, maybe one scene.

This movie reminded me so much of Fargo. Although I liked Fargo more (just a reminder: Fargo was nominated for 12 Oscars and won Best Picture), a few things in this film were better. I know some people didn’t care for the comedic elements of Fargo. The goofy accents, the various quirky characters the Coens are famous for. Sure, there’s some dark humor in The Square. I think it would be impossible for Nash to make a film without it (his short film Spider plays before the movie; it won awards before becoming a hit on YouTube). It gives you plenty of insight into the dark humor and rollercoaster ride you’re about to embark on.

Nash told me he had a fake spider and he was always scaring his mom and pranking her with it. I asked what she thought of the short and he said “She was telling her friend how I used to play tricks on her, and now I’ve brought that en masse.”

It’s interesting to note that Nash went from being a stuntman in Hollywood (Matrix, Superman Returns, Star Wars II and III, etc.) to coming out with his first feature, which has very few stunts. In fact, I love the realistic look of so many scenes. A car crash that doesn’t show a car flipping six times in the air; a fight where two guys on a construction site pick up a pick-ax and a shovel, but quickly end up losing grip of them and wrestling in wet cement and not doing much damage to each other.

Nash talked about a show he saw that told how stunts were done in the 20s (pre-CGI), and he wanted a more realistic approach in this movie. So when a character loses a leg on the construction site (this is starting to sound like the type of construction site you’d never want to work at, huh?); they hired a guy with a prosthetic leg, so they could remove it when they show him being rescued with a mangled appendage nearby.

This movie has two love affairs going on. One involves a couple that is both cheating on their spouses. The other involves their pet pooches. And boy, that’s adorable. Trust me, you’ll fall in love with the few scenes the doggies steal.

It also involves bad decisions regular folks start to make when greed rears its ugly head.

Money that can easily be taken (whether that’s kickbacks from a contractor, or cash illegally obtained by a tow truck driver) -- might not be so easy to take after all.

And with most film noir pieces, there are twists at every turn. This only has a few twists, and I find them more satisfying then in most films. An example is the bad guy hired to help steal money and torch a house (played by brother Joel Edgerton, who co-wrote the script). The twist is – after relishing his work on TV during a news segment, he quickly becomes guilt ridden when he realizes an elderly woman was accidentally killed in the process. He might be the only character in the film that regrets his actions. Well, him and the cute poodle…but I won’t ruin what happens with her love interest.

In current movies, people always feel the need to adapt current technology. James Bond and Jason Bourne have the latest electronic gadgets. And in Lakeview Terrace and The Departed, cell phones are used so horribly I immediately disliked both films. In this, the cell phones are used brilliantly. One character calls another to tell them why a plan has to be aborted, but his cell phone battery dies before he can explain why. And when that person tries to call her boyfriend to tell him, she hears his phone ringing on the counter next to her. Now…so many of us have tried to call a significant other, only to have the same thing happen. Imagine how thrilling it is to see this in a movie, realizing unlike your spouse who won’t be picking up the toilet paper you’re out of…someone might accidentally get killed.

At this point, you probably think I’ve given too much away. I don’t usually do that. But ya know what? You probably knew nothing about this movie. It’s one of my favorites of the year, and will be in many critics’ top 10 lists at the end of 2010. If I didn’t sell it somehow, you probably wouldn’t see it. It’s only at the Ken Cinema the rest of the week.

I ended up talking more about other movies with Nash, because he has such a love of film that it becomes intoxicating.

There’s a scene in his movie where a criminal hid money in the attic, looks up at the roof of his house, which was torched. Seeing the sky above the few rafters left, reminded me of an Ewan McGregor movie I couldn’t place. Nash’s excitement as he tried thinking of the name, with me saying “I remember it had two words in the title,” and him responding “It was right before Trainspotting…” It was like playing a game of Charades with Quentin Tarantino!

We were on to different topics when he remembered and said “Shallow Grave!”

I told him how a scene involving the police questioning one of the guilty parties, reminded me so much of the scene in Fargo where William Macy is questioned, yet it’s totally different. It’s just as powerful a scene. Nash told me, “I don’t want to steal from these movies, but I want to evoke the same emotion people had when they saw those films. I had a scene in this I cut out because it was too much like a scene in Magnolia, where they quickly show all the characters with music underneath.”

He finds it on his cell phone and plays it for me. It is very similar to that scene in Magnolia, but I feel bad he cut it out. It’s brilliant. And hey, “borrowing” never stopped Tarantino.

I don’t usually read other reviews before writing mine, but with this I did, only because I was trying to decide whether I wanted to spend a Saturday afternoon seeing this and interviewing the director (I now can’t think of a better way to spend the day). I noticed a few critics said the problem is that this movie has no character to root for. Rubbish! First of all, there’s an Olivia Newton-John lookalike who finds out her husband is having an affair. You can root for her. There’s….well…okay, maybe her and the dogs; but Siskel & Ebert once had a huge fight when one of them made that complaint about a film. I think you can sit back and watch a bunch of people dig a deeper hole for themselves (both literally and figuratively), and still enjoy it. If you really can’t watch a movie without a nice-guy protagonist, well…rent The Blind Side.

I have many friends that love film noir. My problem with noir pictures is, often times, characters don’t follow an inherent logic that the writer establishes. Body Heat is a perfect example (and a movie this is being compared to). I lost interest in Body Heat when William Hurt threw a chair into a window to passionately get to Kathleen Turner and kiss her. What person in their right mind would find that move romantic and not just insane?

But I digress.

Let’s get back to talking about the Edgerton’s. After all, everyone loves going on and on about the Coen’s.

I told Nash I loved the fact that when a wife starts to realize her husband is having an affair, we never really see what she does about it. Maybe she stays silent. Maybe she leaves him; but the movie just hadn’t gotten around to show us that. Either way, we don’t need to be spoon-fed what every little character will do at every moment. Movies often dumb down for audiences because they know some loose ends aren’t neatly tied.

Nash tells me, “In Spider, my brother had written this long scene that explains the fight the couple had. I ended up not using that because, it really wasn’t all that important. The movie starts with them in a fight. We’ve all been in that position, where one person is trying to make-up and the other is still mad. What they fought about doesn’t matter.”

That made me think of a scene in The Square where a characters hand is bandaged. Now, in Chinatown, we know why Nicholson’s nose is bandaged. And that’s cool. In this, it’s cooler not knowing. As the intimidating tow truck driver tells his wife “I got into some mischief.” Almost as great a line as Polanski telling Nicholson he’s being “too nosey” before cutting off part of his nose.

I’d tell ya the tow truck drivers name, but like everyone else in this movie, I don’t know. It’s a cast of unknown actors, which is also refreshing. Nash said how much he loved Magnolia again, and I tell him that as great as Tom Cruise was in it (even nominated for an Oscar), with his long hair and arrogant attitude in the film, it’s hard to still not think of it being Cruise. This is the type of thing that can be distracting in a film.

If I was working on the movie poster for this, I would’ve driven myself nuts. I’d come up with a phrase that’s perfect – “Best laid plans can go wrong,” and I’d quickly realize – these weren’t the best plans.

I might try to tie in Australian band AC/DC, and say “Dirty Deeds, done dirt cheap…can get expensive.” And I’d probably be sued by the Young brothers.

No clever catch phrase would do this gem justice. Do yourself a favor and see this movie. I’ll offer you a money back guarantee.

I asked Nash if it is hard directing his actors in scenes where they have to get physical, since he’s a stuntman. He said “As a stuntman, often times they want the stars doing as many of the stunts as they can. So I become a coach to them, explaining how to do the stunts. It’s the same thing directing.”

Somebody please tell him his days of stunts should be over, and directing movies should be his future. In fact, I don’t want to risk anything happening to this amazing talent before we get the next couple dozen films from him and his brother. They’re going to give the Coen’s a run for their money.

I give this movie an A-.

THE ECLIPSE

The Eclipse shouldn’t be confused with the Twilight movie of the same name. Or the Eclipse that came out in 1997.

I’m not sure why they went with that title when so many other titles would’ve been better for this film that’s a mash-up of various genres. It’s mostly a sad character study, but it’s also a bit of a love story, and a super-natural thriller at times. I’m guessing those super-natural aspects will turn a few people off, but I had fun with that. You’re watching an interesting low-key movie, and the next moment you’re jumping out of your seat being scared by a ghost in the closet.

The movie is about a wood-shop teacher raising his two kids. His wife died a few years ago, and his father-in-law is depressed about being in an old folks home. He volunteers for a literary festival in town, and an attractive author of ghost novels has captured his interest; mostly because he thinks he’s seeing ghosts.

Aidan Quinn is the only actor I recognized, and he was great as a famous author attending the event, who likes his alcohol (and women), and isn’t afraid to throw punches around when things don’t go his way.

The Irish countryside is beautifully shot. And the scary scenes are a blast, and really work.

Playwright Conor McPherson did this movie, and did a great job of having it not sound like it was written for the stage. As much as I love David Mamet, that’s one of my complaints about some of his films.

There are lots of small touches that are done perfectly. Watching characters that break-up, without a lot of drama involved. Or, watching them slowly fall for each other while letting a friendship develop before quickly jumping into bed.

During one of the fight scenes, it seems realistic, as a sober guy is trying to calm the drunk character out of fighting. After a few punches and a headlock…one character is grabbed in the crotch until he lets go. You can always count on pain in that area to end a fight (remember Lou Gossett kicking Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman?)

I’m guessing this movie could’ve easily made $100 million at the box office, if McPherson just went with a super-natural thriller. I’m also guessing you would’ve had less of a movie.

Sometimes I felt a little more could’ve been done with this story. I also felt the ending was too much like Sideways (a man driving, while listening to a woman who left an answering machine message about how much she likes the story he’s written, and requesting to see him again).

Perhaps a scene could’ve been written that showed authors discussing their craft with each other at the literary festival would’ve worked. Or a flashback of the man doing something romantic with his wife, or spending time with her and the kids.

This movie might be a little slow for some people, but I enjoyed it.
I give it a B.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET

When I heard that a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street was coming out, I threw my hands up in the air. Really, Hollywood should just give up. Throw in the towel. They have officially run out of ideas.

When the original was being made, most studios passed on it. One passed because they were making Dreamscape with Dennis Quaid (a fun little movie), which dealt with some of the same themes.

Death at a Funeral is in theatres now, and it was remade from a film three years ago. Hollywood remade Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They’re releasing A-Team soon. The list of this type of stuff goes on and on.

I don’t even care that the cast of this new Nightmare has Clancy Brown, an interesting character actor I like (he was in Highlander, and the mean prison guard in Shawshank Redemption). It also has Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Kruger. I’m not sure that’s such great casting, considering his voice was distinct in The Watchman as Rorschach.

In protest of Hollywood continuing to give us unoriginal ideas, I figured instead of giving them the time of day and writing a review of A Nightmare on Elm Street, I would instead run a reprint of the review I wrote of the original Nightmare, which came out November 16, 1984.

A Nightmare on Elm Street
by Joshua D. Board

I always wondered what happened to criminals that get off on some technicality. An officer maybe didn’t read you your Miranda Rights, or some search warrant was obtained illegally. Well, if you’re someone that murdered children in a small town, the parents rally and pull a Charles Bronson on you. In this case, they took Freddy Kruger and burned and killed him in the boiler room he worked.

He comes back to torment the town again. Not just with his horrible wardrobe – a goofy hat and striped shirt that Charlie Brown would love – but also a glove that Michael Jackson would envy. Instead of sequins all over it, this one has knives for fingers. That dude better be careful if he has an itch on his face. He could take an eye out.

I would’ve preferred he run these fingers across a chalk board for an hour and a half, rather than sit through this garbage.

Now, I’m all for horror films. In the 70s I loved The Exorcist, The Fury, The Wicker Man, The Swarm, The Uncanny, The Crazies, The Shining, The Omen…pretty much any scary movie with “the” in the title, I’m on board.

When Friday the 13th came out in 1980, horror films suddenly became “slasher” flicks. The filmmakers were more interested in the fake blood and gore, than actually scaring you.

Remember two years ago when Poltergeist came out? We were scared to death (and who doesn’t still occasionally look under their bed to make sure there’s no evil clown waiting for you to fall asleep?).

I enjoyed seeing Charles Fleischer as one of the doctors at the dream lab. He was always interesting on Welcome Back, Kotter. And he does a great stand-up routine (in real life, not in the movie).

John Saxon was okay as Lt. Thompson, although it looked like the movie was trying hard for their own Robert Pine from CHiPs.

And Ronee Blakley, as the mom. Oh, Blakley. What happened? You got nominated for an Oscar in Robert Altman’s Nashville. You recorded a few songs with Bob Dylan, even playing his wife in a movie. You had two amazing albums come out in the 70s. And now you play an alcoholic mother in a slasher flick. If you need to borrow some money, just give me a call. I’m in the phone book.

The cast of young actors in this film is laughably bad. One kid wears a leather jacket and talks in this New York/Italian accent that’s so atrocious.

This is the first movie for a young kid named Johnny Depp, who has no talent other than his ability to style his hair really well. This is his first film, and I’d bet you a million dollars, his last. Maybe we’ll see him in a shampoo commercial in a few years.

The movie is going by the premise that you can’t fall asleep, or you could be killed by Freddy. The kids all spend their time drinking coffee (and having sex). If this is the premise they give us, the ending makes absolutely no sense. The main character wakes up, only to show us that everything we just watched was one dream within a dream. Yet, the red ’59 Cadillac they step into, decides to kill all the kids (was the red Plymouth in Christine too busy to do this movie?). And Freddy’s arm reaches threw a window to kill Blakley. Maybe that’s putting her out of her misery.

And who wrote and directed this piece of garbage? A man named Wes Craven, who gave his wife a role as a nurse.

He shows signs of talent in this genre. We have a nice piano score that evokes some atmosphere. I have no clue why synthesizers had to jump out at us, instead of Freddy, during all his scenes. Aren’t scary movies supposed to actually scare us? Other then two scenes, they don’t even try.

A few of the shots worked well. Seeing a cross fall off the bedroom wall, or little girls jump roping…oh, and stairs that have been slathered with pancake batter or something. All nice touches. Even having Freddy do his torture in a boiler room, with the sounds of dripping water and steam, making you think of the creatures in The Fog. I’m just not sure how Craven couldn’t put all this into a clever thriller that would have us on the edge of our seats.

Mark my words…25 minutes after you see this, you will have forgotten about it. Like a bad dream.

In 25 years, nobody will even remember the name of the movie that ended the careers of veteran actress Ronee Blakley and teenager Johnny Depp -- who sadly, will never get a chance to see his star (or hair) rise.
OCEANS

I’ve enjoyed Pierce Brosnan’s post Bond career. The underrated film The Matador was interesting. Ghost Writer is one of my favorite movies of this year. And he seems to pop up in a number of films each year. Providing the narration for Oceans is probably something he should’ve passed on. Although, I gotta admit – it was nice going into a movie called Oceans that wasn’t followed with a number.

His cute jokes fell flat, and his narration was just irritating. Part of the problem was that he didn’t tell us enough about the creatures we were seeing. For example, when they showed Horseshoe Crabs in Maine, I remembered being a 10-year-old visiting my stepfathers family in Jersey, and coming across Horseshoe Crabs. They looked like a bunch of Nazi helmets that were scalped off heads in Tarantino’s last movie. I was fascinated, and learned from my stepdad that they haven’t changed in 250 million years and their blue blood is used in a few different medical procedures; and their shells used to help with blood clotting. I just Googled and found that they can swim upside down, go a year without eating, and aren’t a crab, but related to scorpions. Brosnan merely told us what they were called.

The other problem is we’ve seen all this stuff before. In the IMAX movie Sardines, I saw the dolphins trap the fish in a ball before feeding on them. Sure, it’s great to see (especially with the gulls diving down for their cut). We’ve seen it before, though. A lot of it was also shown in Wild Oceans and Under the Sea -- IMAX films I saw at Balboa Park.

The scenes of Orcas beaching themselves to feed on sea lions is amazing, but I caught that on the Discovery channel a few years ago. I can count on one hand the creatures they showed us I had never seen before (one being the Sheepshead Wrasse, which has a head that looks like the Elephant Man; if only Michael Jackson were alive to see this, and buy an aquarium full of these guys).

The Two Jac’s (not to be confused with the Nicholson movie) – Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud, got an Oscar nomination for Winged Migration. They also used lots of modern technology to give us great shots at some creatures you don’t normally get to see at the local aquarium.

It makes it all the more perplexing that I found the picture slow at times.

I told the director of some movie starring Lynda Carter, that his film was bad and should be on Lifetime, not in movie theatre. He didn’t care for that. I’d tell the two Jacques the same thing. Nobody should fork over $11 to see this.

One scene I found fascinating was turtles being born on the beach, and being plucked from the sand by birds as they tried to make it safely to the sea. It was scarier than Hitchcock’s Birds. We were told only 1 in 1,000 make it (a stat I find hard to believe). This is the type of info I wanted more of, instead of Brosnan telling us about a sea slug called a Spanish Dancer, and describing it in details that we don’t need, since we’re viewing the colorful creature move.

Another interesting scene involved Mantis Shrimp attacking craps that have wandered into their turf.

There are one or two humorous moments – like Sea Lions passing gas, and sounding just like my uncle Herbert.

The old guy sitting next to me mentioned a sea lion looking like Wilfred Brimley. And when another sea lion looked to me like Flavor Flav, I wondered if he’d know who that was. I refrained.

The orchestral musical score soared at times, and I found it added nicely to the visuals.

So…the few people that have bugged me for not reviewing a G rated film, there ya go.

Had this been in 3-D, it might’ve been worth it. I just think they needed to raise the (sand) bar a bit, and give us more on the subject. I’m so tempted to give the film a D, strictly basing that on how little I enjoyed it. The visuals were enough to have it jump up to a C-.

BABIES

You know how you’ll be in at a movie and you see the trailer for an upcoming film you get so excited about? I’m ashamed to admit that I had that feeling when I saw the trailer for Babies. My girlfriend and I both audibly went “ahhhh” at the cute babies on screen.

And imagine my surprise when the showing I was at, someone brought their real babies. I’m not sure why. Did they think babies like watching their own kind on screen? I didn’t think their crying would bother me, since there was no dialog in the movie, and…well, there were babies crying on screen.

This movie is a documentary, although it’s probably the only documentary you’ll ever see with nobody narrating any portion of it.

It follows four babies in the first year of their life (I was dying for the closing credits to tell us what the babies are doing now – at age 3).

Here’s a little fun: match the baby names to the places they’re from. There’s Ponijao, Bayar, Mari, and Hattie. They are from Nambie, Mongolia, Japan, and San Fran.

It’s interesting to see the various customs certain families have – like singing before dinner. One mother finds a very good use for corn on the cob after dinner, which is too gross to describe.

We already knew animals take abuse from babies, but I must admit – it was great watching a baby drag a cat around on a leash.

Another scene involved the hippie couple (from San Francisco). The woman gets punched in the face by her baby, and simply pulls a book off the shelf with a title about how to properly discipline your child.

When she sings a song about the earth and how you should love it, her child (smartly) makes a bee-line for the door.

As interesting as some scenes where, lots of this isn’t even as cute or interesting as videos you might see watching a rerun of one of those funniest video shows. Those would involve older siblings picking on the baby, wild animals approach the tots, and lots of cute baby faces.

The movie loses steam half-way through.

I’d say…if women are trying to drag their men to see this, they shouldn’t. Even most women will get bored with it. Save your insistence on them attending a movie with you for when Sex and the City II comes out.

I’m giving this a C (section) minus.

IRON MAN

I’m surprised by fellow critics. None of them are mistakenly calling this a “comeback” for Mickey Rourke. They called his great performance in The Wrestler a “comeback” even though he had a big role in Sin City previously.

He pulls off the Russian accent and looks intimidating (not as much as Viggo Mortenssen was in Eastern Promises). He has more tattoos and toothpicks than I’ve ever seen a movie character have. I’m not sure what his love of birds was. It was almost like I was watching Bird Man of Alcatraz meets Terminator – with a little Arthur thrown in. Yes, Arthur…one of the many movies currently being remade. The Tony Stark character reminds me of him: both are rich, drink too much, sleep around, and need their people to get them out of jams.

This is a sequel that is really in search of a heart. It’s all flash and CGI affects that aren’t that impressive. At one point I felt like I was watching a rock ‘em/sock ‘em robots game on the big screen.

Rourke plays a great villain (we know he’s Russian, because he drinks vodka straight out of the bottle). And he teams up with Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, one of my favorite actors. Yet, unlike Lex Luthor or The Joker and the other villains that spouted off great one-liners…Hammer had nothing funny to add.

Comedic genius Gary Shandling was cast as Senator Stern. Nothing funny for him to do but make faces like he was constipated.

Samuel Jackson was fine, in the two quick scenes we see him in. It was funny watching him retrieve a depressed Stark from the huge Randy’s Donut sign that he’s sitting inside of munching his meal.

There are a few funny scenes and the fourth movie I’ve seen with Jon Favreau boxing (he’s the director, and mastermind behind Swingers). This cute scene with Scarlett Johanssen getting the best of him after he asks “You’ve boxed? What? Booty Boot camp or Teebow?”

I’ve grown tired of listening to Gwyneth Paltrow spout off about politics in interviews, and I’m also a bit bored by her nagging Robert Downey, Jr. It was like watching a sitcom couple.

And speaking of sitcoms…you know that feeling you had when you turned on Roseanne and there was a different blonde girl playing the daughter? That’s what happens when you see Don Cheadle in place of Terrence Howard. Howard was so much more interesting in that part. He had this air of mystery and anger; something about him you didn’t trust. Cheadle, an amazing actor, doesn’t pull that off here. It’s like he’s phoning it in.

One last part of the cast I want to mention – Stan Lee, the comic book creator behind it all. He played Hugh Hefner in the first film. The famous person he plays in this had the entire theatre laughing; perhaps the best cameo all year.

From the press releases, I see that Johansson is Black Widow and Rourke is Whiplash, yet they are never called these names in the film. Maybe it’s because Whiplash sounds like a name from the Drew Barrymore roller derby film.

Rourke is called by the name Ivan Vanko. I think I was the only person in the theatre that laughed, and thought of that goofy villain Stallone fought in Rocky IV – Ivan Drago.

I’ve heard some critics complain about the humans in the iron man suits not being injured. Come on! Are you going to gripe that James Bond is never hit from machine gun fire or that Superman shouldn’t be able to fly with just a red cape? It’s a fun, action, comic book movie. The science of it isn’t to be dissected (and if it is, shouldn’t you start with the lighted orb in Starks chest that keeps him alive? And in this film, slowly killing him).

With Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan in the news because of their drug use, it makes me think of how Rourke and Downey had their share of this before. Just imagine telling a studio 15 years ago that these two would be in the biggest blockbuster of the summer. I’m guessing no studio would’ve even taken the chance on it. And who would’ve thought the guy that got nominated for an Oscar playing Charlie Chaplin, and played such a fidgety weirdo in Back to School, would be terrifically cast as a super hero?

Of course, the first film was such a huge success. And I’m guessing that even if this movie had been better, it wouldn’t have lived up to that standard.

I enjoyed all the various stories the film had. A few critics have complained about there being too many. They are all easy to follow and all interesting. They are just underwritten and that’s really a shame.

I liked the fact that the villains didn’t have lofty goals – like wanting to take over the world. One just wanted Iron Man dead, the other wanted a big defense contract from the U.S.

I always seem to be disappointed by the choice of songs on movie soundtracks. This had a few by AC/DC and a few by The Clash. That’s a nice start. Unfortunately, those were the only songs that worked. Why not Metal to Metal by Anvil? Why not MC Hammer when Justin Hammer does a silly dance to the Average White Band?

The film cost $200 million to make, so I’m guessing even if you’re disappointed, you’ll have a fun time at this popcorn flick. There’s enough here that you aren’t going to be bored. I just wish instead of them thinking that with one Iron Man created, having 25 more would be that much more exciting. It wasn’t. And if you’re going to do a comic book movie with more jokes than action scenes, they should all be funny. They weren’t.

I’d recommend you rent Moon and watch Sam Rockwell in what should’ve been an Oscar nominated performance, and Don Cheadle in most of the films he’s done previously.

Of course, if you miss this you won’t be able to join in the conversation about it at the water cooler.

I’m giving it a C+.

JUST WRIGHT

When one of the many video stores closed down, I was able to score all the seasons of The White Shadow, a favorite show from my childhood. I thought the premise of Just Wright would be like that – a former NBA star suffers a knee injury and learns a lot of life lessons when he’s not on the hardwood.

This movie took a few turns along the way, but unfortunately, played it a lot safer than White Shadow ever did. That show dealt with drug addiction, absentee fathers, racist cops, teen pregnancy, and a whole host of other things. This movie dealt with…well, recovering from a knee injury.

It stars Common, who I’m guessing is a rapper. When I see the opening credits and there’s a person with one name, it’s usually a rapper. Eve in Barbershop, Ludacris in Crash, Cher in Moonstruck…okay, not all the time.

I thought it was going to be hard for me to accept a love story involving Queen Latifah. She’s the type that I can’t see anyone falling for. Now, I’ve had crushes on the three other women in this movie at various times in my life – Phylicia Rashad (when she was on the Cosby Show), Pam Grier (in the 70s, and again when Jackie Brown came out), and Paula Patton (when I first saw her as the teacher in Precious…that quickly ended when I found out she married that dope Robin Thicke). But Queen Latifah? I loved her character in Hairspray. I really loved her singing in Chicago. I just can’t see her as a love interest.

But all that works in her favor for this role. That’s exactly the type of character they’re going for – a woman that has a lot of male friends, just a lot of trouble finding a boyfriend.

A movie that has a sub-plot involving women trying to meet NBA players could’ve made things less romantic. I know when I watch An Officer and a Gentleman, I can never get past the fact that these women started out just trying to hook up with pilots because they have money and can get them out of their small town. Instead, this movie handles that well, but also makes it hard for us to believe some of the things that transpire in the third act.

Just Wright does a lot of things right, but also a lot of things wrong.

Right: The chemistry between Common and Latifah. I can’t remember the last film I rooted so much for a couple to hook up.

Wrong: It’s very predictable where this is going after the first 15 minutes. Someone should’ve called a time-out and talked to the writer.

Right: The opening date which isn’t the typical clichéd bad movie date. The man isn’t interested in Latifah, but he has a lot of fun spending time with her, before giving her the “let’s just be friends” speech.

Wrong: The sister and her attempt to become an NBA wife. They go over the top with her not even watching the game, but watching the crowd with binoculars to analyze everything the wives are wearing or carrying.

Right: The basketball scenes. As a gym rat, always great to see players like Dwight Howard and Dwayne Wade play some real ball.

Wrong: The basketball scenes. Watching Common dribble (he supposedly worked real hard to improve his game) between defenses, was like watching the Washington Generals against the Globetrotters. And when a character gets slammed on four times in a row, wouldn’t the coach bench that player? Not to mention…when was the last time you saw an NBA player get four slam dunks in the span of two minutes?

Right: Having the relationship build the way it did between Common and Latifah. So many rom-coms that are considered romantic, don’t show us why the characters fell so hard for each other. I’ve had three different women tell me The Notebook is their favorite all-time movie. Yet nothing about their courtship seems romantic. They get it right in this movie.

Wrong: The way the relationship worked near the end of the film. Latifah played high school basketball. Why not have a scene of them going one-on-one while he rehabbed from knee surgery? Why not change the way things went with the gorgeous sister re-entering the fray? Nothing about how the sister and Common work things out seems believable in any way.

Right: Using the Nets. I’m tired of it always being the Lakers, Celtics, or Clippers when movies need an NBA team.

Wrong: Using the Nets. It’s a bit of a stretch for us to belief they are on the verge of making the NBA Finals.

Right: A return visit to the old playground in the ghetto that he honed his skills as a kid.

Wrong: The return visit, which isn’t written nearly as well as it could’ve been. Maybe having him opening up and talking about his struggling childhood, or being a kid and playing for the love of the game and not the pay check. Instead, we get a scene that starts strong, but ends like the one in Rocky III – with all the athletes coming over to praise the pro they idiolize.

The movie has lots of Common, but drops the ball when it comes to common sense. It also has a lack of humor, as well as more realistic situations regarding how NBA players would really act at a party. Maybe to get the permission of the NBA for all the various scenes they used, they needed a super-clean script.

The movie opens this weekend.

It didn’t bring it’s A-game, and had a strong bench (i.e. support cast) that should’ve been given more playing time.

Grading it on a sports movie curve, it gets a C-.

PLEASE GIVE

Please Give is one of those frustrating movies. I liked it, yet I can’t recommend it to anyone. I’ve tried this in the past with Woody Allen movies (which this reminds me of at times). I’m tired of people coming back to me saying they’re bored with these character study, slice-of-life pieces that I find fascinating (when they’re done right). Oh, and there’s a lot of right about this (said in my best Tina Fey/Date Night voice).

Director Nicole Holofcener has turned into a great filmmaker. I’d love for Nancy Meyers (It’s Complicated) to watch and learn a few things.

It’s not that I’m biased, because of my love of Oliver Platt and Catherine Keener, who have both never done a performance I haven’t liked. They play a married couple that buys furniture at estate sales (and from neighbors), and sell it at a nice profit.

The supporting cast is solid. Rebecca Hall and Amanda Peet are cute sisters, with very different personalities; watching them deal with their grandmother is likea train wreck you can’t look away from. That grandmother, played by Ann Guilbert, steals the show with her Clara Peller voice (where’s the beef?) and great one-liners.

Sarah Steele, the daughter that is dealing with acne and parents that won’t buy her $200 jeans, is flat out terrific. For her to be rude and display that teen angst, while still having us feel for her, shows just what a talent this kid is. I first saw her in Spanglish, as the less attractive of the two kids, who seems to be just fine with that lot in life. She’s got a wonderful career ahead of her.

One scene has her not wanting to come down to dinner because of a huge pimple on her nose. When she finally arrives, with underwear over her head – it’s perhaps the funniest scene involving underwear I’ve seen. That would include 16 Candles, and Little Children.

This also has the best scene of a couple “fighting” you’ll get all year. After Oliver Platt flirts during dinner with Amanda Peet, his wife is talking about it as he flosses his teeth before bed. She’s sitting on the tub and asks why he was flirting with her. Instead of him denying it, he says “I know. It’s weird. I don’t know why I did, because she’s such a bitch.” As he walks to bed the wife says “It’s because she’s young. And cute!” She wasn’t furious and over-the-top, like in some Meyers film. These are adults, acting the way adults act in real life – not in scripted sitcoms or movies. And how refreshing is that?

Keeners character is saddled with guilt, as she gets many good deals from young people that aren’t sure how much to sell their grandparents stuff for. This causes her to give every homeless person in town money. And occasionally overpay for some items, because she feels bad for the people she’s buying from.

There’s a scene where she tries volunteering with various organizations, and nothing works out right. She says all the wrong things to the old folks at a home.

When she tries to coach a Special Olympics basketball team, she ends up crying as the kids joyfully score baskets. It’s not the reaction needed by a coach in this situation.

The funniest scene involving her altruism, has her trying to give a meal in a doggie bag to a large man outside the restaurant in a jacket, gloves, and ski cap. He tells her “I’m not homeless. I’m waiting for a table.” She feels embarrassed as she asks her husband “Didn’t he look homeless to you?” He replies, “No honey. He looked like a black man waiting for a table.”

This understated film has such smart, original dialogue, I’m sure I can write about every scene and it would sound funny and interesting. That’s because it is.

I’m guessing most people will find this movie slow. And that’s a shame. Maybe that’s why reality shows are so popular, and movies like It’s Complicated become huge hits.

I usually stay during the closing credits, because I like to see actors I may have missed or songs I might not have heard. In this movie, I thought about the opening scene that showed 20 different breasts during mammograms. I wondered if they’d be listed in the closing credits and how. They weren’t.

This movie gets a B+ .

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP

This movie is perhaps the most frustrating film I’ve seen in years.

My girlfriend is a huge fan of graffiti artist Banksy. She has a tattoo of one of the pieces he painted on the West Bank. I got her a coffee table book of his stuff (and he does do amazing pieces). Nobody knows anything about him, other than the fact that he’s hugely successful. And he’s now made millions of dollars on what started as illegal pranks and graffiti.

There’s a weird French character that Shepard Fairey described as “someone from 1860, with that mustache…who sweats a lot.” I heard one person say he looked like a thinner John Belushi. I thought he looked like a fatter Rob Schneider.

Theirry Guetta is that guy, and he videos everything -- his children playing, Shaquille O’Neal getting into his limo, ceiling fans spinning. Everything. He said this stems from his mom dying while he was in school and him being immediately removed from the home, and having hazy memories of things from his childhood. He felt his kids needed to have video documentation of everything.

His cousin is a street artist named “Invader” who paints characters from the video game Space Invaders, on various bridges and walls. This leads to Guetta wanting to film other street artists, the most famous being Fairey (who rose to fame with his Andre the Giant “Obey” pieces).

My friend complained this movie didn’t answer enough questions about street art, and that it didn’t tackle the question of – is graffiti, when done this way by people with artistic ability – really a bad thing. Or if they ever feel they’ve gone too far. Some pieces might show John Lennon with a bullet hole in the head, or a bent up red phone booth that Banksy puts in an alley, that immediately has fans snapping photos. It eventually sells at an auction for half a million dollars.

This film wasn’t about answering the questions about why they do it or what goes through their mind. It was about a few very interesting characters who are involved in street art.

It’s a very timely film, considering Fairey recently lost his lawsuit by using an AP photo of Obama for his famous red and blue poster.

When Banksy realizes he can trust Guetta and that video should be made of what they do, he agrees; his face blurred out and shots of him only from behind. We get to watch the masters at work, including a 9/11 trip to Disneyland, where Banksy jumps a fence and puts a blow up hostage chained up to a fence near the Big Thunder rollercoaster. Watching the coaster stop and security swarm the area (and the description of the interrogation of Guetta) is fascinating. I immediately thought about Man on Wire, and the attempts to break into the World Trade Center merely to walk across the buildings on a high wire.

When Banksy isn’t happy by the film that Guetta completes (it looks more like a video game), he decides to do the movie himself, and he focuses on the nutty Guetta. He suggests Guetta go create street art himself (mostly so he stays out of his hair and he can get at all his video tapes). Guetta, as is his obsessive nature, decides he likes it. He creates his own imagine to plaster on walls – a man with a video camera. He calls himself “Mr. Brainwash,” and has many disasters along the way. He spills paint all over his SUV. He falls off a ladder and breaks his foot. He gets hassled by cops. And, he decides to go into overdrive with his PR. He gets on the cover of the LA Weekly, rents a huge building, and decides to have an art show similar to the successful one Banksy had (which made lots of money, got lots of press, and folks like Brad Pitt showed up to drop $200,000).

Mr. Brainwash somehow makes a million dollars, selling pieces that look mostly like, well…like everyone else. There’s a lot of Andy Warhol type pieces, Banksy, and any other artist you can think of, just slightly tweeked by MBW.

Banksy ends the movie talking about how baffled he is by it all. Fairey seems fascinated by it all, and by the fans that latched onto Brainwash.

I left the theatre thinking I had just witnessed the most interesting documentary you’ll ever see on the art world. All those debates I’ve had with my art loving friends that try to explain abstract art really takes talent, have been proven wrong.

Until I find out…it’s all a big hoax. Yep, that’s right. The filmgoers were Borat-ed.

Banksy apparently pranked us all by creating this fictional character Mr. Brainwash, to show the absurdity of how people just buy art from anyone that they think is up-and-coming and blah blah blah.

It becomes a great statement on the art world, although what I thought was a good documentary on the critique of street and pop-art, now just becomes one big trick on the audience. And I have to wonder what was fake and what was real.

Did Mr. Brainwash really make a million dollars after only a few months of being an “artist”? Did Madonna really commission a CD cover by him? Does his cousin Invader really not speak to him? Or is he even related to Invader at all?

The movie did let us see Banksy in action and I did have a fun time watching it. But for a film that is the best reviewed thus far (it was at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes), I think it disappoints.

I’d give it an A- if it was all real. Since I believe it’s a hoax (some critics, including Roger Ebert, don’t think it is), I have to give it a B-.

PRINCESS KAIULANI

This is the true story (more or less) of the civil unrest that happened in Hawaii around 1888. Princess Kaiulani was separated from her family (at age 13), and sent to Victorian England. Talk about a change of scenery!

The movie had such great cinematography and a nice score, that I was sucked into the first 30 minutes; and watching Q’orianka Kilcher as the Princess, sure helped things along. I love when a character looks so authentic and right for the part, and isn’t just a young pretty, up-and-coming face in Hollywood. I’m guessing in history, most characters don’t look like Megan Fox but like Kilcher. I didn’t think she was pretty, but certainly attractive enough for the part. That worked more in her favor.

I thought the twin servants that worked for her had potential. There’s an interesting scene early on where the Princess admires the crosses their mom made from whale bone. And they get into trouble for “touching” her as they give her one.

Later in the movie when we see them, I didn’t think the scenes were as powerful as they should’ve been. I’m not sure why, as the things they said were moving. I think I had just lost a bit of interest at that point.

I thought a lot about Whale Rider while watching this (not just because of the whale bone crosses or the luscious landscapes and water back-drop). Unfortunately, it’s not nearly as good as that movie. In fact, it often felt like I was watching a TV mini-series. Sometimes critics say a movie should’ve gone straight to DVD. With this, I think it should’ve gone straight to TV, and possibly some classrooms in Hawaii as an educational tool.

I did appreciate learning something about a part of history I knew nothing about; especially since I made my first trip to Hawaii last year.

I found the ending powerful, as I thought about this child and her cruel fate, as she let the shells her and her mom collected fall from her hands into the sea. It left me wondering if this was just a condensed version of the real story, and much like Pocahantas, real historians would pick it apart.

None of that would’ve mattered if I enjoyed the film more. At two hours, I felt it was an hour and thirty minutes too long.

I can only give it a D.

NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT PERSIAN CATS

No One Here Gets Out Alive was a great title for the Jim Morrison biography, and No One Knows About Persian Cats is a great title for a film about the underground music scene in Tehran – especially after you see what the police do to a cute dog they catch in a musicians car.

The shorter titled Once is being talked about in comparison with this movie, only because it’s also a foreign film that deals with musicians. I thought Once was a lot better in every aspect.

That doesn’t mean this movie doesn’t have some great stuff. The songs are good, well…aside from the rap tune. Rap doesn’t work as well when you don’t know the language and are reading subtitles. One song reminds me of The Strokes, and another of Bob Welch (a bit more up-tempo and with a cool sounding organ).

I guess the variety of songs is a bit better than all the acoustic stuff on Once. And this movie does have a bit more excitement, as everywhere these kids go to play, there’s the threat of a police raid. That can come from a neighbor calling to complain about the noise, or a bored little kid with nothing better to do.

Okay, the premise of the story. A couple guys leave prison in Tehran and decide to start a band. They meet with lots of other musicians in other bands, trying to assemble a group that can play Europe and a few indie rock festivals. They have a connection to get them fake passports and visas. I can’t say more without spoiling it.

Sometimes the handheld camera approach they had gave a nice feel to the film. The videos of the city during the songs was interesting and clever, but did it have to be done for all six of the songs?

There are a few wonderful scenes that don’t over do it. One has the power going out on a band as they rehearse. Another has a group of musicians talking about what they wanted when they got rich and famous. That ranged from equipment (Ludwig drums, Rickenbacker bass)…to one guy who merely wanted to eat stew morning, noon, and night.

It’s interesting when one they talk about their favorite musicians (Bill Brufford of Yes) or see them hanging in the background (Beatles and Nirvana). You realize struggling musicians are the same anywhere. Well, okay…not everywhere. As hard as it is to make it in the music business, I’m guessing no musician here in San Diego would argue that they have it tougher. There’s no Casbah to rock in Tehran. You’ll most likely end up getting rocked in jail or from 80 whips to the back.

One scene had a heavy metal band rehearsing in a barn with cows. I wasn’t sure if they were mooing or booing. But whether you like the song or not, you can appreciate the fact that these guys will practice anywhere they have the opportunity -- even if it means getting sick in the process.

The one scene in the movie I couldn’t figure out, was a woman that had amazing pipes. They showed her recording in a studio, but always so out of focus you couldn’t see anything.

The movie kept me entertained, probably because I’m a music nut. Grading on a curve for music lovers, I give it a C. Everyone else will probably like it less; or maybe not. The movie is scoring a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes!

MOTHER AND CHILD

If Crash took place at an adoption agency instead of the LAPD, you’d have the movie Mother and Child.

This is the worst movie I’ve seen all year. It’s baffling to see that so many critics are praising it.

The story has three women all dealing with adoption. One (Naomi Watts) is bitter that her mom put her up for adoption. This causes her to focus merely on her job, keeping people at a distance. It also turns her into a nymphomaniac for some reason. I guess she is under the belief that she’s in control with the men in her life.

There’s Annette Bening as the mom that gave her up, and doesn’t spend a day not regretting that decision. It’s her worst performance ever.

Kerry Washington is in the most interesting of the stories – as a woman running a successful bakery and not being able to have children – looking into adoption. We can tell her husband isn’t so keen on the idea.

Of course, when we first see this couple having sex, we have to see movie cliché #13, which is – if you own an answering machine, it will interrupt whatever you’re doing. I’ve seen so many movies that do this, it makes me wonder if I’m the only person that has an answering machine in my living room and not the bedroom. Or wonder why other people don’t have the volume on it down, so guests in your house don’t hear messages that people leave when you aren’t quick enough to answer the phone.

A more frustrating scene happens a bit later, when Shareeka Epps (who I loved in Half Nelson), playing a pregnant teen that wants to approve the family that adopts her kid – is so mean and annoying, I have a hard time believing the couple would stay and listen to her snotty attitude. Especially when she tells them she wants to be able to name the baby (the nun earlier tells the couple that is common; I know nothing about adoption, but I’m guessing it’s not common).

The movie is also the most predictable of anything you’ll see all year.

I was surprised the blind girl on top of the roof, spouting off bits of wisdom to Watts, didn’t have one last scene where she saves everyone (or that she doesn’t call someone “grasshopper”).

The men in this movie are also poorly written characters. We see David Morse in a small role. He plays a former lover of Bening, who I’m guessing, is the one that got her pregnant when she was 14. The movie isn’t clear on that, though.

Jimmy Smits uses a thick Spanish accent, and plays a nice guy that isn’t believable. He tries to pick up on Bening at work (they’re physical therapists), but the first five times they talk, she snaps at him. One of those times, because he left a bag of tomatoes from his garden, on her locker. Another time, they have coffee together and she sends it back because it’s cold (which surprises Smits, since his coffee was just fine). It makes you wonder why he would continue to pursue a woman that is the meanest female character I’ve ever seen on the screen. She makes Nurse Ratched look like Mother Theresa.

But wait…let’s get some more movie clichés in here. After accusing her maids daughter of stealing a necklace and calling her a “little thief” for taking an Oreo, she all of the sudden becomes this wonderful woman, for reasons that aren’t exactly clear to me.

Yes, she still grieves for the daughter she gave up and wonders about.

We wonder if she’d be proud, knowing that daughter is quickly moving up the law firm, and is practically raping her boss, played by Samuel Jackson.

His character is the one that is well written, and very well acted. Every scene he has with Watts is a joy to watch.

The strangest thing is that this movie didn’t move me in the least. And I’m a guy that cries at commercials. I start to tear up when I hear a newborn baby crying and see the joy and sweat on the mothers face.

The first scene with the blind girl on the roof is interesting. They didn’t make her too smart or precocious.

There’s a scene where Jackson breaks things off with Watts that is good.

Another scene I almost liked, involved a man wanting to have a son with his wife. The problem is, bad writers have a way of making interesting scenarios uninteresting.

Some scenes I didn’t even understand.

When a meeting at an adoption agency goes bad, the wife goes from screaming at her husband in the car, to “touching him” and asking “Do you like that? Does that feel good?” I’m not even sure what that was even about.

I don’t know if these women just needed to be more engaging for this to be enjoyable, or if the stories just had to be more believable. I don’t even care that the writer/director was being so manipulative with all of it. It bothers me that 90% of it didn’t work.

Would an adoption agency really misplace some info that would’ve helped two of the main characters? Would Smits ever have fallen for such a mean woman? Would Watts refuse a huge promotion that Jackson offers her, simply because she didn’t feel she earned it? She spends the whole first part of the movie chewing up and spitting out everyone in her path, and relishing the fact that everyone she’s worked with hates her. So why at this point is she worried about her co-workers not thinking she earned the promotion?

This whole film is maudlin garbage that gives “chick flicks” a bad name.

These are the types of stories that get made fun of when they’re in soap operas on TV, so why are critics praising it on the big screen?

I spent a few minutes wondering what Warren Beatty would tell Bening about this. Will he ask her why she didn’t have some soft focus that he used in Love Affair to look younger? Will he pretend he actually liked this piece of crap because he’s married to her?

I wouldn’t have minded that actors I love – David Morse, Elizabeth Pena, and Amy Brenneman -- had such small parts, if the main characters would’ve been written better.

I’m afraid this movie (ready for the best pun of the year?)…just doesn’t deliver.

It gets a D-.

SPLICE

A couple working and living together (Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley) create genetic hybrid animals for the lab they work at. This has helped in the medical field a number of ways, but when they’re told the lab will shut down after expenses don’t justify the research, Polley decides they should add some human DNA, as they had originally planned for later down the road.

The movie is still very interesting when it turns into The Fly meets Island of Dr. Moreau, (with a little Frankenstein thrown in).

It’s unfortunately that the entire second half becomes a ridiculous mess. The movie doesn’t know if it wants to stay an interesting piece of science fiction, or a horror movie.

It’s even more frustrating that such great special effects are wasted. It’s also frustrating that the characters, who seem so realistic early on, make imbecilic decisions.

The first problem I had with this movie was during a conference in which the geneticists showed a few of the hybrid animals to many of the stockholders. They were fascinated by the huge worm like creatures, who we see earlier involved in a mating ritual that was beautiful and looked like something out of Avatar.

In front of the crowd, it’s a lot less “romantic.” And that would’ve been great if it was less over-the-top.

I thought it was odd that the film had these subtle lectures on the ethics of all of this, and many times the comparisons to the abortion debate got annoying.

When Polley decides to mix in human DNA, she hadn’t planned on what might happen. Unfortunately, I think the same applied for the filmmakers.

There were 11 different creatures that were built for this movie (it ages rapidly, which may have made things tougher for the prop department, but helped move the story along).

It started out like the creature from Alien, soon turned into a naked mole rat, then a rabbit, the elephant man, and finally Sinead O’Connor. And you thought you looked bad in some of your baby photos.

Another scene early in the movie that frustrates, is when one scientist takes a mask off. Another sticks their arm into an incubator when a problem with the creature arises. How is it I’ve never been in a lab in my life, but would never think it’s safe to do the things they did?

Movie pet peeve #27 shows up. That’s my pet peeve that states the boss will always be mad at you and the work you do, even if you’re one of the best at your job. It’s usually the captain at a police station, telling the two hero cops he’ll “have their badges” if they keep “playing by their own rules” (even though their own rules may have just saved hundreds of people). In this lab, it’s two highly regarding geneticists who had just been featured on the cover of a magazine.

The company they work for is called N.E.R.D., which is cute. They spell it backwards, to call their latest creature Dren, played nicely by model Delphine Chaneac (bald, of course). And since it’s a model playing this character (SPOILER ALERT) – you can kind of guess that Brody will eventually have sex with it (he even gave that away on Jimmy Kimmel a few weeks ago).

Since Brody had become the father figure to this creature, I leaned into the lawyer friend watching the screening with me and said “Would he be charged with incest or bestiality?” (SPOILER ALERT OVER)

The movie dealt a lot with Polley having a horrible childhood, but that story is told sloppily. It’s almost like they wanted to just give a lame reason for the horrible decisions she continued to make regarding Dren.

I’m also not sure why the two scientists live in such a shabby apartment when they must be making big bucks.

The movie reminded me of some of the David Cronenberg films I saw as a teenager. And I guess if I still were a teenager, I’d be able to forgive a lot of the flawed science and leaps of logic the characters make in the film.

Late in the movie, I had lost all interest because of all the craziness transpiring.

I instead had thoughts pop into my head like:

n Do all scientists listen to loud rock music?
n If you were a brilliant scientist like Brody, who could create any type of creature imaginable, wouldn’t you create a new nose for yourself?
n When the female geneticist admits she used her own DNA and has become a mom to the creature, does she realize she’s giving Joan Crawford a run for her money by taking away the girls jewelry, toys, and pet cat?
n When the creature strangles the cat with its tail, will the credits say “No cats were hurt during the filming.” Will they tell us no hybrid creatures were hurt, either?

Finally, I just wished Splice would’ve taken the good parts it had, and been spliced into a better film. The way it is now, there aren’t enough scary moments to appeal to the horror film crowd. And the sci-fi geeks will have more fun watching this at the midnight movie, throwing things and shouting at the screen.

This movie opens this weekend, and all my sci-fi geek friends are excited about it.

I’m giving it a D+, for a strong first half and great special effects.





HARRY BROWN

What do you get when you have a person that’s part Foxy Brown part Dirty Harry? You get Harry Brown, of course. The vigilante that will be compared to Charles Bronson in every review, and perhaps a few comparisons to Gran Torino.

This is more of a Dodge Stealth than a Gran Torino. Michael Caine, who plays chess with his buddy Len (well…until Len runs afoul of the hooligans in the neighborhood). Just like a chess player, he plots his moves careful.

He doesn’t just run to the bridge they hang out under, firing a gun randomly. He watches one leave a bar and approaches cautiously.

He looks out his window trying to figure out what they’re up to (usually just selling drugs and slapping around people that walk by).

Director Daniel Barber really has a nice debut picture with this. He filmed in a greenish color that’s half-lit at times. It gives this part of Britain a dirty feel. And unlike the Guy Ritchie films (it was produced by Matthew Vaughn), it doesn’t have that hipness Ritchie always seems to be going for. This is a much more realistic picture.

When a police captain is yelling at two of his officers (one played well by the always impressive Emily Mortimer), he doesn’t threaten to take their badges, or yelling at them for getting involved. He simply tells Mortimer she might be better suited for the position that became available in a fake identity case, “especially with your background.” It’s so much less condescending than the usual chewing out cops get in film.

Unlike Tarantino, who used close-ups poorly in Inglourious Basterds, I enjoyed seeing the close-ups of Caine putting jam on his toast, or swirling the last of his ale in an empty pub. It gave a good feel to what was happening in the scenes.

Not to mention a few of the edits. We go from hearing a car alarm for five minutes, to immediately hearing a phone ring.

What really bothers me is that in a vigilante picture that is predictable (they all are), a few of the scenes are a tad over-the-top.

When Caine goes to visit a drug dealer, under the guise of wanting to buy a gun, it’s bizarre that these creeps (that look like members of the Sex Pistols) even let him in. Sure, they’re tweaking and out of it, but still.

And when Caine walks in, past all the pot growing and other drugs, you figure there’s millions of dollars worth. How is it just these two guys (that are wasted) are running the show? And at a place that took Caine 10 minutes to find. How is it the police haven’t raided the joint?

It’s easy to overlook that, when you’re having so much fun watching Caine stab one in the arm and blasting a hole into the other…and talking to him as he’s dying about his days in the Marines and having the unfortunate experience of watching a fellow soldier die.

I also thought a scene involving a riot was a bit odd. How could there be that many drug dealers and thugs fighting off the police? Where did they all come from? For most of the movie, we were only seeing 10 bullies that terrorized the neighborhood.

So many scenes worked, that you can let the few bad ones slide.

There wasn’t gratuitous violence, which was nice. In fact, when Caine gets ready to torture someone for information, you know what he does? He merely whips the tied up guy, while threatening to shoot off his kneecaps, until he finally starts talking.

When the crying kid shows Caine a cell phone of the recorded crime (to prove he didn’t stab his friend), it also brings a nice use of the cell phone into the picture. The Departed, a movie critics liked much more, used cell phones in a stupid way that didn’t work for me. But when Caine is shaking down a character in a bar, wanting to know where the ringleader is – he simply pushes the kids name on the phone and hears a cell phone ringing to the side of him. Great stuff.

The movie also becomes a bit of a character study that packs an emotional punch in a few places.

Some people might think Michael Caine brings too much baggage to his roles, but I think he always slips nicely into character. If this had been a slightly better script, we’d see an Oscar nomination for this performance.

On the vigilante grading scale, this movie scores a B.

SEX AND THE CITY 2

I hated the first Sex and the City film. I hate this movie slightly less. And I was a huge fan of the show. It was clever and fun.

It baffles me that nobody wonders during the filming, why these jokes and bad puns aren’t working. Kim Catrall actually says “Lawrence of my Labia” at one point. And one character is named Richard Spirtz, merely for a cheap joke about his name being shortened to Dick (was the screenwriter/director a 5th grader?) These are lame jokes you get with this movie.

I thought they brought some good stories to the table. Big and Bradshaw turning into a boring married couple that just sit at home and order take-out; Kristin Davis trying to raise two bratty kids, and wondering about her husband and attractive nanny; Kim Cattrall going through menopause; and Cynthia Nixon dealing with a sexist boss that causes her to quit the law firm.

When they go to Abu Dhabi (so they can tell unfunny jokes about camel toes while riding camels), things continue to go downhill. And as a critic, I’d be remiss to not mention Ishtar, the biggest comedic bomb of all-time, which had Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman riding camels. I think those animals jinx movies.

When Bradshaw and Big watch an old movie and she says how beautiful Claudette Colbert is, he whispers, “She’s got nothing on you.” I wondered why anyone would say such a cheesy line. It’s even weirder when you’re saying that to Sarah Jessica Parker, who not only isn’t the most attractive actress in the world, her and all the other women in this actually didn’t look so hot. It’s strange, because Cattrall was beautiful in Ghost Writer, but all the shots of her and the gals in this were unflattering. No, the camel humps didn’t make their butts look fat. They just looked like old women who can’t pull off this flirtatious fun they did when the TV show started. Maybe that’s why they found a way to get them to wear burkhas.

The cameos were cute (Liza Minelli, Penelope Cruz and Miley Cyrus), but there were only two scenes that were funny in the entire 2 ½ hours (and that’s being generous).

The first film made over $150 million domestically, and I have no reason to believe this won’t be huge. It’s just strange that fans of the show can watch crap like this just because it involves characters they like. Shouldn’t that make you like the movie less? They’re taking characters that we found so fun on the show, but now we wonder why they aren’t funny and come across as spoiled brats.

A perfect example is a scene when the women are really in danger of getting stoned to death or jailed in the Middle East, and their biggest concern is being late to the airport and having to fly coach.

I also wondered – if Muslims extremists were so offended by the use of Mohammed in South Park recently, I’m guessing after this film, the studio that made this bomb will be bombed.

There’s a scene where Cattrall is having sex so loudly, that wedding guests all hear what’s going on. It’s exactly like the scene she did in Porky’s. That’s a movie I never thought I’d reference in a review, and it was actually funnier than SATC2.

A joke about youthful looks that has one character whipping out her Suzanne Somers book brought a slight smile to my face. Later in the film, when a group of women all brought the book out of their purses it not only wasn’t funny, but I wondered if there was some sort of product placement going on. But hey, it gave them the opportunity to throw in an unfunny thigh master joke.

And on the subject of books, Bradshaw puts her latest novel (which is poorly reviewed, just like this movie will be) on the shelf. It’s next to a Susan Sontag book. Wow. I think that last earthquake I felt was someone spinning furiously in their grave.

The fans of SATC will go to this, not worrying about what the critics think. And they won’t mind the silly contrived situations like an old boyfriend (John Corbett) coincidentally being in Abu Dhabi, or the young stud from the first movie making an appearance to sleep with Catrall again (in a scene that should’ve made this movie NC17); and of course, the two main gay characters getting married to each other. It’s a lavish wedding that has a few amusing scenes, but is way too long. Just like this entire movie.

Any critic that gives this a good review is a critic you shouldn’t trust.

I’m giving it a D.

GET HIM TO THE GREEK

One critic started their review of Get Him to the Greek by saying: “Now here's a relatively new (if not necessarily welcome) idea: the sorta-kinda-not-really sequel.”

Well, nobody involved with this movie claimed it was a sequel or trying to be one. The word this critic was looking for is “spin-off.”

Spin-offs were popular in 70s TV. The Jeffersons was a spin-off from All in the Family.

A show like Happy Days, had a few spin-offs: Laverne & Shirley, as well as Mork and Mindy.

A sequel would mean they are continuing with the same story.

Aldous Snow, the British rock star played by Russell Brand, is a character from Saving Sarah Marshall. That’s the only thing it has to do with that movie. Although, Jonah Hill is playing an employee of a record label, and his character in Saving Sarah Marshall was completely different, so…that’s odd.

It’s also odd that Judd Apatow (who produced the film), keeps using the same actors. It’s so incestuous at this point. I’m starting to wonder if there’s a Judd Apatow movie Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill haven’t done (and I saw a preview before this, showing an upcoming film with Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell, two more that have appeared together before in Apatow films).

In this movie, Hill is bullied by boss Sean Combs (better known as Puff Daddy, P-Diddy, and the artist formerly know as Biggie’s bitch). His job is to get Snow to the Greek Theatre for a 10-year anniversary concert.

A similar story line was done in the 1983 movie Get Crazy with Daniel Stern, Ed Beagley, Jr. and Malcolm McDowell. They want to have an anniversary concert for a Fillmore style venue that might close, and Lou Reed plays a wacky rock star that hasn’t left the hotel room in years. Near the end of the movie, he’s written a new song and is eager to perform it. He’s hit and killed by a car while crossing the street.

Greek has similar scenes (trying to get someone to a show, and someone being hit by a car).

It also reminds me at times of Almost Famous, a movie which is better in a few ways (it’s more realistic), but not in others (not as funny).

Jonah Hill reminds me a lot of John Candy. It’s strange, because Jack Black reminds me of John Belushi. Both of those guys are hysterically funny, but did a lot of bad movies. Both Hill and Candy aren’t as funny as those two, but both are in better movies. And this is yet another example of that.

Hill and Candy could both be funny (not just relying on their weight for laughs), and can play serious, and sad, quite convincingly.

Russell Brand had been making the news lately for getting engaged to singer Katy Perry after a brief courtship. It’s almost like something out of this movie, especially since Snow’s character in the film has a relationship with a high profile pop singer, who like Perry, had a hit with very saucy lyrics.

There are a lot of scenes in this movie you can see coming, but they’re very cleverly written.

When Hill first experiences the bar and club scene with Brand, he plays it awkward and as an employee trying to do his job. When he lets loose a little, he’s still visibly uncomfortable, and it hits comedic gold.

There’s a scene where he has a big fight and “sort of” breaks up with his girlfriend, which makes it easier for the audience to forgive him in all these indulgences.

One scene involves a groupie in a bathroom. It might be the funniest groupie scene you’ll ever see. What happens on the toilet will make you forget how hard you laughed at Jeff Daniels sitting on the pot in Dumb and Dumber.

P Diddy does what he usually does in movies – plays a slightly different version of himself. I have to admit, his scenes are all very funny. One involves him lecturing his staff on how successfully he is (and how many chicken restaurant chains he owns), another involves him lecturing Hill on the proper times to answer his cell phone, and one with him enjoying some family time (watching The Biggest Loser).

The movie has a lot of great one-liners, and I feel comedies are funnier that have better scenes and are more realistic than just one-liners constantly thrown out at you. If you’re going to go down the path of a crazy comedy with a million jokes, I want the movie to be as funny as Airplane. This film obviously isn’t, but I doubt you’ll be disappointed; many scenes work.

One hilarious scene involves Hill being informed by his med-school girlfriend, that they’ll be moving to Seattle. He asks what he’d do in Seattle (since his job is in L.A.). She uses logic I’ve seen in a few females over the years. She replied, “There’s music in Seattle. They have a big music scene. Nirvana is from Seattle.”

And just when you think it can’t get any funnier, Hill angrily says “I’m being told by you today that I should just drop everything and move to Seattle. That’s unfair. Okay, wait…I have an idea. I want you to move to Africa.”

I remember Brand hosted the MTV video awards years ago, and nobody knew who he was. I thought he was funny, and he always cracked me up on the late night talk shows. I know a few people that don’t care for him, though. I’m guessing those people won’t like this movie. And, it’s also going to be a bit raunchy and crazy for some tastes.

I think enough of the jokes work that I can recommend it.

It gets a B.

GET HIM TO THE GREEK

One critic started their review of Get Him to the Greek by calling it a “sorta-kinda-not-really sequel.”

Well, nobody involved with this movie claimed it was a sequel or trying to be one. The word this critic was looking for is “spin-off.”

Spin-offs were popular in 70s TV. The Jeffersons was a spin-off from All in the Family.

A show like Happy Days, had a few spin-offs: Laverne & Shirley, as well as Mork and Mindy.

A sequel would mean they are continuing with the same story.

Aldous Snow, the British rock star played by Russell Brand, is a character from Forgetting Sarah Marshall. That’s the only thing it has to do with that movie. Although, Jonah Hill is playing an employee of a record label, and his character in Forgetting Sarah Marshall was completely different, so…that’s odd.

It’s also odd that Judd Apatow (who produced the film), keeps using the same actors. It’s so incestuous at this point. I’m starting to wonder if there’s Apatow movie Seth Rogan or Jonah Hill haven’t done (and I saw a preview before this, showing an upcoming film with Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell, two more that have appeared together before in Apatow films).

In this movie, Hill is bullied by boss Sean Combs (better known as Puff Daddy, P-Diddy, and the artist formerly know as Biggie’s bitch). His job is to get Snow to the Greek Theatre for a 10-year anniversary concert.

A similar story line was done in the 1983 movie Get Crazy with Daniel Stern and Malcolm McDowell. They want to have an anniversary concert for a Fillmore style venue that might close, and Lou Reed plays a wacky rock star that hasn’t left the hotel room in years. Near the end of the movie, he’s written a new song and is eager to perform it. He’s hit and killed by a car while crossing the street.

Another movie around that time was My Favorite Year with Peter O’Toole, who acted like a womanizing tool, while being chaperoned around town.

Greek has similar scenes (trying to get someone to a show, multiple women slept with, and someone being hit by a car).

It also reminds me at times of Almost Famous, a movie which is better in a few ways (it’s more realistic), but not in others (not as funny).

Jonah Hill reminds me a lot of John Candy. It’s strange, because Jack Black reminds me of John Belushi. Both of those guys are hysterically funny, but did a lot of bad movies. Both Hill and Candy aren’t as funny as those two, but both are in better movies. And this is yet another example of that.

Hill and Candy could both be funny (not just relying on their weight for laughs), and can play serious, and sad, quite convincingly.

Russell Brand (a former heroin addict in real life) had been making the news lately for getting engaged to singer Katy Perry after a brief courtship. It’s almost like something out of this movie, especially since Snow’s character in the film has a relationship with a high profile pop singer who like Perry, had a hit with very saucy lyrics.

There are a lot of scenes in this movie you can see coming, but they’re very cleverly written. It was a pleasant surprise that many of the scenes the TV commercials show, aren’t in the movie (don’t you hate those giving away all the good stuff?)

I’ve seen a lot of movies lately with great cameos. The tradition continues nicely here, with Ricky Schroder and Metallica’s Lars Ulrich.

When Hill first experiences the bar and club scene with Brand, he plays it awkward and as an employee trying to do his job. When he lets loose a little, he’s still visibly uncomfortable, and it hits comedic gold.

Hill shows that he can do physical comedy quite well in this film. One scene involves him sneezing that’s hysterical (I can’t explain more without giving things away).

There’s a scene where he has a big fight and “sort of” breaks up with his girlfriend, which makes it easier for the audience to forgive him in all these indulgences.

One scene involves a groupie in a bathroom. It might be the funniest groupie scene you’ll ever see. What happens on the toilet will make you forget how hard you laughed at Jeff Daniels sitting on the pot in Dumb and Dumber.

P. Diddy does what he usually does in movies – plays a slightly different version of himself. I have to admit, his scenes are all very funny. One involves him lecturing his staff on how successfully he is (and how many chicken restaurant chains he owns); another involves him lecturing Hill on the proper times to answer his cell phone, and one with him enjoying some family time (watching The Biggest Loser).

The movie has a lot of great one-liners, and I feel comedies are funnier that have better scenes and are more realistic than just one-liners constantly thrown out at you. If you’re going to go down the path of a crazy comedy with a million jokes, I want the movie to be as funny as Airplane. This film obviously isn’t, but I doubt you’ll be disappointed; many scenes work.

One hilarious scene involves Hill being informed by his med-school girlfriend, that they’ll be moving to Seattle. He asks what he’d do in Seattle (since his job is in L.A.). She uses logic I’ve seen in a few females over the years. She replied, “There’s music in Seattle. They have a big music scene. Nirvana is from Seattle.”

And just when you think it can’t get any funnier, Hill angrily says “I’m being told by you today that I should just drop everything and move to Seattle. That’s unfair. Okay, wait…I have an idea. I want you to move to Africa.”

I remember Brand hosted the MTV video awards years ago, and nobody knew who he was. I thought he was funny, and he always cracked me up on the late night talk shows. I know a few people that don’t care for him, and I’m guessing those people won’t like this movie. And, it’s also going to be a bit raunchy and crazy for some tastes.

The movie is a bit uneven and frantically paced at times. And the sentimental moments don’t work (are we really supposed to have sympathy for a rich, famous, druggie just because he claims to be “lonely”?); but I think it’s funny enough that most people will enjoy it.

It gets a B.

MY SON, MY SON, WHAT HAVE YE DONE

My friend claims I contradict myself in my reviews. He saw me on Fox5 saying “What happened to movies with one word titles like Tootsie and Jaws?” This was in reference to the title Get Him to the Greek. He left a message saying “You and I have talked in great detail about how much we hate action pictures with one word titles.”

He’s correct. Action pictures or romances that have a one word title that sounds generic, I don’t care for. I mean, does anyone even remember what the movies Knowing, Quarantine, Armageddon, or Fear are even about?

Werner Herzog, the director and co-writer of My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done, is the same person that last year gave us the Nicolas Cage movie The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans. Both films, like their titles, disappointed me.

Herzog films sometimes remind me of David Lynch (who is the executive producer here) in their strangeness. They remind me of Tim Burton films in the sense that they have brilliant scenes, but the final product is never satisfying to me.

This film is loosely based on the 1979 story here in San Diego, about an actor who goes nuts and stabs his mother to death. In this fictional story, the actor goes to Peru and after refusing to river raft with friends (all of whom die), he becomes convinced God talks to him.

And when a person goes wacky, and they’re using a sword in a Greek tragedy that involves the murder of mom…well, things are only going to get worse. You do get to see how some of these crazy cult leaders can actually acquire a following. This guy is good looking and charismatic, and even his fiancé has trouble leaving him when he’s clearly gone bonkers.

You can see signs of nuttiness in his family. His mom is wacky, played nicely by Grace Zabriskie, a David Lynch regular (I remember her from Norma Rae, and the mom in An Officer and a Gentleman). In real life, Zabriskie has some great art work at the ArtHaus gallery in L.A. But I digress.

The uncle is a racist ostrich farmer played by Brad Dourif, who started his film career playing the stutterer in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (a long movie title I like); who lost the stutter to do the voice of Chucky in Child’s Play.

These cult actors and Oscar nominees, also have Michael Shannon in the lead (remember him in Revolutionary Road and Vanilla Sky?) I think he’s amazing, as he slowly goes crazy, staring into the camera at times in a way that is worrisome. He’s also got a few interesting catch phrases (“razzle dazzle” which would’ve been a better title for this film). The interesting bits of dialog make me wish the movie wasn’t so inconsistently compelling and self-indulgent.

Chloe Sevigny pops up as the fiancé; with all the flashbacks they show, you wonder why her and the play director even bothered with this guy that was ruining the play (even when he wasn’t in it anymore, but just watching from the crowd).

Willem Dafoe actually plays one of the normal people (and probably his 10th police detective on film, which might rival Dourif, who often plays cops).

Verne Troyer even makes an appearance in an odd scene (I thought Mini Me only did Mike Myers movies).

Regarding the animals performances in the film – I found the pink flamingoes did a wonderful job, but the ostriches seemed forced and one went over-the-top trying for a laugh when he snatched reading glasses out of a front pocket.

I have a friend that travels around the world, and he always annoys me in movies when he says “I’ve been there,” at some exotic location on the screen. Anyone in San Diego will be able to say that, as there are lots of scenes in Ocean Beach, downtown, and Balboa Park (and you’ll notice the convention center when they’re supposed to be in Canada).

It bothers me so much that Herzog can be so interesting with his visuals, but can’t make a great picture.

I found it so interesting when the camera follows a Quaker Oats can down the driveway, or a basketball placed in a tree in Balboa Park. Another interesting scene involves a gospel song playing from a portable radio is powerful.

And just as I found the lizards in Bad Lieutenant fascinating, so were the flamingoes.

The first half hour of this had me enthralled, but then it got to the point where I wanted to take the sword they kept showing, and commit harry carry.

I wondered if the original San Diego story from 1979 would’ve been more interesting. Or a film that combines that murder, along with the 16-year-old girl that shot up a school across the street from her, that same year here. After killing two, wounding nine (including a cop), she casually explained why she did it.

“I don’t like Mondays.” It inspired a Boomtown Rats song, why not a Herzog movie?

Only hardcore Herzog/Lynch fans, or film students, should bother with this movie. Oh, and pizza delivery guys. They don’t get in many movies that aren’t X rated, but they sometimes sneak into places they shouldn’t be (the classroom in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and past the police tape into a hostage negotiation in this film)

I’m giving it a C-.

SOLITARY MAN

The guys that brought us the disappointing The Girlfriend Experience, now give us The Mid-Life Crisis Experience.

Michael Douglas is joined by someone he’s co-starred with a lot – Danny DeVito. Their scenes together are pleasant, and I didn’t think about any of their old films. When Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) shows up, and Douglas lectures the shy college student on how to get women – I immediately thought of the character he played in Roger Dodger. Campbell Scott plays the older sleaze spouting off the seduction advice (strange that that movie came out eight years ago, and Eisenberg looks the exact same age).

Jenna Fischer of The Office fame, is always wonderful on screen. But much like her Office love-interest John Krasinski, they both keep showing up in bad films (he was one of the few things I liked in It’s Complicated).

The cast (perhaps the best for a film all year) is rounded off nicely by Mary-Louise Parker, Susan Sarandon, and Imogen Poots (the prettiest actress with the ugliest name).

The music is perfect. The always reliable Michael Penn (Sean’s film-scoring brother), and we don’t even have to hear Neil Diamond. It’s Johnny Cash’s version of Solitary Man that starts the film.

The day I saw a press screening of this film, I happened to catch a woman on TV complaining about this movie and how it was “Another one of those films where a 65-year-old guy gets the young women. How unrealistic is that?”

I shouted at the TV, “It seems realistic to me! His current wife is the 40-year-old Catherine Zeta-Jones!”

Douglas is starting to look more like his dad in the age department, though.

In this film, he plays a car dealership mogul who got caught up in scandal, and is almost on the verge of putting his financial life back in order. He also has a bad heart (literally and figuratively), and his sex addiction is ruining business opportunities and family relationships.

Anyone else remember Michael Douglas being one of the first actors to claim a sex addiction? It was after his first wife caught him cheating countless times. Interesting that he’d still take this role, but hey…he plays a weasel better than anyone (and we’ll see it again soon with the Wall Street sequel).

The script is a bit shallow and filmed with some clichés. You have a hard time believing some of the things happening (like Douglas bragging about his sexual exploits with his daughter, who is clearly getting tired of hearing about it); but the film is never boring.

There are some scenes that have nice touches I haven’t seen on screen before. For example, when a thug beats up Douglas, he doesn’t coolly and casually walk back to his limo. He looks around quickly to see if there were any witnesses, and even fumbles a bit for the car door handle.

Yet, when we see Eisenberg with his new girlfriend later in the movie, they have a cute inside joke where they say certain words in Spanish. That’s a scene that could’ve been clever, but was written sloppy.

There’s another scene where Douglas speaks rudely to a woman he just seduced. Not only do I find that to be awkward and not true to his character – I’ve seen too many scenes like that recently (done a lot better in Please Give, and even with Douglas and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction).

All those women that loved Sex and the City…well hell, all women, are going to hate this movie. Here’s an example of why: the nicest character is DeVito, as a childhood friend who really takes care of Douglas in his darkest hour. Yet even he says, when asked how he doesn’t get tempted by the college girls that come into his deli, “I see them when they come back here years later. They sit in the same places, eat the same food. They’ve got wrinkles and added a few pounds. I’ve got that at home.” Nice.

It’s a shame, because there are other scenes, like a conversation with Eisenberg that’s one of the sweetest and most well-written apology scenes I’ve seen in a film. Why couldn’t there be more scenes like that, and less hackneyed scenes of Douglas telling his grandson “not to call him grandpa” when a young blonde is nearby, or when his ex-wife asks what he wants (their marriage back, or to keep chasing young women), just as a college co-ed walks by and he stares at her, as he stands up off the park bench they met at when they were college sweethearts. Is that supposed to be profound? Because it just seemed utterly ridiculous to me.

The movie gets a C- from me, on the strength of the cast alone. Ask me tomorrow, and it might be a D.

A-TEAM / KARATE KID
I had a debate with local film critic Scott Marks recently. I thought it was lame that Roger Ebert reviewed a movie he had only watched the first eight minutes of. As Marks pointed out, Ebert tells you this in his review, and doesn’t try to deceive the reader.

I just think when you’re job is to review movies, often times that means sitting through two hours of crap to do your job.

Restaurant critics might occasionally have a meal they hate, or one that has them in the bathroom all night. It doesn’t mean in future reviews they try an appetizer and walk out if they aren’t happy.

But I remembered a few times I was on KOGO 600 and we did a bit where we’d review movies before they came out, based merely on the trailers. I’d usually see the movies the following week, and was pretty accurate.

I thought I would employ that technique with two films that are out right now, but they made huge money at the box office their opening weekend. And this will save me from wasting four hours of my life (and really, did Karate Kid need to be 2 ½ hours?).

The film studios made it I Love the 80s week with the release of The Karate Kid and The A-Team.

Let’s start with Murdock and the boys.

I’ve seen all the movies of the 80s and loved the music (can’t blame me…they were my high school years). I didn’t watch many 80s TV shows, though. I can count the 80s TV shows I liked on one hand: Cheers, Doogie Howser, Moonlighting, and Family Ties.

I remember my stepdad would occasionally come home drunk, and laugh hysterically at Alf. I had watched Robin Williams play an alien in Mork, and couldn’t understand why a muppet looking creature would pass for an alien life form.

I had a neighbor that saw a four episodes of The A-Team and he told me all about it. That’s the extent of my knowledge, which I think, more than qualifies me to write about the show and movie.

I don’t think it makes any difference, just as it doesn’t when a person has read the book the movie is based on.

I know the Mohawk dude was played by Mr. T, and now by Rampage Jackson, an ultimate fighter. Bradley Cooper, who often takes crap movies, is on board. And Liam Neeson, who must’ve enjoyed shooting bad guys in Taken so much, that he became the cigar chompin’ Hannibal in this (can anyone hear the name Hannibal and not think of Anthony Hopkins?).

I think it’s funny that Jessica Biel made such a big deal about saying how bad the writing was on her TV show, and she has no problem with the script for A-Team.

At least the A-Team was a TV show, and they could create an original movie based on that. They updated it (instead of Vietnam Vets, now Iraq war soldiers), and show how these renegades all met.

But in the commercials, I saw a scene that had a tank attached to parachutes, gently floating down as someone was shooting machine guns from it and taking down planes. The effects looked like bad CGI. I’m guessing the logistics of how a tank could even do this, doesn’t bother the people there to see it. I think it’s easier to give a pass to a spaceship in District 9 that defies gravity, because those creatures had advanced technology. That doesn’t mean any action picture can just do this stuff.

I remember being a teenager at the movies watching a Chuck Norris film, and realizing the acting was awful. There was a trailer for a new movie with an action star named Steven Segal, and I figured I’d just outgrown Norris; but after seeing how awful that was, I just realized I was getting to the age where I demanded movies have interesting plot lines, character development, and action pictures couldn’t just have an explosion every five seconds.

Does anyone really remember the goofy car chase scenes in a movie like Gone in 60 Seconds, or do you remember the chase scenes in The French Connection and Bullitt?

During the trailer for the A-Team, my friend said “Are people actually going to go see this?” I said in my Kevin Costner/Field of Dreams voice: If you remake it, they will come.

I followed that with my Mr. T voice – I pity the fool who spends $11 to see this garbage!

I talked to two friends that have seen it. One liked it and the other hated it, saying there was “too much action, and not enough of a story.”

I’m guessing if you’re going to see this movie, you know what you’re in store for and probably won’t be disappointed. Those that think it looks stupid are probably right.

The A Team doesn’t get an A. It gets a D.

Now The Karate Kid, well…that’s a remake that falls into that category of remakes that don’t need to be remade. Not sure why they did Willy Wonka again, as the original still holds up and is quoted by newer generations.

To quote Roger Ebert (who writes great pieces on film, but has horrible taste in movies) “Why remake good movies? They should remake bad movies, and fix all the problems that made them bad.”

Usually with these Rocky type of sports films, you know who is going to win the big fight, but you still get sucked in. I have a hard time figuring out how someone could get sucked in, when Will Smith’s kid Jaden looks 7-years-old. He was the perfect age in The Pursuit of Happyness, but he’s just too young to pull this off. Not the action sequences which, from what I’ve seen, this boy has the chops. Karate chops. Or, kung fu chops, since they changed it to that martial arts form (no word on why the movie title didn’t change to something like Kung Fu Fighting).

I remember Ralph Machio, who as a kid I first saw in Eight is Enough (when it jumped the shark and had to bring in a cute new sibling to liven things up). He played the naïve boy being bullied by older kids, perfectly. Jaden Smith looks like some young rapper who I can see myself wishing would get his face kicked in.

Jackie Chan is getting raved reviews for his understated performance, but…when Pat Morita played the wise karate instructor -- the cool thing about that is we all recognized him as Arnold from Happy Days. Now, instead of giving Richie advice on how to kiss LoriBeth, he was teaching Macchio how to be macho (well, as macho as you can be standing there like a crane on one leg waiting to throw a kick).

I heard there’s a scene where Chan beats up a bunch of 12-year-olds. It’s one thing when Morita beats up 18 to 22-year-olds thugs that look like James Spader on steroids…another when it’s kids that aren’t even in high school.

These movies have fun cameos: Mr. T doesn’t make it in A-Team, but Dirk Benedict has a small role. I didn’t hear about Karate Kid having any, but I saw in the commercial a take-off on the scene where a fly is buzzing around Chan. He has chop sticks in his hand. Instead of catching it the way Morita did, he uses a fly swatter that’s in the other hand. That’s cute.

It’s weird how most Hollywood actors go on the late night shows and talk about how they try talking their kids out of getting into the movies. Will Smith, who seems like an intelligent guy, continues to push his kid in the industry. He developed this project specifically for his son (damn…my dad made me get a paper route when I wanted more allowance). And from his appearance on Letterman last week, I’m guessing this little guy is on the path to becoming one of the child actors that doesn’t turn out well.

If you have children and like the idea of taking them to this rare kids movie that you might enjoy, go for it. I’d say rent the original Karate Kid (and hey…it might inspire your kid to wax your car for strength, instead of just for the allowance money).

And for adults that are thinking they might get a kick out of Karate Kid (sorry, I couldn’t resist)…watch this instead:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c8ad4aa802/wax-on-f-ck-off-with-ralph-macchio

It’s the funniest thing I’ve seen on YouTube in some time.

Another problem with this movie is bullying. We’ve heard so many stories the last few years about the internet and kids killing themselves due to bullying. In 1984 when the original Karate Kid came out, it was a different world we lived in. Although in the Hollywood world, we get Kick-Ass, and a remake that wasn’t necessary, that still let us imagine how much fun it is when the nerds turn the tables on the bullies.

I’m giving The Karate Kid, which I didn’t see, a C-.

ONDINE

Colin Farrell really got his act together. Here’s a guy that had been doing drugs, partying, sex tapes, an illegitimate kid…and all of the sudden he cleaned up, got his act together and more importantly – gave us good performances in good films. And isn’t that really all we care about?

I loved him In Bruges, Crazy Heart, Cassandra’s Dream (which was really the same character as In Bruges, by why quibble).

Here he plays an alcoholic fisherman, down on his luck, who has the catch of a lifetime – a sexy mermaid type creature in his nets.

Neil Jordan, the writer/director of Ondine, first got attention after The Crying Game. A few years later he director Interview with a Vampire. He did four movies after that, none of which I saw. I caught The Good Thief and thought it was stylish, and Nick Nolte was good; but something was missing. And something is missing with Ondine. The movie won’t float everyones boat, but I enjoyed the ride.

The low-key elements of this love story is light-weight but quite charming. I’m guessing when it’s all said and done, the film won’t make a big splash (pun intended). I’m guessing it won’t even make anywhere near a million bucks at the box office. And that’s a shame.

The islands of Cork, Ireland are filmed beautifully. I never mention cinematographers but Christopher Doyle does such an outstanding job. Not just wish the lushes mountains and water, but even the dingy dive bar at the docks where everyone goes to get blitzed.

Polish actress and singer Alicja Bachleda does a nice job, and I found out she’s the real-life love interest of Farrell.

In Ondine, her character doesn’t want to be seen by people, and that’s where my movie pet peeve #3 arises. The protagonist that has an empty house (usually belonging to their deceased mother) that they never sold, and can be conveniently used for the new character that pops up.

The performance of 11-year-old Alison Barry is okay, but it falls under my pet peeves at #39 – kids in movies that are supposed to be intelligent and cute, but just come off as precocious. Some of her scenes in the wheelchair are touching, but others don’t work.

That would include Barry making a secret pact with Bachleda, to not reveal her identity to anyone. Yet she spends the rest of the movie trying to prove the woman really does live in the ocean.

Stephen Rea, a regular in Jordan films, has the role that we’ve now seen in so many films – the priest that listens to the craziest of stories from the protagonist. I do like the fact that they don’t go over-the-top with these scenes or try to be too funny.

I did find it hard at times, to understand the thick-brogued accents. Another thing I didn’t understand was the step-father to the girl, played by Tony Curran. There were at least three scenes where it appeared he was on the verge of doing something inappropriate with her, but didn’t. I asked a friend with me if I was accurate in thinking that, and he agreed that something was fishy (no pun intended). Yet, I went and looked at 60 different reviews for this movie to see if any other critic mentioned it. Usually his character wasn’t even mentioned, and the few times it was, he was written about in a positive light. Only Time Magazine touches on it, saying he was a “vaguely threatening lout.” I agree, but think you can’t write that without talking about the positive things he does for the girl (which is surprising, since he’s really just a drinking buddy for the mom). He fixes her wheelchair, inquires as to what she’s reading, and more.

The third act is sloppy and you end up finding a few things far fetched (which is surprising, since you’ve already bought into the woman from the sea love fairytale). The whole thing is slow-paced, yet I was never bored.

I loved that the siren song we heard actually turns out to be Sigur Ros.

I’m giving the movie a C, and that reminds me of the best clean joke ever.

Why do mermaids wear seashells over their breasts?

Because B-shells are too small, and D-shells are too big.

(I’m here all week, folks. Stay away from the clams.)

JOAN RIVERS: A Piece of Work

Roger Ebert said of the new Joan Rivers documentary “It’s the most truthful documentary about show business ever.”

Wow. He couldn’t be more wrong.

This documentary tells us little about show business.

If you want to see a better documentary that chronicles the ups and downs of the business, rent Anvil – The Story of Anvil, from last year. A heavy metal band that was big and now plays small clubs.

Where Rivers complains about a mid-week performance at an Indian casino where the room will only be half full (I’m guessing she’s still paid handsomely), Anvil flies to another country on some big promises, to play one club that literally had three fans. The club owner decided this wasn’t enough and wouldn’t pay them. The singer has to pin the guy to the wall, who is saying “I’ll give you stew, and you can have a nice dinner.” The singer yells “I don’t want any f***ing stew, I want to be paid what we were promised.” They somehow settle on $45 or something like that.

Part of my problem with this documentary is that I had heard many of these stories before. I’m guessing if you didn’t know about how she was the permanent guest host of The Tonight Show, before leaving to get her own late night talk show that quickly flopped (and losing a friendship with Johnny Carson in the process), you’ll be interested in seeing these things.

Sometimes you can know lots of stories regarding the subject matter and still be interested. I was surprised I liked the Andy Kaufman movie with Jim Carrey so much, even though I knew most of the stories they tackled.

Rivers shows the living room of her place, and it looks like it would’ve been Liberace’s dream house. We see a few short segments with her daughter Melissa. One involves them fighting over her continued smoking, and the other has her complaining about being fired from Celebrity Apprentice. She comes across as very spoiled. At least with her mom, we feel she’s earned it.

It was freaky seeing Rivers without make-up, but I’m not sure why she wants us to have sympathy for her plight. She complains about people making fun of her plastic surgery, but back in her day as a biting comedian, she made fun of everyone. She was relentless on Liz Taylor and her weight gain.

I was also disappointed to only see a few stars comment on Rivers. After all, she was a legendary, groundbreaking female comedian. Are Don Rickles and Kathy Griffin the only ones they can get commenting on her?

Some scenes with Rivers interacting with fans are cute, but disappointing. It’s strange that a person so witty can’t do a better job making idle conversation with fans gushing over her.

The scene involving a heckler is absolutely terrific. Rivers makes a joke about hating kids because they’re so loud and that Helen Keller would’ve been the perfect kid, because she’d sit there not making noise.

As Rivers makes a weird facial expression, a man in the audience yells “That’s not funny.” Rivers replies, “Oh yes it is.” The guy mentions having a deaf kid and for parents of deaf children that’s not funny.

She then lays into this guy about how it’s comedy, and it’s just a joke, and if he can’t take it he should leave (which he does).

Rivers reveals that she has a deaf mother, which I’m guessing is true. She also mentioned dating a guy with one leg, that really isn’t relevant to anything, but funny nonetheless. When people get mad and start screaming, often times the things out of their mouth don’t make sense but are amusing.

It’s also interesting how a fan gets her autograph after that show and says how stupid the guy was to yell out. Rivers has now had time to think about it and says it wasn’t, and the guy had a point and has a deaf kid and how it was probably cathartic for him to say what he did.

There was an interesting working relationship Rivers had with a long-time friend that she finally fires for being flakey and not showing up. She cries as she talks about him being the only one she could ever talk about the early days with, because he was with her through the birth of her daughter, the suicide of her husband, and so much more.

It’s strange that Rivers rants and rants about not wanting to see her calendar bare with no dates to perform, and it never is.

She does a conference call where she tells an agency she’ll do any commercial for any company, even if that means wearing diapers, or having her teeth knocked out so she can endorse a denture cream. You almost believe she would, and it comes off as pathetic.

And just as you start to feel a tad bit of sympathy for the state of her career, you hear a phone call come in that’s offering her $125,000 to do a 3-day cruise. She takes it, telling her agent, “Tell them if they bump up the offer, I’ll also perform.”
I immediately thought – what?! They were going to pay her that much and she wasn’t going to have to perform?!

I then thought about how she has multiple personal assistants, a couple that runs her house…cooks, cleans, and other errands. And I wondered what it was I was having sympathy for. What percentage of Americans even make $125,000 a year, the amount she was going to get for three days of “work.”

Rivers does a Comedy Central roast, but admits she’s doing it only for the money. We find out she also hates the comedians talking about her age and plastic surgery.

Rivers also takes negative reviews poorly. She writes a play that does well in Scotland, but not in London. Watching her assistant read reviews to her in the back of a limo is painful, even with the woman trying to make them sound better than they are.

Rivers is in tears as she tells her she won’t take it to New York because she can’t deal with such harsh reviews from those critics.

There’s an interesting scene where we see a library style cataloging system with all her jokes, and there must be a million written on index cards. She pulls out a few to read, and they’re great.

We see the expected clips of her on Carson, Ed Sullivan, and Jack Paar, but we’ve seen those clips before.

We don’t see any of her social life, and lots of other things that might’ve made this more interesting and complete.

I think this could’ve been edited down to an hour, and worked nicely as a TV special (with the subject matter and language, probably on HBO).

Rivers never reveals the face behind the mask (so to speak), but instead, it’s a mask behind the mask.

I’m a huge fan of her comedy, but not this movie. I’m giving it a D+.

TOY STORY 3

I couldn’t believe Toy Story came out 15 years earlier than this third installment. It seems like only yesterday. Well, it kind of was for me. My girlfriend had never seen the first two, so we rented them before seeing the latest.

And this version isn’t as good as the first two, although many people (at least 10 of my friends, and at least 10 critics I glanced at), all said it’s the best of the trilogy.

Andy is off to college, and…what’s a toy to do?

Not sure why he decided to take Woody to college with him.

I once interviewed Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen, and someone walked by and yelled to him “I had a poster of you on my wall in college.” Nielsen smiled and said “I bet that severely hurt your chances of getting laid.” I thought of those very words as Woody was placed in the cardboard box of things going to college (as you can guess, the other toys weren’t as lucky).

(note to self: find out if any other review of Toy Story 3 uses the word “laid”)

I enjoy the new characters – Michael Keaton voicing a very metrosexual Ken doll (but did they really need to play Dream Weaver when they meet? That’s been done in film before). Of course, I’m picky about soundtracks. For instance, I don’t know why when the toys get involved in a prison escape they didn’t play Thin Lizzy or AC/DCs “Jailbreak.”

Whoopi Goldberg, Jeff Garlin, Timothy Dalton, Bonnie Hunt, and Richard Kind provide some new voices, but they come and go so quickly, you probably won’t catch ‘em.

The one new character that gets a big role is a hugging bear, voiced nicely by Ned Beatty. He may hug a lot, but his motley crew of day care toys consists of a huge, scary baby with a broken (lazy) eye, a sticky octopus, and a clapping monkey that bashes in Woody’s head at one point. Which brings up another point that many have debated – should this movie have been rated PG? I say the G is just fine, but to the two couples that felt it was appropriate for their babies, no it wasn’t. A G rating doesn’t mean you just distract all those around you, dummies. Hire a babysitter, and wait for it on video.

The stories brought to the table all work well – toys debating the benefits of a life in the attic or at a day care, finding new owners, growing older (including the dog). A lot of this though, is territory that the previous movies have covered – toys feeling abandoned, the evil toy (anyone remember Stinky Pete in Toy Story 2?), and the Spanish speaking Buzz Lightyear is hysterical, especially with his Flamenco dance steps (not sure how that scene will work in Mexico); but when he becomes a prison guard, it reminded me of Toy Story 2 also.

When Hamm (the pig, voiced by Cheers’ Cliff Claven) describes locks on a window in specific detail, it would’ve been funny if we hadn’t seen his character do that previously. And that’s exactly my point. They’re going to the well one too many times.

When characters are introduced that love Shakespeare, or are speaking telephones we all remember from our childhood...give them more jokes.

The fear the toys have of being donated, is very similar to the garage sale in a previous film, although this time we have the added element of a garbage truck (and in a sneaky move, they make the evil neighbor Sid, who disfigured toys in the first movie, one of the garbage men). I’m not sure why they had to give us three different scenes inside a garbage truck, or why one that had them on the verge of being burned and made landfill, went on a few minutes too long in order to build suspense.

That’s really just nitpicking, though. I have a hard time thinking anyone would be disappointed with this. There are just too many clever gags. You sometimes wonder how they even came up with this stuff; climbing up a vending machine, to gamble on a See ‘N Say as if it’s a roulette wheel. That’s just inspired writing.

I sat there with a smile on my face the whole time, and the occasional LOL moment.

The final few scenes are emotional, and quite beautifully done.

The closing credits are clever (why can’t more movies make closing credits we enjoy, the way The Hangover and this did?). Another beneficial thing about having credits in this that we can stay and enjoy – it’ll give some of us adults time to regroup from a cry we had minutes earlier.

I’m giving this a B.

GROWN UPS

Grown Ups sure doesn’t seem like it was written by grown-ups. Adam Sandler co-wrote the script, and I think he was a tad lazy. You can see this in about 15 different scenes. It’s comedy that might be funny to the Saturday Night Live crew, but very few other folks.

And I’m someone that defends different casts that SNL has had. People always talk about the heyday with Belushi, Chevy, Ackroyd, etc. Well, they had some bad sketches, too. And how can you say those guys are any more talented than the future cast members like Dana Carvey, Mike Myers, or Phil Hartman? Yet when cast members Rob Schneider, Chris Rock, David Space, and Sandler continue to make unfunny comedies, it’s going to get harder to defend them.

The premise starts out well enough. We see an 8th grade basketball championship (with child actors that looks just like the main cast). There’s a cute victory speech by Coach “Buzzer.” It’s 30 years later when the coach dies and the team all gets together for the funeral.

It’s sort of like a Big Chill that, instead of being written like a smart adult comedy, it’s fat and flatulence jokes.

There are about 10 movies that have similar premises to this (Indian Summer, Best of Times to name two), and all of them are about 10 times better than this.

Sure, there are a few laughs. Steve Buscemi has a great role, as does former SNL cast member Colin Quinn (there are about 10 former cast members in this film). The strangest thing about this is that they hired a former NBA player to be a consultant. Really? For a two minute basketball scene? And if you’re hiring a former player, why a Clipper?

Pooh Richardson is the lucky fellow that gets the film credit (unfortunate about his nickname…imagine, there’s Dr. J, Chocolate Thunder, Magic, and he’s…Pooh; although he did play for the Clippers, so maybe that works).

I’m not bothered with the flawed logic – which would include how all the kids on the losing team just happen to be in the same town, at the same time, enabling a rematch to occur. Or why Chris Rock, who hates his mother, would bring her along to this weekend getaway (for a second I thought this was Tyler Perry doing that dumb Madea character).

There’s a scene where the guys play “arrow roulette” and shoot an arrow into the air and scramble around to safety. Even in slow motion, seeing their wacky facial expressions, isn’t funny. Not the character falling in dog doo, or the one falling into a pie. Now, take a great comedy like Garden State, which has a scene involving an arrow shot into the air, and Natalie Portmans facial expression afterwards. It’s hysterical.

The movies heart is in the right place, and a few moments are touching. The ratio of time spent watching this to laughs, just isn’t there.

There’s a scene with Tim Meadows where he and Chris Rock debate who the main black guy from that town was. That was clever, and I wondered if it was also an inside joke pointed at SNL.

Rock plays a character that’s a house husband, and the guys give him a hard time about that. What a fun, interesting premise to go with. And Rock is just the guy to bring humor to it; but there’s nothing.

When Michael Keaton starred in Mr. Mom, I still remember him playing poker with other housewives, using coupons instead of money, to bet with. Now, I’m not saying Mr. Mom is the pinnacle of good comedy, it’s far from it. It’s just an example of how good premises can have good comedy to accompany them.

Every 15 minutes, you get a good laugh. One of those involves the two gorgeous daughters of Schneider, who the guys can’t stop staring at. Another involves Salma “she should fire her agent instead of taking a different last name” Hayek-Renault trying to skip rocks on the pond.

Kevin James, filling in for a part Chris Farley surely would’ve gotten, has a few moments of decent physical comedy; but the fat jokes got old quick.

The best casting in this movie is the Labradoodle. This is the dog President Obama has, and it’s put to good use (he’s no air bud, but…the turkey bark is funny). Unfortunately, it’s not the only turkey this movie has going.

Even the closing credits are disappointing. No blooper real with this group of comedic friends? No funny snapshots like The Hangover, no funny additional scenes like Toy Story 3. Heck, they could’ve even done this move I’ve seen in movies and is quite powerful – photos of the cast from their childhood. Who doesn’t like seeing those?

I’m giving it a D.

COCO CHANEL AND IGOR STRAVINSKY

I love bio-pics about people I know nothing about. All the stories are fresh and interesting.

When it comes to classical music, the amount of CDs I own can be counted on both hands. None of those are Stravinsky.

For most of the movie, I was entertained. I thought the opening sequence involving a piece of his music (The Rite of Spring) in 1913 that isn’t well received, was interesting but went on way too long.

Igor Stravinsky (Is anyone named Igor anymore? Haven’t heard that name since Young Frankenstein) meets Coco Chanel at a party, and they quickly move in together. It’s not exactly what it sounds like. He has his sick wife and kids in tow. An affair quickly occurs, and everyone in the house is aware of it.

Here’s where my problem with the film lies. Nobody is sure they even had an affair. And, this movie speculates on that, as well as her profound influence in his compositions. They also hint that one piece he wrote, that he put “Five” on the top of, is how she got the name for Chanel No. 5 (as she was working on a perfume for the first time).

If you start writing fiction based on real people, well hell, the possibilities are endless. Why not have Tchoikovsky walk in for a three way? You could say he wrote Nutcracker based on that.

I think about one line in the movie where Stravinsky is playing something basic on the Steinway, and he asks Chanel to sing. She says “I can’t. I sound like a crow.” Yet in real life, she was a cabaret singer early in her career.

And Stravinsky had some real life stories that would’ve made for a more interesting film. Like piano player Jerry Lee Lewis, he married his cousin. Oh, here’s another true story I wouldn’t mind seeing made into a film – in his 80s, he was a mentor and piano teacher to Warren Zevon. How cool is that?

Chanel has had a few films made on her life. I think her being close with Walter Kutschmann, who murdered 1,000s of Poland’s Jews (she paid for his funeral), had a big affect on her lack of success in the mid-50s in Paris (the Brits and Americans didn’t seem to mind).

She was also rumored to have had an affair with Hans Gunther von Dincklage (that last name rivals Butkus). He was a German officer and Nazi spy, and he pulled some strings for her.

I’m thinking – The Mistress/The Seamstress – could’ve been a great title for a biopic on her that deals with fact and not fiction.

Let’s get back to reviewing the movie and not the possibilities.

The music was obviously fantastic. The wardrobes will probably be up for Oscars.

At times, the director went for an arty approach that didn’t always work. One involves Stravinsky’s face submerging into a tub of water.

I read that one critic called this movie a “yawn fest.” I certainly wasn’t bored, but after two hours I wondered what the point of such a long movie was.

I’m giving this film a C minor.

THE FATHER OF MY CHILDREN

The opening sequence of this movie is perhaps my favorite thing in years. No, not because it’s great cinema. This is a French movie, and most of the French films I see are bad. This one is no exception.

It’s what happens in the opening 10 minutes.

A movie producer is in his car, talking on the cell phone. Another call comes in, on a different cell phone. He takes that, and is on two calls at once. Oh, and he’s also smoking a cigarette. None of that is done for comedic reasons. He’s a busy man, who…we find out later…has many reasons for being on the phone often.

The cops pull him over for speeding. This guy has a crumbling business and has a lot on his mind. But guess what? He drives perfectly (well, aside from that speeding). He even waved a pedestrian by while he’s at a stop sign.

You see, it is possible to drive and talk on the phone at the same time.

Now, off my soapbox about stupid cell phone laws, and back to writer/director Mia Hansen-Love’s lame movie.

What bothers me so much is there are elements here that are great; phone conversations with distributors, angry directors, and film developing companies. A lot happens behind the scenes of a film company that can be interesting. I wanted to point out the irony of the premise that selling smaller, independent films can be so tough; hen they turn out like this, you can see why this Blue Moon company is so far in the red.

At almost two hours, there were scenes that got a bit boring. At one point, my mind drifted to a guy named Surat from my high school basketball team. He used to bring a notebook to movies and count the amount of deaths in each film. I remember Terminator coming out and asking him at practice how many deaths it had. His eyes lit up like a kid on Christmas. He had to guess in that movie, because some scenes had so many bodies all over the place he didn’t have time to count them before the next scene (or had to estimate how many people were in a building that exploded).

I thought about Surat because, every character in this movie lit up a cigarette. I wished I had started a tally of how many cigarettes were smoked, because I’m guessing it was near 100.

And believe me, that aspect of the movie is more interesting than what you actually see on screen.

Here’s a protagonist that’s fun to watch. He’s good looking, knows what he wants, can be a dotting dad (even if the cell phone does come out during the child play in the living room)…but the movie never goes in any direction that’s all that interesting.

It deals with suicide, illegitimate kids, and egomaniacal actors. Nothing is over the top, which is a pleasant surprise. That all sounds interesting, but in this movie, it’s really not.

An example of a scene I appreciated involves a director named Stig. We hear about him smashing equipment, going over budget, and throwing tantrums. When we finally see him late in the movie and he’s trying to talk to Russians that might invest in a film, he’s very civil and makes a few good points. I like the fact that that’s more realistic than a director pulling a Christian Bale and screaming at everyone, or shown smashing a camera when something goes wrong. The problem is, those things are probably more enjoyable to watch.

It’s a shame some of the other characters couldn’t have been as fleshed out as the movie producer. His wife seems interesting, the kids are all adorable, and there’s even a young filmmaker that pops in and out of the story we’d like to know more about.

This movie gets a D.

Don’t let your film school buddies talk you into it.

WINTER’S BONE

Winter’s Bone certainly isn’t the feel good movie of the year. Well, unless you just recently lost your home and want to feel better knowing you don’t live in the Ozark Mountains.

Writer/director Debra Granik gave us Down to the Bone a few years ago. It’s another bone movie, and one that is on the top of many lists as the best of the year. You’ll surely be seeing it pop up around Oscar time.

Sometimes people joke that if you played a mentally challenged person or a drunk on film, you get an automatic nomination. Well, when the sloppy (but good) Precious got a bunch of nominations last year, and Frozen River (which this reminds me a lot of) -- it makes me wonder if poverty on film is the thing now that gets you noticed during Oscar season.

The premise of this film is that a teenager, played wonderfully by Jennifer Lawrence, is hunting through forests and lowlifes, in search of her dad who skipped bail. He sold meth (which I’m guessing would’ve been moonshine 40 years ago), and put his house up for bail. Now that he’s gone, the family is on the verge of losing their home.

Lawrence takes care of the two younger siblings, as well as a sick mom who never talks, although we aren’t clear as to why. You love the fact that she’s so good with her clan, and when she does have to step things up to get answers from the locals in town, it all seems realistic. There was a time I thought she’d steal a gun sitting on a table. She didn’t. Another time I thought she’d steal a truck after asking to borrow it. She didn’t. And there’s something enjoyable about rooting for a character that can be tough, that isn’t doing the James Bond/Jason Bourne type of tough, but is someone that not only doesn’t have all those gadgets, but not a single one to work with.

Everything the movie did had an authentic feel, and it didn’t do a anything wrong. That’s a high compliment for a backwoods noir picture that could’ve gone off track very easily.

Aside from the great acting performances, there’s some vivid cinematography that makes the landscape a thing of melancholy beauty.

The intimidating guys aren’t 6’5”, muscular, with scarred up faces. They have grizzly grey beards, but are scary based on attitude (and the mystery involved of not knowing what their agenda is).

At one point I was wondering if these were all actors or just locals that were hired. It looked like they got Lynyrd Skynyrd and Metallica band members as extras. It wasn’t the stereotypical clichéd look of overalls, missing teeth, and strumming banjos. Well okay, banjos do appear a few times, but I digress.

A few things bugged me about this movie.

I don’t need explanations for every character that pops up on screen, but with the slow pacing of this film, I had nothing better to do than wonder about them and what they did. The head honcho of the bad guys is shown at a cattle auction, and everyone knows to avoid him. Yet you never learn anything about him.

There’s a sheriff that’s up to something, but we never have that situation resolved.

I was a little confused by all the creeps Lawrence runs into, being related to her. It made sense the first few times, because those are the people she assumes will provide answers. After the 5th person, when she barks something about them having “some of the same blood,” you start to wonder.

A lot of lines in this were great, and very memorable: “That’s a real good way to end up bit by hogs, or wishin’ you was.”
“I already told you to shut up with my mouth.”
“Talkin’ just causes witnesses.”

At some point though, you wonder if these backwoods yokels would be this clever; or you realize it’s really just a clever screenwriter, maybe being a bit too clever.

There’s a few gross scenes involving squirrels that’ll probably irk the PETA crowd. I thought about how Sean Penn shoots rodents for sport in Sweet and Lowdown. Here it’s a combination of learning how to use a rifle as well as putting dinner on the table.

I noticed there was an actress in this named Dale Dickey, and I couldn’t help wonder if she was related to James Dickey, who wrote and had a part in Deliverance. With her range of emotions, it reminded me of the Oscar nominated performance by Melissa Leo in Frozen River. I just had a few questions about that characters change of heart.

There’s a scene near the end that involve a river that evoke an eerie feeling very well. Another scene involving a chainsaw you’ll probably never forget.

An elderly couple was leaving the theatre in front of me and the man said “What didn’t you like about it?” She looked at him shocked and replied, “A better question is…what did you like about it?”

Winter’s Bone is a very well-made picture that is dark and will be hard for many people to take; I felt it was a little slow and not as good as I expected.

I’m giving it a B-.

I AM LOVE

I Am Love I didn’t love. In fact, I didn’t even like it. Not even like it enough to say “We can still be friends. I’ll catch you on cable someday, maybe at a Blockbuster in the ‘previously viewed’ section, and we’ll catch up on old times.”

Nope. If this movie is anywhere on a screen I’m near, the channel will be changed.

It baffles me that it’s so highly praised by the critics; especially when the theatre leaving, all hated it. Four women all clapped and made comments about being glad the two hour film was over. A gay couple was leaving and said, “I didn’t get the ending at all. What was happening in that cave?” I sarcastically said “Wasn’t it obvious?” (it wasn’t)

But before we get to the cave and the ending, let’s deal with the premise.

Tilda Swinton, who I think is the best actress working today (a perfect example is last years Julia, where she played an alcoholic so well in such a bad film, she almost made it worth seeing on her performance alone). She couldn’t overcome this, even though she spoke Italian with a Russian accent. How many actors would be able to pull that one off?

She leaves Russia, marrying perhaps the richest guy in Milan, and falls in love with a chef that caters their parties (and happens to be a good friend to her son).

She has a daughter that has broken up with her boyfriend and fallen in love with a woman, and a husband that she just doesn’t seem to love anymore.

There’s also a story dealing with the family business possibly being sold. All these premises are interesting enough, but it’s kind of like music.

You could have the worst band in the world, go into the best recording studio with the best producers, and great cover art done for their CD. And just because the quality will all be great, doesn’t mean you’re going to like the songs on the disc.

And that’s the problem with this movie. There are some long tracking shots that work well. There’s some close-ups of food that are done nicely (they say the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach…well, that seems to apply for women, too; Swinton gives Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally a run for her money when she’s enjoying the prawns).

But through much of this film, you feel like you’re watching a soap opera. Especially with an over-the-top musical score that’s annoying and doesn’t really fit the scenes we’re watching. I feel a musical score shouldn’t really be noticeable, and if it is, it should be good (as was the score the Italian film Il Postino).

There are some scenes that are just baffling. A sex scene that cuts back and forth between bugs, seems like something a college film student put together to be symbolic and arty.

And although the characters are all interesting, you never become emotionally invested. In fact, an accident occurs that has the family at the hospital. It’s one of the few hospital scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie where I didn’t have tears in my eyes. And I cry during Visa commercials.

And as much as the guys in front of me hated the closing scene in a cave (which appeared to be two bodies making love, but who knows)…I was more disappointed by a note given to a maid near the end, that is never given to Swinton. It made no sense that its contents were never revealed.

Do yourself a favor, and skip this movie.

I’m giving it a D.

PREDATOR

It’s another movie remake. Hollywood is so out of ideas it’s ridiculous. I’m waiting for movies on 99 Luftballons, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, and other 80s songs. It’s the one thing that hasn’t been tapped yet.

I’m one of the few people that didn’t love the original Predator the way all my friends did. I thought the invisibility of the alien was cool. And there were a few good action scenes (I find it more interesting that three of the cast members have all gone into politics – Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Sonny Landham). I’m still waiting for former SDSU alumni Carl Weathers to run for something.

This new cast isn’t quite as muscle bound. For example, Topher Grace (That 70s Show) is one of the crew; and Adrien Brody takes off his shirt to reveal – he’s gained 10 pounds of muscle just for this part. Oh, and he has this cool raspy voice going. I think he’s trying to channel other movie tough guys like Snake Plisken and Clint Eastwood.

I find it hysterical that the movie was directed by Nimrod Antal, because…it really took a nimrod to make such a picture. It’s really a mess.

I’m not sure what happened to Robert Rodriquez (the producer), who had done a few early films I enjoyed.

Some of the updates on this story – about an alien that hunts humans for sport – are interesting. This time, humans have been snatched from earth and are thrown onto their planet. There are multiple aliens, and a few interesting visuals.

The aliens look cool enough, but can’t they give us a story that doesn’t used flawed science and flawed logic in the characters decision making?

Laurence Fishburne has a great part in this film, but when he hummed Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyries,” it merely took me out of the picture and made me think about the first movie he ever did – Apocalpyse Now! (if you want to see a great movie with military guys going through jungles, and finding a big alien…err, a big, bald Marlon Brando…rent that instead).

I’m guessing if you’re going to Predator, you’re the type of person that won’t be disappointed with this version.

It just seems that the original didn’t need a remake, and with the show Lost being so successful, the idea of confused guys walking around looking for answers, just bored me.

I understand this is a summer popcorn film, and you’re just supposed to have fun with it. And yeah, it had its moments.

When the guys end up running and are thrown off a cliff into water, you’re on the edge of your seat. I’m not sure why they didn’t give us more action scenes like that. Nothing was stellar about what they did provide.

And actor Danny Trejo, the leathery faced Mexican with the tattoos (who in real life did a long jail stretch), was well cast, but comes across as a bit goofy instead of badass (he has some rant talking about kidnappings in TJ and how they burn their victims, and lots of weird facial expressions).

To illustrate just how pathetic and out of ideas Hollywood has become, there was a trailer for a movie called Machete, starring Trejo. This started as a fake movie trailer Rodriguez did for Grind House. The fact that they made a real movie out of it (starring Steven Seagal), is ridiculous.

But if you liked him and the motley bunch that ran around acting crazy in Con Air (another Trejor vehicle), this is right up your alley.

I was more entertained by the midnight showing in Mira Mesa, that had a sweet Mercedes in the parking lot with two notes left on it. My stepbrother and I were happy, because we assumed it was for the crappy parking job the person did.

When we walked back to the car to get something, I saw the notes said “You cheated on me, you bich [sic]!!” The other one looked like it went into a few details about the cheating. I was tempted to leave a note that said “When you’re done cheating on people, take some lessons on how to park your car.”

I’m giving the movie a D.
The silver Mercedes Benz owner an F.

INCEPTION

The biggest blockbuster of the summer is released this weekend, and it’s not even the best movie released this weekend (that would be The Kids Are All Right, my favorite of the year).

Since Inception was 2 ½ hours long, I figure I can write a slightly longer review. There are so many things about this film I’d like to cover.

Director Christopher Nolan spent $160 million on this, and you can see every bit of that on screen. It’s surprising the studio let him run with this. After all, it’s not like his expensive Dark Knight. Since that’s a Batman film, it was a safe bet.

I enjoyed Nolan’s Dark Knight, but I didn’t care for Insomnia. And I thought Memento (the movie that plays backwards) brilliant. This guy can obviously write and direct interesting stuff.

But the king of the $150 million budgets, James Cameron, did a movie called Strange Days which tackles a few of these similar themes (and is better in many ways).

In fact, a lot of the movies I thought about, I liked more than Inception.

Dreamscape, with Dennis Quaid, had a better story and great visuals.

Dark City, an underrated sci-fi picture with a mumbling Keifer Sutherland, was better than this (there were a few similarities as you watch buildings being constructed in front of your eyes, and confusion with characters that wake up).

There’s a little Matrix here, Eternal Sunshine there. A guy next to me said “This is just like Total Recall.” That’s one of the few films I never thought of during this, but…

I did think of James Bond many times; especially during a skiing shoot-out. But as I told a few people, there’s something about seeing shootings and stunts that you know are in a dream, that makes them less exciting than when Bond is dodging bullets and blowing up vehicles. It’s weird logic on my part, because it’s all actors and stuntmen and none of it is real. But when you’re watching a movie and you know it’s the dream/imagination of a character, it doesn’t keep you on the edge of your seat the way you’d otherwise be invested in the protagonists safety.

I didn’t care for the casting of this film at all.

Leonardo DiCaprio, in the first movie I’ve seen him in where he doesn’t look 14-years-old, does a fine job. My problem with him being cast in this is that it’s virtually the same character he played in Shutter Island, down to dreams of his wife and kids, confusion, anger, and especially – wonderful dreams that quickly become nightmares.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who went from 3rd Rock to the Sun to becoming a great screen presence (I loved him in Brick, The Lookout, and 500 Days of Summer). In this, his character made me think of Keanue Reeves in Matrix. He had slicked back hair and tries to talk in a deep voice that he just doesn’t pull off.

Marion Cotillard, as DiCaprio’s wife, is just beautiful and haunting on screen. She won a well-deserved Oscar playing Edith Piaf a few years ago, and I was happy I didn’t think once about that character. Oh, that is…until Nolan thought it would be clever to play a Piaf song in a pivotal scene. It totally took me out of the film, but it’s something I’m guessing nobody else will be bothered by.

(on the subject of music, the films score by Hans Zimmer is excellent)

There’s Juno’s Ellen Page, looking like she’s 12 and not fitting in at all.

Dileep Rao is carving a niche for himself in movies. He was a scientist in Avatar, a voodoo expert in Drag Me to Hell, and he’s a scientist that deals with potions in this (it’s helpful when you need a person to stay asleep so you can jump into their dreams).

Tom Hardy is great as the master of disguise (he was better in Bronson from last year; how he didn’t get nominated for an Oscar in that is beyond me).

Tom Berenger (side note: where the hell has he been?) is great in a small role, as is Michael Caine. Of course with Caine, spouting off wisdom to the young and troubled DiCaprio, reminds us of his butler character in the Batman films.

So, here’s the premise, since the movie trailers (purposely) don’t tell you much.

People can get into dreams and steal secrets from you. DiCaprio is in a bit of a jam and is forced to take a risky job that is nearly impossible. It’s not to steal the dream of a high powered businessman, but to plant a seed in his mind to split up the company. By doing this, he has to get in this guys dream, and take him to a different level where it’s a dream within a dream.

The reason behind this is explained, and don’t believe anyone that tells you you’ll be confused. You won’t be. With the pesky Page as the new member of the team, she often asks questions that help fill us in on how things are done and what we’re seeing.

Although Nolan does films that aren’t very flawed, you’ll obviously find a few things that logically don’t make sense – but I’m willing to let that stuff slide in a sci-fi film.

I get more upset with the little things. DiCaprio calling his wife “Mal” just sounded weird. Oh, and his name – Dom Cobb. It sounds like a corn-flavored champagne.

The shots of Tokyo, Morocco, and Canada are beautifully done. I also enjoyed the rules the movie presents for dreams. If you die in a dream, you don’t die in real life (like in Dreamscape). Instead, you wake up. So when characters are running through a dream trying to get information they need to steal, they don’t want to be killed for that reason. And it’s not just guns that can kill you. If the people in the dream (the projections) start to realize it’s a dream, they end up doing wacky things (like attacking you).

You get the usual clichés spit out: “one last job,” “I just wanna return home,” and “assemble your team!”

But just as I did with Avatar, I can let some lame dialogue go when I’m being so visually stimulated by what’s on the screen. And after all, isn’t that what movies are about?

There’s a fight scene in a hotel with zero gravity that is a thing of beauty. The guy behind me that hated the movie thought it was stupid and didn’t understand why they were floating. I said, “It’s because they’re in a dream, and don’t you sometimes do that when you dream?”

It wasn’t until I got home that I realized, the characters sleeping at that time were in a van that was going off a bridge. This gave them a free fall, which was then immediately incorporated into the dream.

When you think about a movie at home and come up with stuff, that’s a good sign you have a hit on your hands. Of course, I’m beginning to think this is what Nolan loves doing, to get people coming back to see his films multiple times.

I thought the last 15 minutes and the ending were very predictable and didn’t have me on the edge of my seat the way they intended. It’s not nearly as clever as Nolan thinks it is.

A woman got offended when I said I would only recommend this to sci-fi fans and men, because most women would be bored. She said she loved it and was planning to see it again.

I still contend, women will enjoy The Kids Are All Right so much more (maybe I need to turn in my man card, because I did, too). Let the husbands/boyfriends go see Inception, and everyone will be happier for it.

I’m giving this a B.

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Not to be confused with The Who movie from the late 70s, The Kids are Alright, this movie does have great music in common.

So many movies try to be hip with their music selections and fail miserable (see Nick & Nora’s Infinite Playlist).

This movie comes out of the gate with a great Vampire Weekend tune, and the soundtrack is filled with gems I love (I always dug Bowie’s Panic in Detroit, but seeing the gorgeous Yaya DaCosta – perhaps the prettiest woman in a movie this year -- making love to it, makes me like it sooo much more).

There’s also tunes from MGMT, X, and a couple single a duet of Joni Mitchell at the dinner table.

(another side note of filmmakers that don’t have a clue about music: I read a long story about Iron Man 2, and Jon Favreau was trying to decide which songs to use. Someone suggested the X song “Los Angeles” and he replied, “What is that? Is it any good? Maybe use some Iggy Pop instead.” What they used was lots of AC/DC)

It’s a shame that The Kids are All Right is opening the same weekend as Inception. It’s not only better, it’s simply the best movie of the year.

I was really expecting to dislike it.

A few months back I watched Annette Bening in one of my least favorite performance in one of my least favorite movies of the year (Mother and Child). The characters are very similar, too. Both have short cropped hair (to go along with short tempers), and work in hospitals. Bening will nab an Oscar nomination for this performance and it’ll be well deserved.

Julianne Moore, who’s never given a bad performance (although she has appeared in bad movies, just see last year’s horrible Chloe)…also shines here as a slightly spacey character (her conversation during a Scrabble game is hysterical).

Mark Ruffalo, who I always love (go rent You Can Count on Me), is relying a bit too much on his smug smile, but it fits this character like a glove.

So, here’s the premise: a lesbian couple has two kids, each from the same sperm donor. The children seek out this guy who is content running his restaurant and organic farm, but really warms up to the kids and wants to be a part of their lives. One kid is happy about this, and one is confused by it. The same can be said about the moms.

Julianne Moore had a lesbian sex scene in the movie Chloe that was sexy, but a bit unrealistic. In this, the sex scene is done to show things (no, that’s not what I mean). Humor (Moore is being suffocated under the sheets, and Bening is confused by the movie playing…and both are embarrassed when they roll onto a remote that increases the volume loud enough for the entire house to hear what kind of movie they’re watching). The scene also shows how this couple, who clearly care about each other, have hit a bad patch in their relationship.

I love the fact that this movie doesn’t go over the top with any of the character flaws we’re dealing with. Ruffalo, the slacker, does things Bening doesn’t approve of (letting the kids ride on the back of his motorcycle), but she’s also smart enough to keep it all in perspective when she lectures her kids (and sometimes him), about the dangers.

Ruffalo is a bit of a player, but it’s not like he’s sleeping with everyone that works at his restaurant (only one, possibly two).

It’s implied a few times that Bening might have a drinking problem, but she’s more of a workaholic than alcoholic. And she keeps her drinking in check when need be.

I don’t know much about director Lisa Cholodenko, but I sure hope she continuous to do movies this good. A lesser talent would’ve made Ruffalo the villain, instead of the interesting character that we’re rooting for. Sure, he makes some mistakes, but his heart is in the right place.

Some of the stuff is predictable and cliché (a scene where a couple having an affair says on the phone “We should never sleep together again,” with a quick edit to them in bed naked).

There’s a poorly written scene involving confusion over whether the son has a male lover.

But since every other scene knocks me out, I can give those few scenes a pass.

I don’t recall the last movie I’ve seen, perhaps Prince of Tides, that deals so realistically with what it’s like when a married couple grows apart. It’s done perfectly here.

For example, when Moore, who often sides with the kids in thinking Bening is too strict, agrees with the daughter in regards to when she’s going to send out a ‘thank-you’ card; Bening snaps at Moore, “If it were up to you, our kids wouldn’t even write ‘thank-you’ cards. They’d just send out good vibes.”

It’s funny, rude, and so perfectly describes both characters.

And we can like Moore because she’s not so much of a hippie that she can’t discipline the daughter who snaps at Bening – something a good parent would do.

Someone once told me they thought I didn’t like Brokeback Mountain because of the gay relationship. That wouldn’t explain why I liked the relationship in A Single Man. And I love this relationship (but as Ruffalo says “I love lesbians.”)

And I love this movie. It is funny, heartbreaking, and heartwarming.

It gets an A.

THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

This movie has a great intro, as filmmaker Roger Nygard shows footage of himself as a kid, talks about his religious background, and how church was merely a countdown in his mind for when the family would go out for pancakes

(on a side note: is there a difference between flapjacks, hotcakes, and pancakes? I just told my girlfriend there wasn’t. Maybe that could be Nygard’s next topic to tackle – food. Oh wait…Michael Moore is probably already on that).

The topic covered – the meaning of life – done by the same guy who gave us Trekkies, is an interesting thing to tackle. Except we’ve been down this path before.

A few years ago Bill Maher did his version with Religulous. And like Maher’s film, this has some interesting people giving interesting takes on God, but none of it is earth shattering.

I enjoyed Nygard a lot more as a narrator. Maher comes across way to arrogant, but Nygard is to polite, and often doesn’t ask follow up questions I was curious about.

A few times I felt Nygard was just using this all as an excuse/write-off for a wonderful vacation.

I also didn’t care for the amount of his friends he threw in to comment on such matters (although one friend is very smart and has a great confrontation with a preacher on a college campus). It’s the kind of confrontation that was interesting, and done in a way Maher should’ve approached his film (instead of just coming across like a prick).

The movie had its share of bizarre moments.

Religulous gave us a Christian amusement park. This movie gave us religious wrestling. I kept expecting Mickey Rourke’s character to pop up. Instead, the lights went out, and it was Jesus that popped up from the canvas. No, he never gave Beelzebub a head butt…there was no Pontius Pilate Pile Driver. After the wrestling it became a slightly more theatric sermon inside the ring. It was a wonderfully entertaining segment.

Where Maher snuck cameras into the Vatican and we were supposed to think how bizarre it was he got thrown out (How many places wouldn’t throw you out? I’m guessing if you walked into a Coca-Cola plant with cameras rolling, you’d get thrown out to. What does that prove?)

But in this movie, we get to see the other dead Popes that you can view at the Vatican, and we find out the filmmaker can meet with the Pope. Well, that is, if he was willing to cough up $20,000 (hey, there are orphans that need to be fed).

I would’ve preferred to see more famous people commenting on God and religion. We see former Saturday Night Live member Julia Sweeney (who wrote a book called Letting go of God). She has a few good points.

And Carl Sagan’s widow shows off her cool house and talks about marijuana.

But why did I need to hear so much from the waitresses at a religious/spiritual restaurant?

Overall, I enjoyed the spiritual journey the film took me on. Perhaps it wasn’t the most original piece of filmmaking, and I could’ve done without so many shots of the filmmaker holding the camera as he talked to various professors, gurus, shamans, Buddhist monks, etc.

I’m giving the movie a C.

SALT

I heard two things about Salt I found interesting. First, that the part was originally written for Tom Cruise. I didn’t think movies were written for people (aside from Being John Malkovich). Weird that they went complete opposite when he backed out – a woman, someone tall, blonde, and not a Scientologist.

Second, the whole concept about Russian spies infiltrating the U.S. Does that happen anymore? Oh wait…I guess it does. We did just catch 10 Russian spies and traded them back for four of ours (and a spy to be named later). Although, the spies we caught weren’t really doing much. And we don’t have that fear of Russia like we did in the 50s, or 70s. Jolie might not be aware of that, since on her panel at Comic Con she said “The citizen in me hopes it won’t change anything regarding our relationship with Russia. But the side of me that makes a film about this says ‘My God, what timing! Maybe the Sony marketing department should get some kind of award.”

Yeah, well…their award is going to be the $150 million this film is going to pull in domestically.

The set up in the beginning of the movie was kind of cool. They fictionally (have to say that for the conspiracy theory goofballs out there) have the Russians using Oswald to assassinate Kennedy. They grab genius kids in Russia, train them, and get them into the U.S. for use in the future.

So, Angelina Jolie is working for the C.I.A. in a high ranking position, when a Russian comes in and tells her all about that plan of the big, bad ruskies. So far, so good. Even the Russian informants shoes were kinda cool (You thought Maxwell Smarts black loafers were nifty with the phone on the souls, these things had knives sticking out of the toes. Probably more dangerous than the skate shoes kids have)

At Comic Con, Jolie appeared with her co-star Liev Schreiber. She talked about doing most of the stunts herself (I’m guessing not the one where she rolled off a bridge onto an 18-wheeler going 55 mph).

Jolie said she hit her head on a table and was bleeding all over the place (I always wonder if they keep cameras rolling; it would make the scene more authentic).

Someone at Comic Con mentioned Jolie having not been to Comic Con since Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Interesting, because the Salt character basically is Lara Croft.

The movie basically then becomes just another action picture, with highly implausible situations cropping up. Now that being said, the stunts and chase scenes are so well done, it’s easy to give the film a pass. I couldn’t, because it just got so silly so fast. Even the way the Russian came into the C.I.A. office and got the ball rolling, turns out to be a horrible plan when the film finishes and you realize how many things had to go a certain way for things to work out.

The amount of silly logic was kept to a minimum, which is good. One of the few scenes that bothered me was Jolie, who is a very smart, shooting a gun into bullet proof glass. After one shot does nothing, she unloads the small gun into the glass. Still nothing. She picks up a machine gun, and again, nothing. What I’m wondering is…where are the bullets ricocheting? I read stories in the paper a few times a year, where a bullet ricochets off something and hits a person. The movie Out of Sight took this into account when Don Cheadles peeps fired a gun at a safe.

And on the subject of other movies, this just isn’t as good as the Bourne Identity or early Bond films. Not that everything has to be. But there’s something fun about those guys having great fight scenes and using cool little electronic gadgets. Salt uses black widow spiders.

I didn’t even have a problem with her beating up10 big guys with Uzis. It’s funny, because Michelle Pfeiffer can do a movie where she goes into a poor school and makes all the thugs want to start learning, and I think that’s unrealistic. But some woman that beats up 10 guys with machine guns I don’t think twice about.

As much fun as some of these chase scenes are, a little go along way. When I think of great car chase scenes in movies – Bullitt, French Connection, Ronin – they had one or two. It wasn’t an entire movie of them. A little goes a long way.

My friend that saw Jolie speaking at the Comic Con panel told me they said this was based on a former CIA agent named Melissa Mahle, who served as a consultant on the film. Jolie told the crowd, “A big part of it was just meeting her. You think you’re going to play this tough CIA girl and wonder what she’s going to look like, what’s she going to feel like, be like. Then you meet her and she’s so lovely, and she’s so elegant and counters any stereotype of some obviously tough woman.”

Maybe they should’ve just done a bio-pic on Mahle.

Sure, there’s some exhilarating stuff here, in an unrealistic story.

This Salt was starting to give me high blood pressure, too.

Rent the movie No Way Out, for a great film on Russian spies.

I’m giving this a C-.

DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS

At a screening for this movie, someone associated with the studio asked if I would give them a quote about it after I saw it.

My initial thought was a two-word quote: Schmucks sucks.

I instead went with this: It was Steve Carrell’s best movie since Date Night.

I don’t want to appear like I’m some cinema scrooge, hating every comedy that comes down the pike (especially when my favorite movie of the year – The Kids Are All Right – is a comedy).

There’s a great opening sequence that is made brilliant by the fact that we already know Carell is someone that makes dioramas with dead mice. So, seeing an elaborate one as The Beatles somber “Fool on the Hill” plays, is great.

The introduction to Paul Rudd’s character is fine (he plays a great straight man).

Even the introduction of Rudd to Carrell isn’t so bad (the usual hitting someone with your car, and their goofy face close-up shot on the windshield).

Rudd works with a lot of guys in the office that have amazing comedic timing. Ron Livingston (Office Space), and Larry Wilmore, who always cracks me up on The Daily Show.

Nothing they do in this is funny, or even believable.

Now, if you start knocking how realistic a movie of this type is, the common response is – “It’s just a comedy. Lighten up.”

The problem is, an unrealistic comedy can be Animal House or Airplane, with a joke every second making you crack up. This has a joke every second, but it’s every 15 minutes that you actually laugh (or merely smile).

This is a lazy comedy, much the way The Grown-Ups was a few months ago.

It’s taking a bunch of funny people, having them throw insults at each other, as if that’s humor. That can be humorous (see Don Rickles), if you write it funny.

There’s a scene where Carrell and Rudd each have the wrong cell phone, and the various things Carrell says in his attempt to get a hold of Rudd by calling that phone – it’s great comedy. Unfortunately, there aren’t many scenes like that.

Another scene that works, has Jemaine Clement (who is brilliant on Flight of the Conchords), playing an avante gard artist. He reminded me of Russell Brand in Get Him to the Greek (with sex addiction replacing drug addiction).

One of his Conchords co-stars (Kristen Schaal) pops up as an assistant to Rudd, and she’s funny.

But watching two hours (you read correctly…this thing is two hours long) of Carrell doesn’t work. That’s because, as much as we love him as the clueless boss in The Office; or as the naïve but nice guy in 40-Year-Old Virgin – those were believable characters and you could root for them. The character he plays in Schmucks has such a low IQ. You not only have a hard time laughing at his antics, you wonder how he even functions in society.

He supposedly has a job at the IRS. I can’t picture this guy working at Burger King.

Now, once we get into the IRS office (the punchline to that joke I saw coming down Broadway)…one of the funniest stand-up comedians ever, Zach Galifianakas, shows up. His scenes are all funny (it’s unfortunately that the trailers gave away the fact that he was going to show up at the dinner scene at the end).

This movie could’ve been a silly little romantic comedy and worked. That would’ve taken the pressure off of being funny every second.

What it couldn’t be, and tried to be, is a buddy picture. Rudd wouldn’t have spent more than five seconds with Carrell – not only is he so dense you can’t hold a conversation with him, but he logs onto his computer and thrashes his house. How would Rudd not haul off and kick his butt at that point?

Yet, we’re supposed to believe they hang out some more after those incidents.

That’s about as believable a buddy combo as if we see another Lethal Weapon and Mel Gibson and Danny Glover are joking over coffee and donuts.

Now, when the movie finally gets to the “dinner for winners,” (as it’s called in the film) it’s actually amusing. Some physical comedy from a woman that talks to animals, a ventriloquist (played by who else – Jeff Dunham), and a man with the worlds largest beard (there were no jokes about beard hair getting in the dinner).

Director Jay Roach obviously has a good eye for comedy. He gave us Austin Powers and Meet the Parents. Let’s hope he can get things back on track.

If you want to see a better odd ball couple, rent Neil Simon’s Odd Couple. It came out in the late 60s, but it holds up nicely.

If you love Galifianakas (the best part of this movie), rent one of his comedy specials.

Oh, did I mention…you could go see The Kids Are All Right? It’s still in theatres.

See that, instead of the sporadically amusing Schmucks.

I’m giving this a D+.

RESTREPO

I’ve never cared much for war movies.

Here are a few that come to mind and the reasons they bothered me.

Casualties of War. Michael J. Fox looked like he was 12, and when he had to yell at Sean Penn over something serious (raping a civilian), I almost laughed.

Full Metal Jacket. The drill sergeant was so over-the-top, it didn’t even seem believable. When he yelled at soldiers, instead of being scared, I almost laughed.

Apocalypse Now! I loved it, although there was something about all the lines the actors said that made me think it was just a series of catch-phrases.

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning,” etc. When Wagner is played from the helicopters before they attack, I almost laughed.

Saving Private Ryan. It starts with what could be a powerful intro – an old war vet visiting his fallen comrades at a cemetery. Instead that just comes across as cliché. And when they storm the beaches of Normandy, what could’ve been a powerfully intense scene (just watching and hearing the bullets coming into the boat before they’ve gotten into the water would be enough). Instead, they do the Hollywood thing and go over the top. We see one guy shot in the head. We see fish getting shot. We see a guy lose his arm, look for his arm, find his arm, pick it up and run off. I almost laughed.

In the documentary Restrepo, nothing comes close to making me laugh. And if war is hell, nothing should make you laugh. Not that they don’t have a few calm moments of levity here and there (one guy trying to explain to another guy over the walkie-talkies about what kind of farm he was raised on).

There weren’t all that many gun fights. When we do see them, they’re scary. It feels so much scarier than any Hollywood war film, and there are a lot fewer airplanes, helicopters and bullets whizzing overheard.

We don’t see many deaths, but there are a few. One is the best soldier they have, which is really scary for the rest of them.

We see another guy lose it after his friend is shot and killed. He’s crying, pacing around, and frantically asking questions. Some soldiers tell him that the guy is going to the medic and will be okay. Another says “It happened quick,” as if that’ll make him feel better. It’s gut wrenching.

The movie deals with a 14 month mission in the Korengal Valley (which CNN called the most dangerous place in the world). When a medic named Juan “Doc” Restrepo is killed, they end up naming an area they took over in a hostile area after him.

The movie was made from 150 hours of footage, and contains interviews with the soldiers after their deployment. Those interview segments are just as interesting as the battle scenes.

One soldier talked about all the death, with a huge, nervous smile on his face.

Another talked about his hippie parents, and not being allowed to have any kind of gun growing up.

“Even a squirt gun I had when I was 10. It was a turtle. That got taken away because it was a type of gun.”

You gain so much respect for what soldiers do. And I have to admit, I gained more respect for their intelligence. I guess I always just had the stereotypical thoughts of who joins the military and the things I’ve seen in movies, or the military guys I played basketball with at Miramar base for 15 years.

It was so interesting to see another side of these soldiers; the way they had “pep talks” or discussed strategy.

Sure, they did the same stuff you’ve seen in the fictional war pictures – wrestling, cursing, dancing, etc.

And a few things we haven’t seen in war movies before – being on detail that burns the poop from the camp, or having to deal with a local elder who wants payment for a cow that got caught in their barbwire and had to be shot.

(he wants $700, and isn’t happy when the soldier says they can give him sugar, beans, and rice – the same weight the cow was)

I enjoyed the fact that this movie didn’t have any political leaning one way or the other.

Sure, it may have lost its narrative focus at times, but ya know what? I didn’t care. I was entertained watching this powerful piece of filmmaking.

(I thought the ending should’ve shown the name RESTREPO, and had the “RE” in the middle, fall from the name. The letters “IN” inserted there, and the “P” then spell out “Peace.” It would’ve ended going from his name to RESTINPEACE)

I don’t think you have to just be a fan of war movies or documentaries to enjoy this picture (it feels weird even using the word “enjoy” to describe this).

I’m giving it a B+.

TWO TICKETS TO PARADISE

I love the entire vibe of film festivals.

I’ve gone to so many small ones. I’ve been to Sundance a few times. And I’ve always loved the fact that Roger Ebert hosts one that focuses on overlooked movies, which is a great idea.

I can’t tell you the amount of times I’m at a party and people start discussing their favorite films. How many times do I have to hear an idiot say “Scarface” was their favorite movie? Or a film snob talking about Fellini or Citizen Kane?

I ask people at parties to name movies they loved that nobody has heard of.

One of the movies on my list is Fandango; Kevin Costner’s first starring role (which is usually not a ringing endorsement, I know).

This had three guys (a 4th if you can’t the drunk in the backseat that never wakes up) going on a road trip.

I fear that Two Tickets to Paradise, which reminds me a lot of Fandango, will be another movie people miss.

I saw it at a film festival, and heard actor D.B. Sweeney (who wrote, directed, and financed the picture) talk about its release (which was a few years prior).

I’m not sure if it’s going to make it onto the big screen or merely be released on DVD. And I can’t imagine many people will see it in Blockbuster and take a chance on it, so I thought I’d write up the review.

Maybe I identified with this movie since I’m almost 40, and recently attended my 20 year reunion.

The three guys in this movie are around that age, and realize their best times are past them. They’ve got the usual problems – marriage, failed rock star dreams, cheating wives, and gambling addiction. Well, okay…those aren’t the usual problems most folks have. I just like the fact that these fictional characters have them, and it feels so authentic.

I thought about how Kurt Russell was a former star quarterback working as an auto mechanic in Best of Times, and how that’s more often the case then a QB rising to stardom in the NFL, or even been as successful in life as he was on the gridiron.

When the always reliable John C. McGinley (as the QB/gambler) gets angry, you can see it in his face. When he gets a big tip and wants to place a bet, you really feel like you’re looking at somebody with an addiction (not like the humorous way Richard Dreyfuss gets a tip on a horse race in Let it Ride).

It was nice to see Moira Kelly, who starred with D.B. Sweeney in that cheesy ice skating movie (Cutting Edge).

Ed Harris makes an appearance as a carnie (missing an appendage). It’s fun listening to his advice to the fellas (and of course, the story on losing the arm).

Sweeney’s character is a former “local” rock star that’s now driving a beer truck (the good looking athlete from my school, that had a full-ride at Stanford and hit the game winning home run in the College World Series, now drives a truck for Pepsi).

Sweeney brings his acoustic guitar everywhere. In the backseat of a car, this gets the guys all engaged in a few music debates (the dialog was good, but not nearly as clever as High Fidelity).

When Sweeney serenades some cute girls they cross paths with at a fast food place on the road (in a scene reminiscent of Fandango), with an acoustic version of the Styx song “Blue Collar Man,” it’s perhaps the funniest scene you’ll ever see with a guy and a guitar on film.

It made me think of Reality Bites, a very disappointing movie that everyone seems to love. It had a scene with Ethan Hawke singing the Violent Femmes to an angry Wynona Ryder that I still think could’ve been written so much better.

And it’s thoughts about other movies that have me so bummed about this movie; bummed at the fact that this might not be seen by folks.

Since I’m talking about other movies, let’s talk about Vanna White. When they visit the “White house,” and she pops up in a cameo, it’s a lot funnier than the Bob Barker scene everyone loves so much in Happy Gilmore.

And comparing Vanna not turning letters but merely touching them, to Dylan going electric, is perhaps the greatest analogy in film history.

Remember the classic scene of Jack Nicholson trying to order toast in a diner? Funny stuff, but mostly because it had Nicholson before he became the “Here’s Johnny!” everyone knew and loved.

In this, we get a funny scene ordering breakfast, where it’s said that John Wayne hated hash browns.

This is good writing, people.

Another example of good writing doesn’t just involve quick quips.

It can involve situations that seem more realistic than in other films.

One in this movie involve the gambler coming home, to find a thug in his house ready to collect. It’s not a guy that is 6’5” with no neck and a huge led pipe in his hand. Instead, it’s scarier that the guy is there, with the wife and kid nearby (we have no clue how he talked his way in, and it’s better not knowing).

And the moments that pull at the heartstrings all seem authentic.

One friend tells another that he’d ask why he’s running-off the two best friends he’s ever had but “I’m long past caring.”

Another guy opens his dads locker, to find some of his high school trophies and awards. There wasn’t a dry eye in the theatre at that moment.

It works so much better than the film that shows the parent that kept the kids room just the same, with all the trophies and posters on the wall. I mean, once I went to college and moved out, my mom was thrilled to throw out my basketball trophies and make it a guest bedroom all done up in pink.

The movie does have a few flaws.

At times, it seemed more like a TV movie. Other times, I thought characters would’ve handled things different than they did. And not all the jokes worked.

The ending, with Sweeney riding up on the motorcycle, rivals the cheesy ending of An Officer and a Gentleman (minus their horrid theme song being played in the background). At that point, though, we’re so rooting for Sweeney’s character (and “long past caring” about a few cheesy moments in a film we’re so emotionally invested in).

It’s just nice to see actor we loved in Memphis Belle, Fire in the Sky, Gardens of Stone (one of my favorite war pictures still), and Eight Man Out (my favorite Shoeless Joe Jackson still).

Sweeney wrote and directed this picture as well as starring. I’m hoping he continues down this path.

I’m a little bummed that during the credits, when my vegetarian girlfriend might be glancing at the screen to see if any alligators were hurt during the filming – I’m wondering if the beautiful Plymouth Fury was hurt during the filming.

The classic Ferrari in Ferris Beuller that took a dive, turned out to be four kit cars built right here in El Cajon. I’m worried the Fury in this movie was destroyed in the filming. That alone deserves Sweeney to be hunted down by the furious Fury in Christine!

I’m giving this movie a B-.

COLD SOULS

If you were to tell me – two of my favorite actors in the movies – Paul Giamatti and David Strathairn – were going to be in a film that involved the souls of humans sold on the black market, I might’ve camped out at the theatres the way those geeks did when the new Star Wars films came out.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this and was so utterly disappointed. Sure, it has soul. It just maybe lacks some heart, blood in the veins, and…okay, enough with those lame lines.

The two actors I mentioned, are great. It’s the script that just isn’t up to snuff. It’s not nearly as clever as it thinks it is.

I’m guessing this would’ve worked as a shorter skit than a long movie (a movie I felt was an hour longer than it was). It might’ve also been better if it was done by Charlie Kaufman or Woody Allen. Instead, it’s by first-time writer/director Sophie Barthes.

Maybe I would’ve thought it was a bit more clever had Being John Malkovich never been released (Giamatti also plays an actor, with the name Paul Giamatti, for some reason).

The one series of scenes I found brilliant – is when a director tries to explain to Giamatti why he’s not getting the part down in Uncle Venya. The subtle humor of him being told he’s too serious in one scene, and the next being too humorous. And when gets the soul of a Russian poet on the black market, and nails it perfectly – it’s wonderful cinema.

Unfortunately, the movie just doesn’t work.

The blonde mule that acts much the way a drug runner would, has some interesting scenes.

The always reliable Emily Watson is fun to watch.

The Russian bimbo that wants to be a serious actress, and thinks she’s getting Al Pacino’s soul, is kind of fun for awhile. Even more so when she refuses to give back the soul.

I’m also glad the movie wasn’t as abstract as I thought it might be.

When the souls are shown in jars, and Giamatti is upset with how small and dark his is – it reminded me of the much better Albert Brooks movie Defending Your Life (where the amount of days you go on trail dictate how bad you were on Earth).

This chickpea size soul, left me hungry for more. I’m sure the critics will have no trouble eating this up, though.

In the end, I just couldn’t warm up to Cold Souls (insert rim shot here).

I’m giving it a D+.

WINNEBAGO MANIn the very funny and entertaining trailers for Winnebago Man, we see a quote from Michael Moore. It says “One of the funniest documentaries ever made.”

Maybe one of the funniest trailers for a documentary ever made, but off the top of my head, I can name five funnier documentaries that have come out in the last five years.

That doesn’t mean this isn’t entertaining. It certainly is.

We watch as first time filmmaker Ben Steinbauer hunts down Jack Rebney – a name most people won’t recognize, but who appeared on a video that many millions of folks saw (can a documentary on Clara Peller be that far off?)

The former newsman was hired to do marketing videos for Winnebago. The outtakes had Rebney screaming and cursing about flies, the heat, the copy (which is especially odd, since he wrote it), and everything under the sun.

Part of the problem the movie has is that a little of that goes a long way. And we keep seeing the same clips over and over.

Steinbauer does a good job of filling the movie out, though.

We get a brief history on cyber bullying. And I learned that the nerdy kid who was doing the star wars moves with a stick, ended up being so humiliated by the video – he sued and won $250,000 from the classmates that posted it.

Many people will also get to see videos they may not have seen for the first time – clips that have now been made famous by TV shows, not just on Youtube.

I once argued with a friend who didn’t understand why a movie was being made about Andy Kaufman (played nicely by Jim Carey). Certainly an argument could be made about whether Rebney deserves his life story told. That doesn’t mean this movie doesn’t have many compelling moments. A few of those moments I can’t say, because it would spoil the few surprises the film has in store.

I could’ve done without the Hollywood writers (none that anybody would know) talking about how much they’ve enjoyed the Rebney videos. That adds nothing. I would’ve preferred Steinbauer talk about other “outtakes” that ended up being recorded and embarrassing the people in them.

Orson Welles yelling about how bad the copy is during a frozen pea commercial (as if he was making The Magnificant Ambersons in commercial form).

There’s Kasem Casem yelling about a dedication for a dead dog, coming out of an up-tempo song.

And more recently, we had tapes of Bill O’Reilly having trouble reading a teleprompter and Christian Bale yelling at someone on the set of Terminator: Salvation.

I’m always surprised at how long these documentaries take. The well-reviewed Hoop Dreams took over 10 years. This film took over three, and we really don’t learn all that much about Rebney (that’s not the directors fault, as we see he tried numerous times to get him to open up and talk about his life). It doesn’t make it any less frustrating, though.
Although some would say, not knowing everything about this guy makes it all more intriguing.

Does the director exploit this guy? Well, sure; but who cares? I didn’t have a problem with that. Rebney is well aware of everything he’s getting himself into.

Watching him is like watching that angry uncle you have at Thanksgiving dinner, who will predictable start shouting about something in the course of the dinner, you just aren’t sure what. Perhaps the only difference being, Rebney’s rants are pretty much all the same (Dick Cheney ruined the country, Wal-Mart is bad, to name the only two we see with regularity).

I was entertained enough watching this movie to recommend it, but I think you can get more laughs in one or two episodes of Tosh.O, a half hour cable show that televises the best video moments of the week.

Winnebago Man gets a B-.

THE OTHER GUYS

Don’t be fooled by the commercials. This movie isn’t funny. The clips show a few funny scenes – Ferrell doesn’t remember the Miranda Rights and says “anything you say can and will be used…as a floatation device.”

It probably made you smile just reading that. You won’t smile much during this horrible comedy.

They introduce us to all the characters in an interesting and fun 15 minutes that start the film. Dwayne Johnson (the “artist” formerly known as The Rock) and Samuel Jackson are the kind of heroic, shoot-em-up cops you see in cliché action pictures.

The other guys, are the ones that shuffle paperwork and are relegated to desk duty (Mark Wahlberg for a great bit in which he accidentally shoots someone; I can’t ruin it, because it’s a great cameo).

Michael Keaton was a great choice as the police captain, and there’s a funny scene when he’s arguing with his officers as they all whisper during the “shouting” match (it’s at a funeral).

There’s a continuous gag where Ferrell calls Keaton by his first name (Gene) instead of “Captain.” That was done in a better, funnier movie – Biloxi Blues (with Christopher Walken and Matthew Broderick).

And on the subject of funnier movies that cover these same type of jokes – in the 90s, Mike Myers gave us So I Married an Axe Murderer – which was one of the most underrated comedies ever. They have jokes inside a police station (with Alan Arkin given more humorous lines than Keaton is in this).

Mark Wahlberg isn’t completely wasted as the straight man. He has a few funny scenes, and an interesting ballet dance.

Steve Coogan, who was fun to see in Tropic Thunder, plays a white-collar criminal, that doesn’t have a single funny scene.

I’ve always liked the Little River Band’s hit “Reminiscing” and it would be funny that Ferrell plays this in his car, when Wahlberg would rather hear music that could pump him up.

But how many comedies have used that joke? Heck, even a serious film used that (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead).

On David Letterman the other night, Ferrell said he felt “strongly about this movie.” He also apologized for Land of the Lost. Well, he better prepare another apology.

Writer/director Adam McKay and Ferrell have had success in previous endeavors (Anchorman, Step Brothers, and the FunnyorDie website). I’m not sure why either of them thought this worked.

I guess someone could say “This movie is great if you’re a fan of Will Ferrell. Uh, okay. I’m not really sure what that means. All he ever does is play this same character. Who would be a fan of that?

I have to admit, I couldn’t stop laughing when he played that character in Step Brothers. That hardly makes me a fan of it.

I wasn’t a fan of Jim Carey’s brand of humor after seeing Ace Ventura, and he’s hit it out of the park with so many other diverse performances -- as Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and The Truman Show, to name a few.

Dumb cops are always fun on film. I thought I’d hate Hot Fuzz a few years ago, and I enjoyed it. I didn’t like The Three Stooges, but enjoyed the Keystone Cops.

And the worst thing I can say about this film is – the dumb cop/parody film Cop Out from last year, is actually funnier.

The funniest part of this movie was when the screening ended, they gave out rape whistles.

I’m giving this a D.

KISSES
It’s strange that this little Irish indie picture was only 75 minutes long, and I still thought about 10 minutes could’ve been shaved off it.

That’s not to say I didn’t like it. I did. It just had a bit of filler that wasn’t necessary.

I’m on the fence as to whether I liked the technique they used of having the two children in their horrible neighborhood, being filmed in black and white. And once they head off on their journey, things are filmed in color.

I liked the use of sub-titles in a few scenes (when the accents and colloquial phrases might’ve been hard to catch).

The children in this, Kelly O’Neill and Shane Curry, are flat out amazing.

When we see their horrible home life, I like that it isn’t over-the-top. We see the girl has an overbearing mom that heaps loads of responsibility on her, and an uncle that is probably molesting her.

The boy has a father that smacks him and his mom around. This lead to his older brother leaving years earlier (or as many in the town speculate – that the father beat him so badly he died).

Good enough reason to leave home. And it helps when the girl has been socking away money in a shoe (which leads them to do what 11-year-old runaways would do – waste money on chocolate and shoes with skates on the soles).

Stephen Rea makes a nice appearance as Bob Dylan. And on the subject of Dylan, his songs are used splendidly in this.

When a guy on a garbage barge introduces the kids to Dylan, by whipping out his harmonic and doing a version of Shelter From the Storm (which seems very poignant), it almost brought tears to my eyes.

The second half of the movie loses steam, but I enjoy the gritty feel of life on the streets. And, the filmmaker does pack a lot into the outing.

I thought about how Tom Hanks, in the movie Big, cried when he stayed at a bad hotel in a bad part of town. This movie also shows that fear kids have of strangers in dark alleys, yelling, shooting, and all that fun stuff (wow…what happened to the beautiful Ireland I saw in Ondine a few months ago?)

This movie takes place right around Christmas. It’s the anti- A Christmas Story.

That blonde child had a nice home, and wanted a Red Rider BB Gun. This child wanted a real gun, to off his pa. And instead of finding Santa Claus, this boy runs into the dreaded “Sack man.” (who is rumored to kidnap kids in sacks, bash them up and throw them in the canal)

I thought the movie could’ve been a bit more profound with the “kisses” it delivered (it seemed they tried, but didn’t succeed).

I really enjoyed the ending of this tale, and the fact that for days afterwards I thought about the film.

Kisses gets a B-.

TWELVE

I loved the weird voice-over we heard in the film Little Children. The narrator in this is Keifer Sutherland, sounding just like him, with a touch of Ron Burgundy thrown in (Sutherland worked with director Joel Schumacher in The Lost Boys and Flatliners).

It was laughably bad, and made worse by the dialogue. Occasionally he’d have a funny line. Occasionally a teenager would say something profound; but too often they tried for and fell flat.

You end up watching a bunch of spoiled rich kids that you don’t care about, or even find believable (even Rory Culkin, who plays the virgin – is surely smart enough to not be duped by the girl who convinces him to spend thousands of dollars to throw her an 18th birthday party).

Schumacher has only done one movie I really liked (Falling Down), and his attempt at taking on this well-reviewed novel, doesn’t work. I’m curious as to why he made the main character, White Mike, not sell this new drug Twelve. I’m guessing test-audiences had a hard time showing sympathy for him losing his mom to cancer if he’s selling a dangerous drug, so he just sells pot and leaves the heavy stuff to rapper 50 Cent. He does a decent acting job. Of course, we get that cliché scene of a rich, attractive white girl so desperate for drugs that she’s willing to sleep with him to score (I last remember seeing that in the overrated Michael Douglas movie Traffic).

The cast is filled with great looking young actors (someone from Gossip Girl, Lenny Kravitz’s kid Zoe) and former good looking actors (Ellen Barkin).

This film is a pretentious mess that isn’t a 12, but a zero. A Less Than Zero wannabe.

It might rate a 12, on a scale from 1 to 50.

Since these are all kids going to Ivy League schools, the grade system works best. It deserves the D it’s getting.

I recommend you rent 12 Monkeys instead. No, it’s not remotely like this. I just think it’s a really awesome film that you should see.

THE EXPENDABLES

When I hear Sylvester Stallone wrote and directed a movie, I don’t usually have high hopes. He did Rocky Balboa a few years ago, and it wasn’t bad. I even liked Rocky V (no need to bring up the original, as Stallone won an Oscar for best screenplay).

Remember though, Sly also gave us Stayin’ Alive (Did you even know a Saturday Night Fever part two existed? If not, consider yourself lucky.)

Stallone said in an interview that he assembled the toughest guys he knows. Uh…well, Dolph Lundgren and Eric Roberts played good tough guys in the 80s; but at least they fit nicely with Jason Stratham (just his voice scares me), ultimate fighter Randy Couture, former wrestler Steve Austin (who looks scary, but sounds like he’s in the WWF when he starts yelling), Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke (the hair alone scares me), and Jet Li (who doesn’t scare me, but I know he could probably kick my kneecaps pretty hard).

This movie will have Eric Roberts opening a film against his sister Julia – who is probably going to have more success with her Eat Love Pray (after all, Oprah recommended that in her book club).

I read a few critics that commented on how this film would’ve gone straight to video if it had Steven Segal starring in it. Maybe.

This movie is better than most of those gun chase, action adventures. I usually hate those and I had fun with this.

There was a little bit of a bait-and-switch, as the commercials showed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis talking to Sly about doing this “dangerous job.” They were in a two minute scene and never heard from again.

The film doesn’t get bogged down with details. They’re basically going to a country with a bunch of bad guys (run by someone that is a Hugo Chavez double) and of course, when things get dangerous, they have to return later for the damsel in distress.

If you can keep from laughing at the silly opening that shows them roll up in motorcycles like they’re in a Motley Crue video from the 80s, and get into the groove, you’ll have fun with this summer popcorn flick (well, you might have a few scenes you have to keep from laughing in).

The clichéd scenes are all in here – stud character that can’t remember his gorgeous girlfriends name, guy beating up the boyfriend that abused his ex-girlfriend, vans trapping you at a stoplight so they can riddle your car with bullets…I could go on and on. It’s like a Dirty Dozen crew cut in half, and twice the age (can you believe the bald Statham actually looks the youngest?)

There are some lame scenes, especially the Willis one, which is reminiscent of a scene of his in Pulp Fiction (and a horrible joke about Arnold becoming President); but ya know what? I recently watched the much revered Wild Bunch (from 1969) and it doesn’t hold up as well as you’d think.

This movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, and that makes it a guilty pleasure.

I’m giving it a C+.

EAT LOVE PRAY

This is probably the biggest opening weekend of movies all summer. You’ve got the action/adventure -- The Expendables. You have the teen comic book, video game, mish-mash Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And, you have the biggest chick flick of the summer – Eat Love Pray.

Not to be confused with Eat Drink Man Woman (what is it with movie titles that start with “eat” not forming complete sentences?)

You know what’s strange about this movie for me? One of my biggest complaints is that movies don’t seem realistic. Well, this one does.

When Julia Roberts is in Italy and having a guy teach her Italian, or is engrossed in delicious food with her new friends, it all seems real; and kind of uninteresting. None of them say anything you really care about.

The movie started with Roberts talking to her BFF (played by Viola Davis, who was so great in Doubt). Yes, it’s that movie BFF, which means it’s a BBFF (black best friend forever). Their conversations about having a baby are mildly interesting.

I loved the flashbacks of Roberts marriage, and even the way she deals with her divorce. The fact that her husband doesn’t want the marriage to end is clever and interesting.

But when she heads out to Italy, this becomes a travelogue that is supposedly true (although it conveniently leaves out her cheating on her husband, doing drugs, and gaining 25 pounds – heaven forbid Roberts would gain weight for a role).

The close-ups of the food in Italy or the nicely photographed city doesn’t make up for an uninteresting script.

The trip to India seems very forced. She’s doing this for a current boyfriend (James Franco, in one of the few movies I haven’t liked him in) more than for herself.

That gives her the chance to meet the very talented Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) in one of the few films I haven’t enjoyed him in.

He’s a little too rude to Roberts for me to ever really warm up to him, and his revelation to her – although powerful – doesn’t make it enough.

The third place Roberts visits is Bali (for the love portion of the film). This is where she meets Javier Bardem, who reminds me a lot of Gerard Depardieu. I was in college when he became this sex symbol, and I just couldn’t figure it out. He was fat and oafy, with a huge nose (if this is what women find attractive, my number’s in the book, ladies).

Now, Bardem isn’t fat. And he doesn’t have that goofy haircut he had in No Country For Old Men – but why has he become a sex symbol? I can’t see it. I didn’t buy it when he got two best friends to sleep with him in Vicky Christina Barcelona (hey…that almost sounds like this title) and I have a hard time buying it in this.

And, we have to a poorly written screenplay. That would include Bardem trying to impress Roberts at a bar, by telling her he’d make her the best mix-tape because he adds a lot of Phil Collins and Air Supply.

Oh, isn’t that cute!? He’s a big lug with sleepy eyes, that doesn’t know enough to keep hidden his love of Air Supply.

It’s a shame that a movie that starts so promising can become so disappointing. I still had hope an hour into it, after Roberts left her goofy young fling and met up with her eating partner in Italy. They talked about the weight they’ve gained and decide instead of counting calories, a trip to buy new pants was the answer.

Instead of a lame scene like we had with Pretty Woman playing as they tried on outfits, we have them laying on the floor trying to snap buttons and zip up pants, while Thank You For Letting Me By Myself Again plays. Nice.

There’s a scene near the end of the movie where Roberts has her eyes closed and Bardem is bringing her to a boat at the beach. That final 10 or 15 minutes might make you gag a few times, but I’m sure Oprah’s book club will eat it all up.

And speaking of eating…I felt this meal just wasn’t satisfying. It’s a little like lunch at Denny’s. The pictures on the menu look enticing. And as you’re eating the food you don’t think it’s horrible; but it’s nothing to write home about or recommend to friends. Ultimately, it leaves you unsatisfied.

I’m giving this movie a D+.

THE EXTRA MAN

There’s a scene where a 92-year-old wealthy widow is having dinner with a few suitors at the Russian Tea Room. They are throwing small tantrums and she’s loudly sipping champagne with a straw. I thought – dinner for rich schmucks.

This is the story about an eccentric, poor playwrite played by Kevin Kline. It’s like a kooky version of Otto from A Fish Called Wanda. Otto was too “stupid” to appreciate the Oprah. In this, Kline is too poor to buy tickets (but he finds creative ways of getting in).

His new roommate is Paul Dano (Kline tells him he’s the perfect match, as he’s the only one who has answered the ad that can speak English). But he really is the perfect roommate. They immediately talk about literature they enjoy. In fact, Dano enjoys literature so much, he fancies his life an F. Scott Fitzgerald style novel (complete with wardrobe to match, and a running narration in his head).

I don’t usually care for the cadence Dano has, or his look (maybe I liked him so much in Little Miss Sunshine because he spent most of the movie as a mute). His awkwardness in this film works perfectly for his character – a professor that is fired for trying on a bra in the teachers lounge.

His fascination with cross dressing leads to a scene with a woman he finds in a sleazy magazine ad – and it’s as awkward and funny as when Matthew Broderick sees a prostitute in Biloxi Blues.

John C. Reilly has a few interesting scenes as the bizarre neighbor that collects knick-knacks and sings opera in the shower (among other things).

Some people are bothered by this collection of eccentric weirdos – but that’s the beauty of a comedy that has funny jokes. You can let these things slide because you’re laughing so hard (at least I, and the audience I saw this with, did).

Katie Holmes knocks it out of the park as a Vegan snob (is that redundant?). And I didn’t even recognize the talented character actor Dan Hedaya with his thick accent.

But the movie really belongs to Kevin Kline, who talks about great authors (while looking like Mark Twain); and I think he has an Oscar nomination sealed with this wacky performance. It’s one of those rare times where I can’t think of another actor pulling it off. Steve Martin might have come close, but as strange as this sounds, it wouldn’t have been as funny. Kline has that Shakespearian, aristocrat voice that seems to channel Jiminy Glick at some points.

The music was a nice blend of classical pieces (Vivaldi’s Four Seasons), as well as T. Rex and Velvet Underground songs that fit nicely in this New York setting.

And there’s a nice song from Katie Holmes, who before the protest of a cement company, practices on acoustic guitar while singing: We all lament/this business of cement.

This is an offbeat comedy that everyone should enjoy. Well, aside from David Letterman. His “Oprah-Uma” joke was used with a Louis and Louise. And it worked.

If you see this you’ll laugh a minimum of 10 times (which is five times more than Dinner for Schmucks, and eight times more than The Other Guys). If you don’t, I’ll give you free movie tickets.

I’m giving this a B.

L’AFFAIRE FAREWELL

I thought this espionage thriller was a nice change of pace. It wasn’t Jason Bourne or James Bond…or any other JB with a million little gadgets and guns. Just a couple of regular guys passing secrets and trying to be good family men.

It’s sort of the pepper to the recently released Salt – which involved a Russian spy and lots of car chases and explosions.

The cars in this film usually sit in a parking lot, as one guy asks the other about his sons love of Queen.

And you know all these gorgeous women spies are always sleeping with on exotic beaches? Well, no beaches here, just lots of snow (the women may not be in bikinis, but they’re not too shabby).

Oh, and you think wives nag when you don’t take out the garbage or fix the sink properly – just try making a few extra dollars as a spy and see how much they flip out.

I found it interesting to see a part of history I wasn’t familiar with during the height of the Cold War.

It was a little distracting watching Fred Ward play Ronald Reagan, since he doesn’t look like him. It was similar to Anthony Hopkins playing Nixon; but after a few scenes you settle into those actors playing these Presidents.

I’m guessing this movie took a lot of liberties with what really happened (especially with “Star Wars”).

I did enjoy that this was a little different in regards to the family life we got to witness. It’s not something you normally see in a spy movie. And that doesn’t mean there weren’t some thrilling scenes, either.

The way a passing cars headlights show someone hiding in the backseat of a car, or a family impatiently waiting to get by a border checkpoint when the s*** has hit the fan.

Serbian director Emir Kusturica plays a Russian spy, and is fascinating to watch on screen.

Willem Defoe is the biggest name in the film, and he’s great in his few scenes. I especially liked when he explains a situation to someone in a way that another movie would’ve made condescending and unrealistic.

I did think the movie was a bit slow at times; and, this is the third sub-titled film I’ve seen in a month that had words written in white, and on a white background, they were hard to read. Why won’t people make sub-titles white letters with black borders, so that they’ll be readable no matter what color is in the background?

I’m giving this movie, loosely based on a true story, a C+.

VAMPIRES SUCK

One of my regular movie complaints is about the film titles. I can’t complain about Vampires Suck. It has vampires. And it sucks.

I should note right now, I only stayed for 30 minutes of it. Really, that’s all I could take.

In that time, I laughed at two jokes. The father commenting on his daughters breasts (an actress that totally pulled off the Kristen Stewart pout). And an Indian kid who turns into a dog and runs after a squirrel (although dogs running after squirrels is a thousand times funnier in the animated Up).

I think doing film parodies is probably not that easy. The Zucker Brothers (with Jim Abrahams and Leslie Nielson often helping), did well.

Mel Brooks scored with Blazing Saddles poking fun at westerns, and Space Balls a decade later, parodying Star Wars. Then he did a movie I walked out of (coincidentally, also a vampire film): Dracula – Dead and Loving It.

I’ve only walked out of four movies in my life (and wanted to walk out of Big Daddy). The Dracula film was the same year (1995) that I walked out on Boys on the Side.

I should also defend Vampires Suck by saying – I’m not the target audience. It’s geared towards teens that are fans of the Twilight films. I haven’t seen a single one of those. That being said, when you have 10 jokes every couple minutes, at least a few of them should work; even if you aren’t familiar with the source material.

I wanted to stay and see Dave Foley (Kids in the Hall) and Ken Jeong (The Hangover) – two of the funniest men on the planet; but when I’m that bored 30 minutes into it, I don’t feel it’s worth wasting more of my time.

Filmmakers Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg gave us the parody films Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie and Disaster Movie. None of those got good reviews (and Vampires Suck is at 3% on Rotten Tomatoes). I’m thinking they should shoot for something different next time out.

If I were to issue a grade to this movie, it would be a D-. It’s not fair to do that to a film that I merely saw 30 minutes of. So, I’ll take that red marker and write INCOMPLETE on the top right-hand corner.

PIRANHA 3D

I had no desire to see Piranha 3D. Now, had someone told me it was Piranha 3-Double D, I would’ve considered it.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not some perv, but the novelty of seeing breasts in 3D would’ve been to tempting to pass up.

And don’t despair ladies. You get to see some man parts in 3D, too. And it belongs to sex symbol Jerry O’Connell (look out, Dirk Diggler). He plays a sleazy TV producer doing a Girls Gone Wild type of show.

It’s really the fish that have gone wild.

An earthquake causes piranha, well…not just regular piranha, but prehistoric piranha…to extract revenge on Richard Dreyfuss for what he did to that Great White in Jaws (in a sly move, he’s even singing the same song while drunk on the boat). Oh yeah, he needed a bigger boat in this, too.

The critics have been praising this movie as a fun, goofy throwback to those cheesy horror/slasher flicks of the 70s and 80s. And I have to admit, I was on board that small boat, enjoying the fun for the first half.

Christopher Lloyd was perfectly cast as the cranky old scientist (I was half expecting him to take a DeLorean into the ocean to fight the fish).

Elizabeth Shue’s awkward acting style worked well for her role as the town sheriff, along with tough guy sidekick Ving Rhames (He must be tough – he jumped into the bloody water, ripped off an engine from a boat and fought the fish that way).

As the piranha were flying up from his swirling blade, I wondered why the 3D didn’t seem to make me flinch as fish were flying my way.

Eli Roth pops up in a small part, running a wet T-shirt contest.

Adam Scott (who I loved in Step Brothers) had a nice role as an oceanographer. I just wonder what these actors say to their friends at parties, when asked a year ago “What movie are you working on now?”

The two little kids are perfect in their roles, and even Steve McQueen’s grandson does a nice job.

This will easily go down as the goriest movie of the summer. Heck, of the last few years.

The ending is absolutely ridiculous, but come on. If you’re going to a movie called Piranha, you’re not going to be nitpicking about things like that. It’s also why the press wasn’t given any screenings of this movie. But surprise, surprise! The critics are giving this movie good reviews (it was around 80% on Rotten Tomatoes).

O’Connell showed a clip of himself being eaten by the fish on a late night talk show, so I’m not ruining anything by saying that he bites the dust (or, gets bitten and turned to dust). What’s funny is that as he lies on his dock, with the entire lower half of his body basically gone – his last words are “Wet T-shirt contest. Wet T-shirt contest!”

That tops Val Kilmer in The Doors movie. His last line is “Let’s get some tacos.”

I think if you have a few beers and have a nice buzz going, you can really have fun with this movie. Of course, the characters in this movie drink a little too much (did we really need to see barf in 3D?). Although I must admit, seeing a woman trying to get her tangled hair out of a boat propeller while fish with sharp teeth approach, did kind of bring me back to those horror films of my youth.

This thing unabashedly goes for all the exploitation it can get. You’re either going to love it or hate it. I did both.

I’m giving it a C-.

ANIMAL KINGDOM

Animal Kingdom is a good little picture out of Australia, that has a few things going against it.

A lot of people don’t make it out to the theatres that show the foreign and indie films. And, with a title like Animal Kingdom, people might get the wrong impression.

This is a movie about criminals and the cops that try to catch them.

Guy Pearce has a great role as a cop, who is mistakenly called a “caring police officer” in some reviews. To me, he may seem like he cares about this young boy that is caught in a weird predicament with his crazy family. I got the impression that he merely cared about proving a case, not helping a young man leave this life of crime. We do see him with his family and as he talks to other officers, and know he’s not a bad cop. I just wouldn’t go so far to say he cares about the boy.

That 17-year-old kid pulls out an amazing performance, as does the rest of the cast.

The grandmother (Jacki Weaver) better get a supporting actress nomination or there’s no justice in the world.

Joel Edgerton, who created such a splash as the arsonist in The Square earlier this year (which is not only a better film, it’s still my second favorite movie of the year), has a nice role in this.

There’s a scene where he’s teaching the boy how to properly wash his hands in a bathroom that’s classic. His facial expressions remind me of a young Richard Gere, who in a bathroom explains to his drunken dad why he’s joining the Air Force in An Officer and a Gentleman.

Oh, and let’s not forget the crazy uncle (Ben Mendelsohn). It’s so refreshing when a movie creates a crazy character that has this quiet nuttiness. Sure, it’s a blast when Joe Pesci is shooting peoples feet or asking “Do you think I’m funny?” in Goodfellas. It’s just a much more interesting approach to know that there’s a guy capable of very bad things, and he’s just looking at you. He might have a slight twitch, or blink a few too many times.

There’s a scene in this where he questions his own sons sexuality in perhaps the wittiest bit of dialogue I’ve seen in some time.

There’s a later scene when we know he’s after somebody, and you are on the edge of the seat in a way that only a good filmmaker can pull off.

A garage door opens, and you wonder if he’s going to be there. The car pulls out of a drive-way, and you wonder if he’ll show up. To say anymore would ruin a thrilling scene.

I thought the film dragged a little in the last half hour, and it got a bit far fetched. But for a first film by writer/director David Michod, I was very pleasantly surprised.

It might not be at the theatres much longer, so go find it. And rent The Square.

I’m giving this a B-.

TAKERS

I’m guessing in a few years, I’ll confuse the title with the Liam Neeson movie Taken from a few years ago.

I’m guessing in a few hours, I will have forgotten about this cliché filled heist film.

Matt Dillon is a cop that plays by his own rules (hey…if the four screenwriters credited with this film can give us clichés, why can’t we throw a few out in the reviews?). He puts off internal affairs (and we see him rough up two different criminals and realize why they’re probably wanting to chat with him).

Dillon has bigger things to worry about – a crew of arrogant bank robbers that work infrequently and plan their crimes out impeccably.

The opening sequence is a good one. And there are a few stylish things that work well for this type of film.

I’m wondering if the audience will laugh at seeing rappers Chris Brown (the Rhianna incident). And. T.I., who in real life just finished a prison stint, playing a character that gets out of prison and wants his old crew (who seem to be working just fine without him), to do a big score. Taking down armored cars that will be carrying $25 million.

Oh, and it also involves the Russians. I’m wondering when the Russians started becoming the bad guys again. This is like the 5th I’ve seen this year with ruskies running roughshod.

The women in this film don’t have a lot to do.

Zoe Saldana pops up briefly. Oh, and there are two bikini clad women waiting in a pool for one of the studly bad guys. With a scene like that, and one shot of them pulling up in their Escalades, Porsches, and smoking huge cigars – I thought this film was in danger of breaking out into a rap video.

One of the guys has a sister going in and out of rehab, which I’m guessing could’ve been a more interesting story. Instead, it comes off as a feeble attempt to humanize these guys and perhaps make us care more about them.

This movie isn’t a complete disaster, though. At least half of the scenes work, and for this type of movie, batting .500 is just like a batter doing that in the major leagues.

It’s disappointing that a big shoot-out near the end is done in slow motion with goofy, operatic music playing (and of course, feathers from pillows flying everywhere).

And what would’ve been an amazing chase scene involving Chris Brown, through the streets of L.A., starts strong and goes on and on and on. It’s like the Energizer bunny on steroids.

The cameraman is apparently running along side of him, creating a shaky scene that isn’t as interesting.

Brown does so many flips and jumps over cars, I’m thinking he should’ve been on an Olympic team (for some reason, similar stunts worked well at the start of a James Bond movie a few years back).

I also wondered how many extras were going to be run into by him. I think he hit and knocked over about 20 people.

Since I was still in video game mode from seeing Scott Pilgrim, I thought this scene looked like Frogger.

I’d rather rent a David Mamet heist, than this Michael Mann light.

I’m giving it a D+.

CAIRO TIME

Cairo Time sure takes its time. And that’s not something that usually bothers me in movies.

The slow pacing of Lost in Translation is one of the few things that worked in that movie.

The premise of this film: a woman goes to Cairo for a vacation with her husband, who works for the UN and is stuck in Gaza. One of his friends and former co-workers shows her around town, as she grows more and more restless being cooped in a hotel all day. She also grows more and more interested in her escort.

Patricia Clarkson, one of the most underrated character actresses around, is just wonderful. In fact, she played this part better than Meryl Streep would have.

Her escort around Cairo is actor Alexander Siddig, a very handsome man that makes this couple enjoyable to watch.

And supporting actress Elena Anaya isn’t too shabby, as the beautiful younger girlfriend of another UN worker.

I was mesmerized by the first 40 minutes, but slowly started to become less interested.

I enjoyed the fact that the courtship of these two takes time to develop. There’s nothing more frustrating than watching movie couples jump into bed right away, or fall madly in love – and we’re wondering why they would’ve fallen for each other. These two have enjoyable moments together.

It’s exactly the type of thing missing from I Am Love, when it makes little sense why Tilda Swinton would fall for a friend of her son.

I think the chemistry between the two leads lacks a little something, but that falls on writer/director Ruba Nadda. I think she should’ve given the script a few more memorable pieces of dialogue. I did enjoy how Nadda lets the facial expressions and silences speak volumes.

A lot of the shots are great. There are the packed streets, hookah pipes in coffee shops, white desert, pyramids in the background of people golfing, full moon over the Nile, and many more. I’d like a little more though, than just interesting visuals; just a few more interesting things about these two characters would’ve really helped.

I thought about Sex and the City 2 when I saw the camels, and I thought about how Clarkson reminds me a little of a character from that movie. She’s obviously intelligent (she runs a magazine, plays a mean game of chess, etc). Yet for some reason, she’s a bit naïve when it comes to how the locals do things. That gets her into a few hairy situations.

This was a long way to go for not much of a payoff, although it was nice that the last 10 minutes were a satisfying conclusion.

I overheard one couple leaving the theatre and the woman asked her husband, “Did you like it?” He paused, before replying “I didn’t not like it.”

That sums it up perfectly.

I’m glad I saw Cairo Time, but can only give it a C-.

EVERYONE ELSE

Everyone else that wasn’t at the theatre when I watched this, can consider themselves lucky. Talk about two hours you’ll never get back…

And it’s really a shame, because the first 45 minutes were interesting. In fact, this movie is a lot like Cairo Time, which I saw a few days before. It’s just the opposite, in the fact that it’s a new couple falling out of love instead of into love – but both movies seem realistic. Both are beautiful photographed with nice cinematography, but would’ve been great at under an hour, and at two hours become tedious to endure.

Also like Cairo Time, the two leads are wonderful actors. They have great facial expressions, whether that’s in the passion of an embrace, or the anger during a hike in which they’re lost.

I like the fact that this man is mean to her, but not so over-the-top that we wonder what she would’ve ever seen in him. In fact, I think most people will see some of themselves in this deteriorating relationship. The clingy woman that just wants him to say “I love you,” after she says it to him. The guy that wants to go for a night out minus the misses; or the subtly snide comments they make at each other when having dinner with friends.

It’s also interesting to see how a wonderful vacation in an exotic location, can turn sour when you’re with someone that you’re not happy with.

Actors Lars Eidinger and Brigit Minichmayr were like German, angrier versions of Molly Ringwald and John Krasinski, and their performances were terrific. I just wish they would’ve been given a better script to work with.

There are scenes in the end that don’t even really make sense.

Did a character try to commit suicide? Why did a character collapse on a living room floor? And ya know what? At that time, I was passed the point of really caring.

I noticed on Rotten Tomatoes, this movie was getting 89% positive reviews. It just goes to show you – critics can be nuts when it comes to indie and foreign films.

This movie gets a D+, and I’m being generous.

MESRINE: KILLER INSTINCT

Vincent Cassel pulls off a great performance as Jacques Mesrine. At times he’s charming, but most of the movie, just looks like a weasel.

After serving in the Algerian War, and getting tired of his parents (for reasons we aren’t really sure of), he gets seduced by his friends money, car, and women. Of course, partying in Paris in the early 60s helps point him in the wrong direction as well.

Before long, he’s working in the same business – robbery – as his buddy. He gets married, reports to a Gerard Depardieu – who looks very Godfatheresque – and of course, he gets caught.

This movie came out a few years ago, but has been re-released (it’s at the Hillcrest Landmark) since the second part is coming out in a few weeks.

It reminds me a lot of Goodfellas and a little of Bonnie & Clyde. I’m not sure I’m all that interested in even catching the part two, though. I’m guessing Martin Scorsese will love these crime dramas.

I read up on the real Mesrine, and I found more interesting things the movie didn’t cover. He claims to have killed 40 people in his autobiography, and was dubbed the “man of a hundred faces,” for his disguises.

I thought the movie threw way too much at you, and a lot of this stuff we’ve seen before. The wife nagging about him going out to play cards and sleep with whores; wanting him to stay at his real job instead of returning to prison, etc etc etc.

Mesrine’s first wife is played by Elena Anaya, who might be the best looking actress working today. She was beautiful in Cairo Time, and is stunning in this.

Anyway, if you like these types of gangster films, you’ll want to see this.

I’m giving it a C+.

THE AMERICAN

You know how people always complain that the trailers are the best parts of the movie? I usually don’t agree with that; although sometimes the trailers can be deceptive.

When Adventureland came out a few years ago, I enjoyed it even though it was nothing like the teen comedy the trailers portrayed it as.

The American is nothing like the movie the trailers bill it as. The movie is more like watching paint dry. Better yet, it’s like watching the glue on a gun dry. That’s what we get to watch in one scene. George Clooney does push-ups, drinks coffee, makes a gun and some ammo, and that’s about it.

Sure, we get to see some naked Italian girls, which gives it a slight James Bond feel. Although in the opening scene by a fireplace with a naked woman, Bond doesn’t end up shooting the gal in the head.

I thought of Steve McQueen at one point, because of Clooney’s love of butterflies (Papillon), and his haircut. I also thought of other 70s movies – 3 Days of the Condor, Day of the Jackyl, The Conversation – all slightly slow paced thrillers that were good.

This movie is slow paced, and isn’t that interesting. You can’t even use the defense that it’s a character study. We learn very little about his character, other than he likes butterflies and prostitutes.

This is really just George Clooney playing Michael Clayton, who was really just George Clooney as a lawyer. Isn’t that really what he’s playing in every role?

He’s an assassin that’s holed up in Italy, when things go wrong on his last “assignment.” And of course, the usual clichés pop up. He’s going to retire after “one last job.” And the prostitute he frequents has a heart of gold, and a heart for him. Can you really blame her? He treats her and tips her well, and…well, it’s George Clooney! Shouldn’t she be paying him?

Clooney produced this movie, and I’m not sure why. I can’t imagine anything in the script…wait…there is nothing in the script!

It seems when actors are young, they want to gain wait for roles and do their own stunts. When they get older, they want to produce and direct movies, in which they can play troubled middle-aged people at a crossroads in their life. Close-ups of their face, even if that means showing wrinkles, because they can look perplexed and squint their eyes a lot. Okay, fine. Don’t you still have to keep the audience interested?

We were interested watching Jack Nicholson wrestle with retirement in About Schmidt. We don’t always need him running around saying “Here’s Johnny!” or “You can’t handle the truth!”

There’s nothing in this movie that warrants wasting $12 and two hours of your time.

Some of the side characters are mildly interesting -- A priest that reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock, and his mechanic son; a boss that reminds me of Scott Glenn (if you gave him Keith Richards skin).

The movie also has an interesting car chase. I’m usually one that makes fun of car chases in movies. In this, I wish there were a few more. Maybe take out one of the scenes of Clooney working out (how many movies have done that scene? Leonardo DiCaprio in The Departed and Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear immediately come to mind). Take out one of the five scenes of Clooney brooding about this beautiful Italian country side perhaps.

At one point Clooney says to the priest “I don’t think God is very interested in me.”

Neither was I.

This movie gets a D.

THE TILLMAN STORY

I thought The Tillman Story was a great documentary.

I wasn’t one of the ones that sang Pat Tillman’s praises initially.

When he left a million dollar NFL career to join the military, I didn’t go all gaga over his great heroic deed. I immediately said “What a stupid thing to do. You have a family, and you’re turning down a well-paying job, to do something that could get you killed. It’s great if he wants to protect his country and fight for these various freedoms and all that; but unless we run out of soldiers and need to start drafting people, what he’s doing isn’t necessary and it’s very stupid.”

I got a lot of hate mail for stating that.

I slowly gained more and more respect for Tillman, when he refused to do interviews and try to capitalize on all this.

And watching this movie, I really felt for this wonderful, but sometimes troubled, human being. What a great man this country lost.

I’m equally sad about a local that had a lot in common with Tillman. Nobody will ever know his name.

Casey Grochowiak of Encinitas, was also an Army Ranger. And like Tillman, who served one tour and could’ve gotten out and resumed football – Grochowiak injured his back. He felt that the younger soldiers needed his help (same as Tillman). He returned to the war.

He was on his third tour in Afghanistan, and I found out he died over there today.

He left behind a wife and two children. Also like Tillman, he was athletic and played football.

Pat Tillman’s mom Dannie, and his father (a lawyer), really work hard at getting to the truth of what happened to their son. You can understand their anger when they found out he really didn’t deserve the Silver Star (you don’t get that when you’re killed by “friendly fire”), but that President Bush and others used Tillman as a recruiting tool and propaganda. Although, I’m guessing I’m one of the few that was watching this thinking the family is also using this movie as a bit of propaganda as well. It’s not the kind of film Pat Tillman would’ve been happy about at all.

A lot of this stuff you may have read before, but the few things I didn’t know blew me away. And boy did I cry when I watched his younger brother speaking at the funeral, trying to act tough and use the f-word that Pat was so fond of.

When I saw some of the documents and statements from young soldiers, many of whom were really yearning to be in a fire fight, I was angry. I also immediately thought – this is exactly why going into the military was a stupid decision by Tillman. You not only have a war going on, but you sometimes have to worry about your own troops. I mean, didn’t Ron Kovac (Born on the 4th of July) have a story about shooting one of his own? Accidents happen, and you can blame the military, the young soldiers, a lot of things. These are the types of people you sometimes get joining the military.

I wasn’t sure what a military blogger was doing in this movie, but all the other people that spoke on camera had interesting things to say.

I was surprised to see one of his NFL coaches talking, and almost breaking down. It was interesting to hear about Tillman having a bike in the parking lot, while the other NFL players had their SUVs and sports cars. We really learn a lot about the character this man had.

It was amazing to see how high up the military this cover up was going. And when Donald Rumsfeld testified about this case, and we see him laughing and shaking hands with people, you want to slap him across the face. Not just because they are getting away with their lies, but for the fact that the Tillman family is all sitting there seeing this. It reminded me of O.J. Simpson shaking hands and smiling with his lawyers while the Goldman family cried a few feet away.

I did wonder why Pat’s parents got divorced. I was left wondering if it had anything to do with this.

I enjoyed seeing many of the family photos and old videos, too.

I’m guessing this will get an Oscar nomination for best documentary. It’s a really powerful picture.

I’m giving it a B+.

MACHETE

The opening credits had a cute joke saying “Introducing Don Johnson.” And during the movie, I forget he was in it, as a Minutemen type of character that shoots any Mexican in his path.

There’s a lot I want to forget about this movie.

What started as a fake movie trailer in Grindhouse (a good film that spoofs 70s b-movies), doesn’t work.

As a faux film trailer, we can laugh the way everyone did, when Hollywood made a movie called Snakes on a Plane.

When you make a 105 minute movie, which according to my math, is 100 minutes longer than the original joke that worked so well…that’s a tall order for anyone; but especially director Robert Rodriquez.

I thought of an analogy that helps explain why this movie doesn’t really work.

Remember when you heard the chorus from a Weird Al Yankovic song and you’d laugh that he’s singing “Eat It” instead of “Beat it?” When you hear the entire song, you think some of the lyrics are clever, but before the half-way point, you stopped caring. You get the joke, and it’s just going on and on.

I remember in the early 90s hearing a parody song called “Stairway to 7-11.” It was hysterical, and only a minute long. Now, had it been eight minutes, the length of the Led Zeppelin original, I doubt people would’ve found it funny.

Listen, I’ve had a man crush on Danny Trejo for as long as I could remember. The dude just chews up the screen (much like how something has chewed up the skin on his face).

I remember thinking when I saw Desperado (another Rodriquez picture) – it would be interesting to see a whole movie about this mysterious knife thrower. And I’m sure an interesting movie could’ve been made. This wasn’t it.

I know, I know…it’s supposed to be a fake, Mex-ploitation movie. So what. If you’re doing that, I want a lot more action scenes (and better ones), more nudity (I can’t believe I actually typed that), and more catch phrases.

I loved when they described Trejo as “CIA, ICE, FBI -- all rolled into one mean burrito.” More of that, please.

I can’t say Piranha 3D was better than this movie, but they surely did a better job making a parody film of this genre. And that’s odd, considering we get to watch Robert De Niro as a racist senator.

Cheech Marin (in a few funny and interesting scenes), as the Priest and brother to Machete.

Michelle Rodriquez runs a taco stand. She’s a revolutionary named “She” (think Che).

Jessica Alba looks gorgeous, and we all broke our necks turning like Linda Blair when they showed her nude in the shower, at an upside down angle.

So what went wrong?

Sloppy writing, that’s what.

Early on, we see Machete driving his car through the house of kidnappers. His sidekick is scared, and apologizes for something. Trejo says “You can apologize to the machete, it’s boss.”

I also thought about how three human beings I despise (Lindsay Lohan, Steven Segal, Michelle Rodriquez) are in this.

Lohan goes topless, and does a 3-way with a character playing her mom (talk about type casting).

I thought Jeff Fahey was amazing in his role as a double-crossing aide to De Niro. His voice and look is perfect for the role.

There are things I liked and disliked about this movie. Here are a few:

Liked: Machete using a weed wacker as a weapon.
Disliked: The Mexicans all showing up for a fight with garden tools (the fighting scene in Anchorman is so much more fun).
Liked: Trejo as Machete; a hundred times more intimidating than Javier Bardem and his goofy haircut in No Country for Old Men.
Disliked: Scenes of him sharpening and improving his knives.
Liked: Trejo saying “Machete don’t text.”
Disliked: The convoy of lowriders showing up for the big showdown.
Liked: Trejo using intestines as a rope to repel out a window.
Disliked: Segal sitting by a pool talking tough.
Liked: Did I mention the weed wacker? Well, he uses it again. It’s equally as fun.
Disliked: Uneven action sequences.
Liked: Cheech whipping out Cuban cigars, and then Mexican joints (that were almost the same size as the cigars).
Disliked: The gunfights.

This is basically a parody of bad movies and it soon just becomes one itself.

Less is more, and the trailer should’ve been the last we heard of Machete (didn’t Rodriquez also name Trejo’s character Machete in Spy Kids?)

A friend of mine was upset that the white guys were the evil, bad racists. I remember he was also bothered that the humans were evil in Avatar.

I have no problems with either of those scenarios, as these are fictional stories. And I’m guessing Mexicans would have more to complain about this movie than whites.

As Machete was sharpening his knives, I couldn’t help think – it’s the movie that’s rather dull. And that’s a shame, because they had a lot to work with.

I’m starting to think these are the only types of movies Rodriquez is capable of anymore (What happened to films like El Mariachi?)

I’m giving this a C-.

(It was going to get a D+, but Trejo stayed after class and pleaded his case. And how can you not be charmed by that face?)

THE LAST EXORCISM

I was dragged to the theatre kicking and screaming…kinda like the girl being chained to the bed before the exorcism. Boy was I wrong. This movie was a blast.

It was a lot better than The Blair Witch Project. It’s also very derivative of it, and other horror flicks -- The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, a dash of Paranormal Activity – all rolled into one angry burrito. Oh wait…I got these notes mixed with my Machete notes.

Patrick Fabian was wonderful as the Reverend Cotton Marcus. The movie works so much because we can like this flawed hero, and not just think he’s a huckster taking money from naïve religious folks in Louisiana. I think a lesser actor would’ve just made this guy a creep that we wouldn’t enjoy watching so much.

The film is done in that faux documentary style, so you get some shaky cameras here and there; but this story is well-written and that style actually works perfectly for this type of film. Kudos to Eli Roth, who seems to usually be involved in projects I don’t care for.

It was also refreshing to see a horror movie that actually scares you at times.

Movies in this genre are usually filled with bad acting and writing, and are very predictable. This didn’t fall into any of those traps.

I did wonder about the scary music that was played in a few scenes. Sure, it heightens the tension, but if this is supposed to be a documentary, isn’t that cheating? It would be like watching The Office and hearing a laugh track.

The girl that may or may not have a demon in her, does a great job. So does her Deliverance-esque brother, who at times is scarier than his sis.

I’m keeping the lights on tonight.

This movie gets a B (for Blair – Linda Blair/Blair Witch).

MESRINE: Public Enemy #1

Ah, writing another review of Mesrine. It feels like only yesterday…

Well, it was last week that I wrote about the first part. Now it’s the second, which is slightly better than the first. It’s a tad longer, yet it deals with a shorter timeline.

The first movie made me think of Bonnie & Clyde. I thought about that again in this, for two reasons. One, Mesrine is told by a casino manager “Where is your warrant?” He follows that by saying “Here’s my Warren Beatty” and pulling out his heater.

Oh, and there’s that finally scene with his girlfriend that ends in a hail of bullets (did the dog really have to die?).

I didn’t spoil anything. The movie poster shows a bloody Mesrine from the final scene, and the opening of the first movie showed him being gunned down in a car (a very artistic shot of blood dripping off a strand of hair, by the way).

There’s a scene in this movie where Mesrine buys a new BMW and is singing an Edith Paif song at the top of his lungs. And that got me thinking – I would’ve rather seen a four-hour biopic on her. I don’t think I needed this much time devoted to Mesrine.

Sure, this movie is a bit more focused than the first, and we learn a little more about what makes his bizarre mind tick.

Mesrine, as he goes through the 70s with the same thing we saw in the first – a bank robbery, short escape, picking up a new woman, capture by police, followed by a prison escape – at least you’re interested in the process of how he’ll make his escapes.

Vincent Cassel again does a nice job playing Mesrine (this time with long hair and sideburns, and looking a lot like Bruce Springsteen in the 70s).

All in all, I think this two part series doesn’t hold up particularly well. A great two or two and a half hour movie would’ve been perfect. This is a bit much.

I would’ve rather watched Godfather I and II again on DVD.

The movie was entertaining enough to snag a B-.

THE SWITCH

I was with five stewardesses the other night. There are pros and cons to that. When we arrived at a movie theatre, I thought it would be one of those “cons,” as they couldn’t decide between The Switch and Going the Distance. I didn’t want to see either.

One tried to say “Even if you hate it, you can still write a review about it.”

Decent logic, but who wants to waste a few hours on a bad movie? Luckily, this was far from it. I was pleasantly surprised by this enjoyable little rom-com.

From the opening scene with a hysterical actor named Victor Pagan, who plays a sort of homeless, Tourette Syndrome person on a street corner – to us quickly realizing why Jennifer Aniston hasn’t fallen for Jason Bateman during their long friendship.

I find it odd that at least five critics said they “had no chemistry.” Initially, they aren’t supposed to have chemistry. They are friends for a reason. He’s a neurotic mess.

Child actor Thomas Henderson steals every scene he’s in. He’d give Jonathan Lipnicki (Jerry MacGuire) a run for (Cuba Gooding’s) money.

I don’t usually take notes while I watch a film, and early on, I was taking a mental note of the funny scenes. I figured there’d only be a handful and that I was going to hate the movie. After 15 minutes, there were at least 20 scenes that were humorous and worked well.

Jeff Goldblum on a treadmill eating a candy bar and lecturing Bateman (“Men have sex with their lady friends, they aren’t put on a ‘time-out.’ What, are you six?”), a guy at a party claiming to be a “writer and director,” etc.

Even how the “switch” is made, makes a lot more sense.

Two critics claimed this is just a step below rape. A few other critics mentioned doctors doing the same thing and going to jail. Maybe they were watching a different movie. Jason “the master” Bateman did this when he was wacked out (no pun intended) on drugs that Juliette Lewis (playing her usual flakey character) gave him. Oh, and with the help of a Diane Sawyer magazine cover (Judge Wapner relished the fact that Rainman was a fan of his show…I’m guessing Sawyer will be equally flattered).

Patrick Wilson, who was the original “provider” (and was great in the better film, Little Children) does a nice job of playing a jerk that’s just likable enough to not become a movie cliché.

This isn’t as good a sperm movie (hey, I just created a new genre) as The Kids Are All Right. It’s predictable, and in a few places comes off as sitcomy. A few scenes are also a bit long (Did we need to see the entire process it takes to get rid of lice?).

But the movie is charming, witty, and the father/son aspects are very touching.

It might only be in the theatres a little longer. Don’t let Bill O’Reilly’s complaints about it keep you away, or any of the other critics that would recommend crap like I Am Love over this.

I’m giving it a B- (it just barely made it out of the C section).

I’M STILL HERE

Beat poet Michael McClure wrote a screenplay called The Beard.

That should’ve been the title of this movie. You see, Joaquin Phoenix grew a beard and went crazy. He got a beer belly and is talking insanely. I was thinking at one point he’d end up dead in a bathtub like Jim Morrison (yep…another beard).

I wondered if when his brother River died of a drug overdose on Sunset (with Joaquin nearby), he too had a beard. I bet he did.

And speaking of River Phoenix, didn’t Joaquin learn anything from his drug use?

I was baffled as to why the actors that talked to him in this documentary (Ben Stiller, Edward James Almos), never said he’s going to end up dead if he doesn’t get his act together. Sure, it might fall on deaf ears – but I remember Tina Fey saying she told Lindsay Lohan this when she appeared on Saturday Night Live.

Oh, and on the subject of beards, smart move of producer Rick Rubin to not even meet with Phoenix regarding his rap album.

Sean Combs does, and they provide two interesting scenes. Combs noticing director/cameraman Casey Affleck and asking “What’s that movie you just did? No, not that Jesse James, that other thing.” When Affleck says “Gone Baby Gone”, Diddy seems impressed.

Later in the movie, as he listens to the crappy CD Phoenix provides, he’s not as impressed.

Everyone saw Phoenix melt down on Letterman. Well, when you watch this movie, you realize – that was actually one of his better days.

There are rumors this movie is fake, and he and Affleck are just pulling a big one over on us. I seriously doubt that’s the case. And ya know what? Who cares.

It would be Andy Kaufman without the humor. It would be Exit Through the Gift Shop, without the talented artist. It would be Jack Ass, without people shooting and defecating on each other. Oh wait…this movie has that.

A few critics have compared this to Spinal Tap, which is odd. I did think of Tap guitarist Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest) when Phoenix is backstage screaming at one of his assistants “Is this a fucking joke? Do you think I’m a joke?” It was almost like the scene where Tufnel complains about the food backstage.

I can’t say I hated this, because it was an interesting train wreck to watch. In fictional movies, we have the over-the-top Mommie Dearest yelling at agents and kids, or Kevin Spacey in Swimming with Sharks, tormenting his assistant. It’s interesting to find out that in real life Hollywood, those things aren’t so far fetched (and you thought his character in Gladiator was unlikable).

I’m not sure why a photo of Lindsay Lohan with cocaine near her created an uproar, yet Phoenix is snorting coke and smoking pot on film, and nobody seems to care. Oh, he also orders call girls to his room. It’s like he’s Charlie Sheen in Joe Cocker’s body.

There’s a scene where Phoenix goes to Obama’s inauguration (uninvited), and his assistants can’t wake him up. He’s furious that he ended up at the hotel during the big event. It reminded me of the Hunter S. Thompson documentary, when Thompson was paid to cover Ali’s “Thrilla in Manilla” and was too wasted to ever leave the hotel room.

There’s another amusing scene where the biggest actors in Hollywood get together for a play, in memory of Paul Newman. Phoenix is furious that the person organizing it gets a scene with Jack Nicholson, and he has to settle for a scene with Danny DeVito. He goes on and on about DeVito. It should be Danny that’s upset.

I thought it was a nice touch having subtitles, for the few scenes where Phoenix’s mumbling gets hard to understand.

I think if the anti-drug folks see this movie, they might want to take clips of it to show to high school kids. Forget those eggs in a pan and a voiceover saying “This is your brain on drugs.” Just show any two minute clip from this movie, with the same voice over.

As the movie came to an end, I didn’t wonder if Phoenix would rise from the ashes of this meltdown to resurrect his career. When you run out of money, you go back to what you do best. And if his drug addiction gets bad, well…remember how many chances Robert Downey Jr. was given?

I did wonder a few things.

Does Phoenix have any friends that aren’t on the payroll? (and will he have any of those left in the next few months).

If he wanted to delve into a music career, why not do the singer/songwriter thing? He sounded good as Johnny Cash, so perhaps an acoustic guitar instead of a beat box might suit him well.

His first song could be a cover of the Monty Python classic, but changed slightly to fit a scene that was in this documentary:

S**t on my face/and tell me that you love me.

I’m giving this a D+ (couldn’t decide whether to say “D is for Drugs” or: defecation, dumb, disaster, Diddy, etc etc).

JEAN-MICHEL BASQUIAT: THE RADIANT CHILD

Sometimes my favorite bio-pics or documentaries involve people I know very little about.

I loved La Vie En Rose (Edith Paif), and I really enjoyed Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child.

I missed the first 15 minutes as I was running late from another movie screening (and I assumed there’d be 15 minutes worth of commercials and trailers; there were none).

I’m going back in a few days to see the first 15 minutes and bringing a few of my friends to experience this interesting story.

I think this documentary sugar-coated some negative stuff Basquiat did. It certainly didn’t show any of the drugs that probably went down in the club scene during that explosive time in New York City.

I don’t mind that writer/director Tamra Davis (married to a Beastie Boy; both also comment in the film) wanted this to be a love letter to a talented and troubled artist. It was still very interesting and informative.

I enjoyed this more than the other two art documentaries I’ve seen this year (The Art of the Steal and Exit Through the Gift Shop).

Exit Through the Gift Shop dealt with an artist I think is more talented than Basquiat; and like him, started out as a street/graffiti artist.

Basquiat’s style reminded me a lot of Jackson Pollock. He didn’t just thrown random paints on a canvas and have the art world claim he was a genius (although he got to the genius status a lot quicker than Pollock did).

There was a real method to his madness – from the way he’d have words incorporated into his art, things painted over, and often times a history of things that interested him. That could be African kings, athletes, and artists or authors he was fond of.

It was also interesting to see how he painted, and welcomed distractions. That could be friends over, in an Armani suit after a dinner, or as often was the case – with the TV and stereo blaring at the same time.

Blondie’s Debbie Harry bought one of his first paintings for $200 – and it was the most money he ever made (he promptly took a girlfriend to a Chinese restaurant, saying “Get whatever you want!”).

I’m guessing she could now sell the painting for $10 million easy (I read a few years ago about Metallica’s Lars Ulrich selling one for $7 million; and at an auction a few years ago, a Basquiat went for $14 million). Interesting numbers, considering he did a thousand paintings.

Another one of Basquiat’s early customers was Andy Warhol, who bought a few of the postcards he was selling on the street. It wouldn’t be long after that that they’d become fast friends.

The racial aspects of the film were interesting.

Basquiat made $200,000 at his first show, and went outside and couldn’t get a cab to stop for him.

He painted a black police officer, and titled it Irony of Negro Policeman, with a white mask and bars over his jumbled face.

One of the commentators talked about galleries before him as having “white walls, with white people, drinking white wine.”

And when various artists and curators talked about Basquiat, I got a sense that there was a real neat camaraderie in the art circles that wasn’t as competitive as you’d think. Even though Basquiat joked about wanting to be the best, or getting into a boxing match with a fellow artist – it seemed to be in good fun.

I usually don’t have sympathy for people that get addicted to drugs and end up dying. He’s yet another talented person that joined the “27 club” (the age Kurt Cobain, Brian Jones, Robert Johnson, Hendrix, Morrison, and Joplin all died).

But he had an abusive father (that some sources claim was an alcoholic), and he was a very sensitive soul. He didn’t take criticism well, and didn’t have a family he could talk to about bad reviews and other negatives.

Fame and fortune were thrust upon him, and he was ill-equipped to handle it.

After seeing hundreds of his paintings in this (one great scene shows various ones without any comment on them, just some Dizzy Gillespie playing in the background) – I am still not a fan of his style.

There was a self-portrait I liked, and one titled Big Shoes that was interesting. At his last gallery opening before his death, a great painting called Riding with the Devil.

It’s weird how subjective and insane the art world is. Basquiat at one point had a level of fame, and a few galleries still turned down a big painting he did. One gallery said it wasn’t worth the wall space, and she now says on film something like: All great art usually disturbs us at first, which is probably why I didn’t like it then. I realize now how brilliant he was and…

Yeah, right. The simple fact is, abstract art is a bizarre thing that’s open to interpretation and nobody can really probably analyze it. Obviously, it’s easier to see some talent in this Neo-expressionist style than the minimalist stuff you’d see in galleries in the 70s (a white canvas simply titled “White on White” for example).

It’s a shame that another talented guy died before his time – and in a manner that other artists had; without realize the world would soon be appreciating his work and preaching his genius.

I’m giving this an A-.

THE TOWN

This movie was Bad Will Hunting. There were pieces of dialogue that sounded like a gangster version of Good Will Hunting. Hell, one scene with the couple even takes place at the same outdoor table in the same location as Minnie Driver and Matt Damon.

I enjoyed Ben Afflecks directorial debut with Gone Baby Gone, but this movie doesn’t work for me.

It’s one of those films I sensed wouldn’t work for me during the trailers.

You see, if a group of bank robbers decide they want to watch over a witness after the fact, to make sure she doesn’t talk to the police – I already have a number of reasons as to why that’s faulty logic (they were wearing masks, so who cares what she says, for starters).

And when Affleck starts talking to her and immediately falls hard, you wonder why he’d jeopardize things (in a completely goofy scene where she talks about the crime, and he asks a series of follow-up questions that had me wondering if he was going to say “Do the police think maybe I’m a suspect?”). He even slips and mentions her Prius. She asks “How do you know I have a Prius?”

By the second date, they’re already talking about running off to the Bahamas together or something. It’s ludicrous.

And don’t even get me started on how silly the scene is with Affleck sitting outside her apartment, staring at a drivers license he stole from her. For being smart criminals, that seems like a dumb move. She told the cops they threatened to rape and kill her if she talks to the police and they know her license was taken. I’m guessing they might have her place staked out. A criminal in a car holding her license up to compare the face, might arouse suspicion.

I also wondered why in this movie everyone talks tough, not realizing that’s probably not going to work in their best interest. That could be the FBI interrogating someone in a bar, or Jeremy Renner (who was great in Hurt Locker and is great in this); or even the head crime boss – who says things to Affleck to keep him from leaving his “crew.” The things he said wouldn’t have convinced him to stay, and you wonder why he didn’t get a punch in the mouth.

Affleck not only directs and acts, but co-wrote the script. He does a nice job of pacing and creating a gritty atmosphere of a working-class Boston neighborhood. I’m not sure why I needed to see him in various Boston sports team apparel. We get it. You’re in Boston. (And wouldn’t it be more realistic to have the thugs wearing Raiders gear? Just sayin’.)

Just like George Clooney in The American, this deals with a guy that’s going to get out after one last job, and things go wrong. And just like The American, we get to see him working out with lots of tattoos. Unlike The American, it’s not boring.

The day I got home from this movie, I saw Layer Cake playing on cable. Not only is it a great crime drama, but I remember a few of my friends complaining that the English accents were hard to understand. I found the Boston accents in The Town hard to understand at times.

I also thought it was odd that the theatre I was in had a crowd that laughed at every silly line. It wasn’t that funny. And someone needs to explain to me why the crowd was rooting for the criminals and against the FBI. Nothing the criminals did would make them endearing to you. They beat suspects lying on the ground, they shoot guards, etc.

Affleck said in one interview, he went to a few jails and talked with the FBI and police. I wish he would’ve instead talked to Martin Scorsese, or maybe just rented Mean Streets and Goodfellas.

Rebecca Hall, an actress I really enjoy, is fine in her part as the love interest. I just hate the script she’s saddled with. I also hate a few of the decisions she makes later in the movie. Oh, and there’s a goofy ending at an ice skating rink with kids playing hockey that’s just as hokey an ending Traffic, with Benico Del Torro watched kids play Little League.

There were so many times in this movie I thought about ways to make this script tighter and more realistic. I even thought of some humorous lines that would’ve worked; for example, when the kidnap victim first tells Affleck “I have something I want to tell you,” he merely says “Alright.” He knows it’s going to be about the bank robbery. How about having him say “I knew it. You’re married. Every time I meet a perfect woman in a laundry mat this happens.”

It baffles me that critics are going to praise this, yet a movie like Takers (from a few months earlier) is slightly better and got bad reviews.

I even thought of songs that might improve the picture (The Standell’s Dirty Water came to mind).

I thought this was a sophomore slump for Ben Affleck, but I’m going to be alone on this. As I’m writing, I hear Jay Leno saying it’s one of the best movies of the year.

It is slightly better than most heist films, so on that curve, I’d probably give it a C+. If I’m merely grading it on what I thought of it as a movie, I can’t go higher than D+.

SOUL KITCHEN

I recently saw a band in concert perform The Doors song Soul Kitchen. The next day, I saw Soul Kitchen, the German comedy from director Fatih Akin (The Edge of Heaven).

It goes down easy enough, even with a few too many over-the-top, ridiculous slapstick scenes.

The story is about a restaurant owner who is having problems in the business world, and in his personal life.

His gorgeous girlfriend is flying to Shanghai for reasons that aren’t exactly clear. Tax collectors are after him, and so is a shady friend that wants to buy his business.

Oh, and his brother – who has a bit of a gambling problem – is out of jail and wants a job.

Yes, the movie is predictable in all the paths it goes down, and the humor doesn’t always work; but it’s charming enough to make it a pleasant film going experience. It makes the less original aspects of the movie easier to take.

The soundtrack is flat out wonderful, from the ringtone on the phone of actor Adam Bousdoukos (who reminds me of Jim Morrison) – to the Sam Cooke and Curtis Mayfield playing.

The movie felt longer than its hour and thirty minutes, which isn’t a great sign.

Obviously, when you think comedy – German films aren’t what comes to mind. Although, one of the movies I remember laughing most during, was a German picture called Maybe, Maybe Not (1994).

I think people that aren’t freaked out by subtitles, will enjoy this charming, screwball comedy.

It’s not the most original movie around. It’s kind of like being in a restaurant that has an elaborate menu and ordering the hamburger (perfect analogy, since this takes place in Hamburg).

This is comfort food for the movie going soul.

I’m giving it a C.

THE SICILIAN GIRL
Last year I caught a re-release of the 1962 Italian film Mafioso at the Ken Cinema on Adams Avenue.

Last night, I caught the Italian film The Sicilian Girl, which is the true story (heavily fictionalized) of a 17-year-old girl that helped bring down the mafia in Palermo. In doing this, she had to talk about her dead brother and father, and all the crimes they were involved in.

The first half is interesting, as we watch the cute young daddies girl, running around the quaint town and playing with the boy she has a crush on. It’s always strange in movies when you see the kids playing as the parents conduct “business.”

I like the fact that her dad has this air of authority and strikes fear into people, but it’s all based on what he’s capable of. He’s not shooting at peoples feet telling them to dance like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. Not that I didn’t like Pesci in that. Goodfellas is my favorite mob movie. I just think sometimes it’s interesting to have the heavy play it low-key, with a slight smile on his face. The audience is left wondering if he’s ever going to lose it and beat the guy to a pulp.

The second half of the film – the girl playing Rita isn’t as cute (she looks like a poor mans Minnie Driver) – and it’s the part of the movie that should be more interesting. She goes into the witness protection program, meets another love interest, does battle with pushy prosecutors. Yet it gets bogged down.

I loved the actor that played Rita’s dad, but the head mob boss looked too much like Marlon Brandon in The Godfather.

Some of the courtroom scenes were interesting, and I was never really bored. I just thought a lot of this has been covered in other courtroom and mob movies previously. That makes for a less satisfying picture than it could’ve been.

I’m giving it a C-.

It might have gotten a D, but I thought about the consequences of that; the possibility of waking up with my dogs head in my bed, and a note from an Italian filmmaker saying “Lighten up, Film boy!”

LEGEND OF THE GUARDIANS: The Owls of Ga’Hoole

I thought Ga’Hoole was an Irish Pub in La Mesa.

This film will help keep my rant about crazy film titles going. And it should end critic Roger Eberts rant about how horrible 3D looks. This film, just like their movie 300, looks wonderful.

The problem is they don’t have a script that lives up to the fantastic graphics that are reminiscent of Avatar at times.

The movie is so derivative, although with kid films that’s probably to be expected. Instead of Obi Won in Star Wars, urging Luke Skywalker to “Use the force,” the old owl in this tells the young flyer to “trust your gizzard.” (I’m guessing the word “gizzard” was used in this movie about 10 times).

The good vs. evil element is a bit hard to follow during the battle scenes, which are also surprisingly graphic for a kids film (although I found out while reviewing it on TV that it was actually rated PG, not G).

This movie will appeal to bird lovers, and kids between the ages of 8 and 11. Children younger than 8 are probably too young for the violence and kids over 11 will probably be bored.

Adults will certainly enjoy the visuals, they’re quite stunning. Most won’t care for the story.

Sometimes we get lucky, and see an animated film like Toy Story 3 and Up, where the entire family can enjoy every second of it. This isn’t one of those movies.

I’m giving it a D.

DEVIL

Poor M. Night Shyamalan.

His first few films are so great that everyone knocks every other movie he does. Sure, most of them deserved to be knocked (I heard The Last Airbender was one of the worst movies to come out in years). I think it’s a shame that this movie, which he wrote, produced, and narrated – isn’t getting the credit it deserves.

It’s not great, but for a horror/suspense film, it’s good.

The story involves five folks stuck in an elevator. Within minutes they’re at each others throats (uh, literally). Kind of makes you have more respect for those miners in Chile. They’ve been down there a month now, and they sing songs and tell dirty jokes to pass the time.

But when the devil is creating havoc, it’s an entirely different ballgame.

There’s a joke early on making fun of The Eagles. Geez, after The Big Lebowski and local Mojo Nixon with his Don Henley Must Die – you wonder if this band will ever get a break. Especially in a movie that has elevator music. That to me is a hell in and of itself – being stuck in an elevator with The Girl From Ipanema playing. Now, you throw on a guy talking loud on his cell phone and a kid that is screaming, and pushing all the buttons (without his parents doing anything about it) – that’s a form of Hell in an elevator that Larry David could write the movie for.

I liked the fact that none of these actors are familiar faces (I recognized one guy, Geoffrey Arend, as the drunk friend in 500 Days of Summer).

I thought the movie could’ve had some scarier scenes. And I’m sure fans of slasher films will wish this had more gore.

The premise of people being trapped and tortured, in such a small place (and when the lights go out) is creepy and works well. It evolves nicely into a whodunit, and along with speculating, I wondered about things like the building they’re trapped in having the address of 333. Was that because it’s 666 if you double it?

It’s a nice change to be able to root for the devil (last time I remember doing that was in Ghost, when the bad guy was hit by a car). We’re able to when we find out things about the people in the elevator.

The movie has a few missteps and I found a few elements predictable, but I don’t see how any critic can say they hated this. So many bad movies come out each month, that it’s nice to have a movie that, at the very least, you won’t be bored watching. Most likely, you’ll be on the edge of your seat most of the mere 80 minutes of this picture.

I’m giving it a B-.

CATFISH

Movie critics can be such idiots; and audiences can be, too.

I’ve read so many critics over the years use the phrase “I don’t want to ruin the surprise twist,” not realizing that just by writing that, you’re giving away the twist to some extent.

I don’t have much sympathy for the reader that stumbles across this because you know what you should be doing? Not reading reviews before you see a film. They will be giving away lots of moments that you should experience for the first time.

You should merely glance at the grade the movie is given, or check websites that have a general consensus on a picture you might be interested in. If it’s getting positive reviews, check it out. Then enjoy the fun of reading the reviews, and discovering something you may not have considered. Or disagreeing completely, or calling the friend you saw the movie with and saying “Did you realize that Kaiser Soze was Kevin Spacey?”

Now, all that being explained – Catfish would’ve been the coolest documentary ever released; had it come out in 1997.
The problem is, it’s out now. We just got through this big debacle about whether or not the Joaquin Phoenix documentary I’m Still Here was real (it was fake).

Months before that, it was Exit Through the Gift Shop – a great documentary that starts out being about graffiti artist Banksy, but veers into a story about an artist that copies him (in what I think is completely fabricated to trick the audience and have you questioning “what is art?”).

Now, if you’ve come this far, you aren’t concerned whether or not I may ruin something in this documentary; or you already saw it. So let’s continue.

(that was my way of saying SPOILER).

The movie is about a photographer in his mid-20s in New York, who is sent a painting by 9-year-old Abby. She painted a picture he took of a ballet dancer that appeared in the paper. It’s an amazing painting, and they start to correspond.

He quickly becomes friends with her mom, and they have a few phone conversations. Abby’s brother is in a rock band, and sends a T-shirt with their logo.

They all become friends on Facebook (perfect timing, with Social Network coming out, too). He is enjoying this “cyber family” and even more so when the 19-year-old sister “friend requests” him. They soon develop a romance.

The photographers brother starts filming the proceeds (which don’t include much – the opening of packages with the latest painting, close-ups of a computer screen, listening to songs the new love interest has written him, etc.).

Things quickly start to go wrong, when a Google check reveals some inaccuracies in the story of this family.

My first question at this point was – why didn’t they Google earlier? Any topic or person I’m remotely interested in I Google.

And, as a teenager when I heard about 976 phone sex numbers, I immediately wondered how anyone would know if the person on the other line wasn’t some hideously disgusting person that just had a nice voice? (don’t get me wrong…I didn’t wonder that before making the call. The $1.95 a minute was enough of a deterrent).

When computers started to get popular and dating services cropped up, I immediately asked people how you would know that “Russian bride” really looked like that before having the crate shipped over?

I then realized another thing. If this was all real, the filmmakers obviously went back to film some of these things. They didn’t just decide to make a documentary about this guy and his cyber family, until after the lies started piling up.

If it’s real all the way through (the filmmakers claim it is and the only recreations were of the close-up shots of the computer conversations), then I have a problem with the exploitation of children that are in this movie (I won’t tell you more about them, as that would spoil some interesting aspects of the film).

I usually complain that movie trailers give away too much of the movie. With this film, I was bothered that they billed it as a horror picture. You hear creepy music, and see a character looking into a window and being shocked by what he sees. Immediately, a quote comes on the screen about “Hitchcock.” There’s nothing about this that reminds me of Hitchcock. It’s more like Will Smith’s Hitch.

If this whole thing is real (and again, I doubt it is), these three guys might be the stupidest young men on the planet.

They didn’t anticipate some things they should’ve, and seem clueless about other types of etiquette.

They reminded me of the types of guys that throw money at dancers in a strip club and shout to one another “I think she likes me!” (not that I frequent strip clubs – I’m against anything that exploits naked women :-)

Now, someone may ask – if you know a documentary is fake, can you still enjoy it? Well, that depends. Had I know the Joaquin Phoenix movie was fake, I wouldn’t have even bothered seeing it. As I was watching it, parts of it I enjoyed.

Michael Moore does documentaries that have many fictional elements. He cuts things out of sequence to make people in it appear to have reactions they didn’t to questions they were asked. He changes dates, and fabricates a lot. People find his movies enjoyable. Hell, he’s won Oscars in the category.

I’m not sure what the Oscars are even going to do this year with all these documentaries being fake. It’s this weird era of “reality TV” that has seemingly creeped into film making. It’s a trend that I really hope ends soon.

Filmmakers should perhaps spend time in film school. Watch the classics, go to classes, and don’t just think because you have a handheld camera you can do this guerilla style filmmaking. It worked with The Blair Witch Project but remember – they actually had a script. And they were the first to do this faux documentary.

The Last Exorcism, which I can’t recommend enough – also had a story. And it didn’t pretend to be real. It was just filmed as if it was a documentary on a preacher that’s lost his faith and may have stumbled across a real girl in need of an exorcism.

Having all those angry thoughts towards this movie while I watched it, I still found it to be a compelling drama at times.

There’s a man that is a bit slow at the end, who spouts off some sage advice (and gives us the explanation for why the movie is called Catfish); but if I had caught this without knowing anything about it – I would debate whether or not to throw it back. It’s a fish that is leaving a bad after-taste in my mouth.

I’m giving it a C-.

JACK GOES BOATING

Philip goes directing.

Acting virtuoso Philip Seymour Hoffman makes his directorial debut in Jack Goes Boating. And the movie doesn’t sink. It floats effortless into my heart as one of the surprise movies of the year.

The trailers for this didn’t do it justice, because I don’t have sympathy for adult characters that are so neurotic and bizarre they screw up everything they touch. Even with friends that want to help them out by setting them up on dates.

But when Hoffman’s best friend and co-worker at the limousine company sets him up with his wife’s co-worker, the courtship is awkward.

Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) is amazing, as always. I love the fact that from the things we see in this movie, we speculate on what may have happened to her in the past. Was she raped? Molested? Maybe she’s just weird. They never tell us, and we don’t need to know. Just like in real life when you have a bizarre co-worker you can’t figure out, but never get to know well enough to find out.

Hoffman appears to not be the most ambitious guy in the world, and content with his lot in life.

The other couple featured in this movie, includes John Ortiz (who also produced, and did this play on Broadway). His performance is Oscar worthy.

There are scenes when he’s teaching Hoffman to swim that are just beautiful. The friendship he expresses with his time, patience, and smile are priceless. This movie really warmed my heart on a cold, snowy day (okay…we’re having record heat waves here in San Diego, but it was snowing through most of that movie).

Ortiz’s onscreen wife is played by Latin singer Daphne Rubin-Vega. I loved the fiery attitude she portrayed. They were a marvelous looking couple, that like most married couples, had a few secrets.

The way Ortiz drinks just a little too much and gets mean, and follows it by a bunch of apologies; or he can’t stop telling Hoffman how much he loves him and how he’s his best friend – seemed so much more realistic than the usual drunk characters we see in movies that go over-the-top slurring every word.

The conversation as the first date ends between Hoffman and Ryan is sweet. The love scenes are awkward, but also have a sweet tenderness. You’re sitting in your seat rooting for every person in this movie.

Hoffman has shown his talented in many movies, but he’s done some pictures I haven’t cared for (Capote, Syndecdoche New York). It makes it all the more surprising that I came into this movie expecting the worst, and being very pleasantly surprised.

In the movie Grand Canyon, Danny Glover asks Kevin Kline if he set him up with his black co-worker because it was the only other black person he knew. And in this, you feel like maybe Hoffman and Ryan were set up because they were both such sad sacks that nobody else would have. Once you realize their friends truly love them, you think otherwise.

This movie started out as a play (which is also in town until October 9th). The stage material works nicely on the big screen.

I’m guessing some people might be bored by this character study, but there wasn’t a second in it that I felt that way. It could’ve used a few more touches of humor here and there, but the acting performances more than make up for that.

It’s an indie film that didn’t go down the dark paths you might expect.

Hoffman proves he’s a generous and talented director. I’ll be looking forward to his next picture.

I’m giving this a B.

SOCIAL NETWORK

About seven years ago, I went to write about a party at UCSD. This fraternity had a corn dog eating contest, and lots of beer from Karl Strauss. The head of the party was writing the stats on the chalk board (the record was 9 dogs consumed, without barfing – that was grounds for immediate elimination).

They told me they wanted to have a party, and wanted free food (I understood that feeling completely). They researched, and found it was national hot dog day a few weeks later. They called some hot dog company and said they should provide free hot dogs on that day. The company agreed, and I guess a contest was held at other universities on that day, too. They contacted Karl Strauss and they said they’d gladly provide the alcohol if everyone was over 21, and it was a non-profit event.

Not sure if the 25 pound tub of mustard from Costco was free, but I left the party thinking I had met the smartest college kids ever.
Around that same time at Harvard, the founders of Facebook were coming up with a slightly better idea. It started as a drunken rant to get back at an ex-girlfriend, and was called “Facemash.” You’d compare the two women on the screen, and vote for the prettiest. Needless to say, the women weren’t happy. And neither was the university.

This led to a whole chain of fascinating events in a movie that’s one of the best of the year.

Jesse Eisenberg, an actor I first saw in an indie film called Roger Dodger (not a great movie) and loved in The Squid and the Whale and Adventureland; is probably the only one that could’ve pulled off this Zuckerberg character. He has to be a jerk, intelligent, oblivious, determined – all rolled into one.

The cast is rounded out nicely by Rashida Jones (who was funny on Saturday Night Live, and always good in the films she makes), and a surprisingly slimy performance Justin Timberlake as the Napster founder who worms himself into the Facebook team.

The legal wrangling that goes on is fascinating.

We all know the stories about how David Letterman couldn’t take certain bits to CBS when his show moved. And Conan O’Brien is in the same situation. Even Dave Rickards on Jack 100.7s morning show has talked about being in that situation.

People that don’t understand the law think it’s silly. But should the two other guys that created the “pet rock” have gotten nothing while the main guy made millions off it? Should the three jocks that contacted Zuckerberg about a website to connect all the Harvard students and planted the seed in his mind – be left out in the cold?

It’s great that the various people suing Zuckerberg aren’t goofy movie clichés.

The jocks are big, good looking dudes, but they’re very civil in their approach in how they handle the situation. So are the friends and ex-girlfriends that are left in Zuckerberg’s dust.

This is the type of movie that proves you don’t need goofy car chases or gun battles to make an exciting picture (I’m talking about you Town).

The movie had a few small missteps, but it’s one of the best pictures of the year.

I wondered if legally it couldn’t be called The Facebook, which would’ve been a better title.

Oh, and listen for Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) who provides the music.

You won’t be disappointed you saw this.

I’m giving it an A-.

YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER

You will see a small, fun picture…if you go to see the latest Woody Allen movie.

I know a lot of people boycott him, as some do Roman Polanski.

Last year, I felt Allen’s Whatever Works didn’t work. The year before that, I thought Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a poorly written, and highly overrated film.

This years picture from Allen might not be as good as his 70s classics (I laughed when someone leaving the theatre said “It’s no Bananas.”), but it’s a very enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half.

You get to watch an amazing cast, with lots of interesting things to do.

Naomi Watts is excellent.

Frieda Pinto looks even cuter than she did in Slumdog Millionaire.

Antonio Banderas plays an interesting character you assume is going to be a womanizer. Well, he sort of is, but not in the sleazy way we anticipated.

Josh Brolin channels Tom Berenger, and has some great scenes getting angry at his mother-in-law. She’s constantly telling him to give up his career (or lack thereof) as a writer and practice medicine. It might not be so annoying (since he did graduate from med school), except that she’s taking her advice from a kooky psychic.

Anthony Hopkins slimmed down for his role, as a guy that drops the pounds -- and the old wife -- for a new, younger one. That’s the talented Lucy Punch (who was wasted in hokey scene as the crazy ex-girlfriend in Dinner for Schmucks). She plays a role she’s probably going to play often – the ditzy blonde.

Allen has taken his filmmaking back to England, and he’s revisiting a lot of themes he’s tackled before – Shakespeare, plagiarism, affairs, after-life…but it’s all fresh and fun. You could watch these characters for another hour or two.

There’s a scene where Hopkins takes a Viagra, and looks around the room as if he’s waiting for an erection to come sauntering in. When the young wife wonders why he won’t have sex with her on the floor, he glances at his watch and says “Give me three more minutes.” It continues on in a funny fashion.

That’s not to say this movie is a laugh riot. I certainly think it could’ve used a few more humorous moments.

But when you’re sitting in a theatre watching great actors perform interesting scenes – it really is something. One of those scenes has Watts walking in, after finding out a man she’s been flirting with is having an affair with a friend of hers. The way the fight develops with Brolin is so realistic and brilliant.

Oh, and Audi continues to be the car company that gets the coolest cars and best product placement in films today.

I’m giving this movie a B.

MY RUN

I’ve seen thousands of movies over the years. This wasn’t just because my folks got HBO when I was a tot, and I rented movies religiously. All my friends got jobs at movie theatres as teenagers. That meant free movies.

I’m a movie critic now and that means watching 10 movies a week.

My girlfriend and I have gravitated towards documentaries as a favorite genre. It seems most of them we find interesting on some level. The same can’t be said for the normal crap Hollywood churns out.

Imagine my surprise when at a small film festival in San Diego, I see the much hyped Waiting for “Superman” and am disappointed.

The last day of the festival, I see a little documentary called My Run. It has me crying – tears of sadness and tears of joy -- for 90 minutes straight.

I remember being a kid that jumped and screamed with excitement as Rocky Balboa came close to beating Apollo Creed. And I have to watch year after year, as sports movies recycle the same clichés. Or, they’re just a tad too corny for me to really love (Hoosiers and Rudy, to name a few).

My Run is the story of Terry Hitchcock. In the 90s, he decided to run 75 consecutive marathons, in 75 days.

Now, before you start imagining some guy that looks like Carl Lewis…instead think Carl’s Jr. This is a man in his late 50s, who looks like Anthony Hopkins. And looks like he hasn’t run a day in his life.

He lost a wife to breast cancer, and soon after, lost his job.

He raised his three kids on his own and decided to do this run to raise awareness for single parents raising kids.

As he runs from Minnesota to the Olympics in Atlanta, you can imagine some of the hurdles he’ll have to face. You might even think Anthony Hopkins in The Edge, since both men had to face bears (yes, you read that correctly).

It was fascinating listening to Hitchcock tell his story, the narration from Billy Bob Thornton, and his three kids (two of whom were on his support team, one of which bailed; it’s tough even for the folks in cars doing a marathon a day). The footage from the actual run is also a thrill to watch. Aside from that opening of the first James Bond movie Daniel Craig did, I can’t remember ever being as thrilled watching someone “run” in a movie.

Watching Hitchcock, who has very little to smile about, light up as he goes into a class room to speak with children; or calling up a morning show and trying to act upbeat, even with pain in every muscle – is perhaps more inspirational than any sports film you’ll ever see.

This ranks up there as one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in a movie theatre.

It made me feel guilty when I left, that I complained to my girlfriend for parking the car too far away from the theatre.

Run, don’t walk, to catch this in the theatres.

I’m giving it an A.

IT’S KIND OF A FUNNY STORY

It’s Kind of a Funny Story is kind of a funny movie opening this weekend. Not as funny as I hoped, but funny enough to be a nice way to spend an hour and a half.

It’s Ferris Bueller, if he was trapped in Cuckoo’s Nest instead of a high school. And no, he won’t have to deal with electroshock therapy, either. He gets to do fun stuff like order pizza, draw pictures of beavers, and scam on Emma Roberts – the niece of Julia Roberts.

It does kind of bother me that kids and relatives of actors get these roles that thousands of actors have to audition for and never get (I still can’t figure out how Jim Belushi even has a career).

Lenny Kravitz’s daughter is another example. She plays an adorable girl helping this boy through his problems. I didn’t care for her performance in Twelve a few months back. She’s perfect in this.

The boy is played by Keir Gilchrist (United States of Tara). He’s perfect for the role as an awkward and confused young man that we’re always rooting for.

Zach Galifianakis is great in a low-key performance with just the right amount of warmth and humor, although the few bursts of anger don’t fit well with how the story is going.

I was thinking, with Tony Curtis dying recently, how the studio made him change from his name of Bernard Schwartz. What would that studio have thought of Galifianakis having that name in the credits?

Zach is the new Black! He’s rivaling Jack Black for the fat, bearded best friend parts. I have a feeling that the ending involving him was changed from its original (I can’t explain more without giving things away).

On the subject of comedians, Jim Gaffigan (one of my favorite comedians), is miscast here. I want to laugh when he opens his mouth, but you’re not supposed to. He’s an overbearing father, who doesn’t seem sympathetic to the plight of his son. He just continues pushing.

I’m guessing people that work in the mental health field won’t care for the light-hearted approach this picture takes. And they’ll be right.

One of my pet peeves with movies is when they aren’t realistic, and there’s really nothing realistic about this story. Yet, I found it charming and humorous enough that I was along for the ride.

These writer/directors gave us Sugar and the dark Half-Nelson, both are way better films; but this is pleasant enough.

I give it a few extra points for having a fun Queen sequence when they sing Under Pressure (weird, but the spy movie Farewell did a very similar thing with the same exact song last year). The soundtrack also gives us a great Ida Maria tune.

Easy A is your better bet for a smart, teen comedy.

I’m giving this movie a C+.

SECRETARIAT

For much of the movie, I thought it would be a photo finish, as to whether I gave this movie a good review or a bad review. And then, the last half hour…just like Secretariat did with the huge lead it took in the final race…it became clear I would have to give this movie a negative review.

I have nothing against horses. I liked The Horse Whisperer (did I really just admit that?). I liked the half of Seabiscuit that I saw.

And I wanted to like this.

Diane Lane was wonderful, and might get an Oscar nomination. I dug the fact that she played this strong woman, getting involved in something that was a boys club that probably wasn’t so friendly to her. In fact, I think a lot of this story is grittier than the Disney version given to us on screen.

I thought the music was overwhelming and loud. I thought the movie was much too conventional a sports film.

Maybe the problem is that we know Secretariat will succeed, so when we have moments where a husband and brother, want the woman to sell the farm – she instead bets the farm – on the horse being a success. We never have to worry if she made the right decision.

I loved the cast.

Senator Fred Thompson had a nice air about him, playing a really caring guy that also seemed rough around the edges.

James Cromwell always has that voice that, when he’s telling you why you should do something, you figure you should. I loved him so much more in Babe. I dunno, maybe I like pig movies better. But then, I also liked Cromwell better when he played Stretch Cunningham in that episode of All in the Family.

And speaking of pigs, remember when Samuel Jackson goes on that rant in Pulp Fiction, about how he doesn’t like pigs or bacon? He admits to kind of liking Arnold on Green Acres. Well, I might be ready for another horse movie when it’s the remake of Mr. Ed. Come on, you know it’s going to happen. Every other TV show has been remade.

As I watched the movie, I thought John Malkovich was perfectly cast as the eccentric horse trainer. Thinking about it a few days later, I didn’t care as much for the performance. We’ve seen Malkovich do these types of characters before (I liked him doing it last in the underrated The Great Buck Howard a few years ago).

As a kid, I was fascinated by Scott Glenn on screen. He had this presence that just scared me. He and Bruce Dern were two actors that just gave a look that gave me goose bumps.

In this, he isn’t given much to do, as a man with dementia and in the process of dying. Oh, and note to filmmakers – when you call a family member to say someone has died, do we really need to have the character drop and break what they’re holding? It used to be a powerful scene, but now it’s just cliché.

I think about how in The World According to Garp (one of my all-time favorite films), Glenn Close got a call that Robin Williams mom had died. You see Williams on the porch, sensing something was wrong. We hear, but don’t see Glenn, sound shocked on the phone. Williams merely puts his head down, knowing what has happened. No goofy screams or vases dropping. And it’s very powerful.

A few of the horse racing scenes were dramatic, and they filmed well. I was wondering with those goggles the jockeys wear, would they keep all the dirt out of my eyes or would I be having problems with my contact lenses.

I was also trying to decide which facts at the end of the movie I liked more. The scroll at the end of Social Network that showed Zuckerberg settled for $65 million with one guy suing him, and at 26 became the youngest billionaire ever; or the one in Secretariat that said after all those amazing runs, he fathered 600. Talk about some stamina. This horse is rivaling Wilt Chamberlain.

I’m giving it a D+.

WAITING FOR SUPERMAN

Rent Waiting for Guffman. Hell, rent Superman. Rent anything before going to see Waiting for Superman (I refuse to put the quotes around Superman, just as I refused to put the parenthesis around “500” in 500 Days of Summer).

First, let’s talk about director Davis Guggenheim. He’s a guy who certainly has his heart in the right place, but he gave us the An Inconvenient Truth, which we found out wasn’t always truthful.

And this movie manipulates in very unfair ways. It also states obvious facts (we need better teachers/schools).

I loved watching Harlem educator Geoffrey Canada. This is a guy that doesn’t just talk the talk, but is out doing everything he can to help educate our children.

We also get to see Bill Gates doing his part.

A lot of teachers will have problems with teachers unions getting attacked, as do I. There are certainly things about teachers unions, well…a lot of unions…that bother me. The problem with our schools isn’t the teachers unions. It’s basically two things – over population/crowded schools, and poor parents. It’s as simple as that.

DO NOT tell me there are bad teachers. We know that. Just as there are bad firemen, bad cops, bad plumbers, and bad people in every profession.

And someone please tell me why the movie brought up a country that has the most successful school system (I forget which one), and they are all union. That little fact was glanced over. Hmmm.

Oh, that school system also had less ethnic diverse students, too. Not that I think that matters, but if we’re going to bring up things, let’s bring it all up. Let’s not just cherry pick the things we’re going to cover.

If you’re going to attack public schools, is showing a few bad ones in the worst neighborhoods, the way to do it? I’m guessing there are thousands of great public schools, where students of all ethnicities and incomes, thrive.

And if the premise of this is that charter schools are better, why is it I (a product of the public school system) spent 10 minutes on the computer and found this fun fact: 2009’s National Assessment of Educational Progress showed 37% of charter schools had smaller gains in math scores than public schools. 17% had superior gains, and 46% had no difference.

Let’s do a movie that addresses the real problem – poor parenting. Really, that’s the main problem. You can go to the worst school in the worst neighborhood, and if the parents insist their kids do their homework and follow instruction from the teacher (even the few bad teachers out there), they are going to get a decent eduction. I say this having known someone that was a good teacher, in south central LA. About 75% of the parents he dealt with were horrible. They didn’t care the kid was failing when he called. When he met with parents, they cursed and threatened him physical. They couldn’t think logically, or speak properly. They often claimed he was racist (even though the majority of the school was black or Latino, and they were all passing). I’m guessing a parent that cared would’ve done something after the phone call, not after the report card when they are merely there so their child isn’t held back a grade or can get their GPA up and play for the football team.

The narrative in this movie is hardly interesting; even if you have kids that are currently enrolled in school.

Regarding the five kids followed in this movie -- obviously they have parents that care. I’m guessing most in those poor schools don’t, and no amount of Geoffrey Canada’s in the world are going to change how well they will do in school. And some of these students that are followed aren’t so compelling to watch (unlike the documentary Spellbound. It has amazing kids. Even the ones in the poor neighborhoods; rent that instead. I guarantee you’ll love it).

Aside from the “bad teachers,” the other point this movie tries to make is that these bad schools (“failure factories”) create bad neighborhoods. Sorry Guggenheim, you got that one backwards. And just the fact that my simple search (and another study I just found) show that charter schools don’t do much better, kind of ruins the premise of the film, no?

If you’re an ultra-liberal that loves to shout about how everyone in the world is keeping the poor and downtrodden down, this is the film for you. For everyone else, it’s not worth the silly manipulation and distortion of facts; but hey, if it gets people talking and improvements are made to the educational system – awesome!

At the end of the day, this just isn’t all that interesting a documentary to sit through (and I love documentaries).

It gets a D.

NOWHERE BOY

I wrote a few lyrics, sung to the tune of Nowhere Man:

He’s a real nowhere boy/a harmonica is his only toy
Making plans for a guitar, someday.
Doesn’t have a mum, but two
He’s angry just like me and you –
But he ended up making millions!



This is a coming of age story, that isn’t all that interesting. Even with us knowing the boy that yearns to be the next Elvis, ends up surpassing the king in talent. His relationship with his real mom did seem to rival Elvis’ somewhat incestuous one.

The Beatles are one of my favorite bands, so maybe I didn’t care for the movie as much since I knew many of the stories involving his real mom and his aunt Mimi (played wonderfully by Kristin Scott Thomas, in what could bring her a Supporting Actress nomination).

There’s a fine performance by Aaron Johnson as the young Lennon, but I didn’t care for the kid that played Paul McCartney.

At first I was enjoying the little history lesson it was giving people on the birth of rock ‘n roll. They mention Ike Turner, who had the first rock ‘n roll song ever – the 1951 release Rocket 88, which is played and sung along to.

They talk about Bo Diddley, Tchaikovsky, Big Mama Thornton, and a long scene involving Screamin’ Jay Hawkins I Put a Spell on You (although they could’ve shortened that sing-a-long and instead had more Lennon history to provide us).

We also get to hear the early skiffle sounds of The Quarrymen (yes, there was a band Lennon and McCartney had before The Beatles) – and people get to know there was a song called Maggie May years before Rod Stewart (many years, as that Liverpool classic is 200 years old).

Beatles fun fact: It’s the second shortest song ever to appear on a Beatles record, at 40 seconds. The shortest is Her Majesty, at 23.

But those are the types of facts you don’t get in the movie. Even Stu Sutcliffe (who was featured prominently in a Beatles bio pic – Backbeat -- 15 years ago in a very powerful and enjoyable film) – he was only mentioned by first name once.

This movie opens on October 8th, and the following day John would’ve turned 70. A perfect time to see the movie, but only if you’re a hardcore fan.

The film may have captured the spirit of Lennon and his teen angst and rebelliousness. Dude had some serious abandonment issues.

I just think it would’ve worked better as a show on BBC television.

The ending, with the Lennon classic Mother, is powerful stuff.

Lyrics: Mother, you had me, but I never had you/I wanted you, but you didn’t want me/So I got to tell you, goodbye.

Rent the incredible documentary Imagine instead.

I’m giving this a C- (but was really tempted to give it a D).

MY RUN

I’ve seen thousands of movies over the years. This wasn’t just because my folks got HBO when I was a tot, and I rented movies religiously. All my friends got jobs at movie theatres as teenagers. That meant free movies.

I’m a movie critic now and that means watching 10 movies a week.

My girlfriend and I have gravitated towards documentaries as a favorite genre. It seems most of them we find interesting on some level. The same can’t be said for the normal crap Hollywood churns out.

Imagine my surprise when at a small film festival in San Diego, I see the much hyped Waiting for “Superman” and am disappointed.

The last day of the festival, I see a little documentary called My Run. It has me crying – tears of sadness and tears of joy -- for 90 minutes straight.

I remember being a kid that jumped and screamed with excitement as Rocky Balboa came close to beating Apollo Creed. And I have to watch year after year, as sports movies recycle the same clichés. Or, they’re just a tad too corny for me to really love (Hoosiers and Rudy, to name a few).

My Run is the story of Terry Hitchcock. In the 90s, he decided to run 75 consecutive marathons, in 75 days.

Now, before you start imagining some guy that looks like Carl Lewis…instead think Carl’s Jr. This is a man in his late 50s, who looks like Anthony Hopkins. And looks like he hasn’t run a day in his life.

He lost a wife to breast cancer, and soon after, lost his job.

He raised his three kids on his own and decided to do this run to raise awareness for single parents raising kids.

As he runs from Minnesota to the Olympics in Atlanta, you can imagine some of the hurdles he’ll have to face. You might even think Anthony Hopkins in The Edge, since both men had to face bears (yes, you read that correctly).

It was fascinating listening to Hitchcock tell his story, the narration from Billy Bob Thornton, and his three kids (two of whom were on his support team, one of which bailed; it’s tough even for the folks in cars doing a marathon a day). The footage from the actual run is also a thrill to watch. Aside from that opening of the first James Bond movie Daniel Craig did, I can’t remember ever being as thrilled watching someone “run” in a movie.

Watching Hitchcock, who has very little to smile about, light up as he goes into a class room to speak with children; or calling up a morning show and trying to act upbeat, even with pain in every muscle – is perhaps more inspirational than any sports film you’ll ever see.

This ranks up there as one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in a movie theatre.

It made me feel guilty when I left, that I complained to my girlfriend for parking the car too far away from the theatre.

Run, don’t walk, to catch this in the theatres.

I’m giving it an A.

NEVER LET ME GO

You get two reviews for the price of one. The first is the NON-SPOILER review. And it goes a little something like this….

There are three amazing performances, by Keira Knightley, Carey Mulligan (who is quickly becoming one of the most talented actresses around), and Andrew Garfield.

Oh, and Charlotte Rampling is there for those gazes she always has in her films.

The trailers showed this as a period piece, love triangle thing that takes place at an orphanage in England.

It is that, but it’s the late 1970s, not 1870s.

This doesn’t just set out to be a little art-house picture dealing with young love, but they have some deeper premises at work here. I’m guessing you’ll either love those or hate ‘em. And surprisingly, some might even be bored with the whole thing. I was never bored, but I was very disappointed at all this movie could’ve been and wasn’t.

Sure, it was filmed wonderfully. Some ethical dilemmas arise that are interesting. I just can’t get around the numerous plot holes and questions that are left unanswered.

Carey Mulligan almost saves the movie herself, with such a fine performance; but not enough for me.

I’m giving this movie a D+.

…

Now, for the review with the SPOILERS. Do not read the rest if you’re planning on seeing the movie (but please come back and read afterwards). Here we go:

This weekend, the following movies opened: Life As We Know It, My Soul to Take, I Spit on Your Grave, It’s a Wonderful Afterlife, Inside Job, As Good as Dead – and all of those could’ve been titles for this film – Never Let Me Go.

You see, the children at this orphanage are there for one reason – they were bred to be perfect specimens, and provide organs for people that need them. Sometimes they die after the first sets of organs are taken, other times, they donate on three or four different occasions. And Annie thought she had a hard knocked life!

Now, I just did a quick read of what 10 random critics had to say about this movie – and all of them gave the story away. I find that odd since, it’s not that hard to put “Spoiler” in your review. And surely the filmmakers didn’t want you to know, because their trailer didn’t tell you the premise. You just think it’s one of those art-house pictures dealing with a love triangle. The least the critics could’ve done is respect that. And none of them did. When people find out 40 minutes in, when a teacher spills the beans – two people in the theatre gasped. It’s powerful stuff, telling kids their dreams of being a race car driver, artist, or teacher, will never come to fruition.

There’s an interest premise in this (even if it’s not totally original), and I love the fact that they blended the beautifully shot movie as if it were a Remains of the Day (hey, another title that would’ve worked for this). And instead, it’s a sci-fi picture like Gattaca meets Logan’s Run. Well, not really Logan’s Run, because nobody runs. That’s one of about 10 problems this movie has. If the children realize they’re going to be chopped up and their organs harvested, wouldn’t that be enough to get out of dodge?

They could’ve had one simple scene to explain that. Maybe during their classes, we see a class that is brainwashing them into believing they are better for doing this and will go to some sort of heaven that rewards them (hey, it works on those suicide bombers and adults that join cults – imagine starting this brainwashing when they’re kids).

Or, we could see someone in Bora Bora as “authorities” swoop down, being able to track the person because of the chip they have in their wrists (we see them being swiped as they walk into their house, once they’re out of the orphanage). Yet, the movie doesn’t address this.

I also had a few questions about the proceedings. Since one teacher divulged this information to the kids in their “4th year” of the school (long before they were supposed to find out), at what age does the school let them know? Or do they ever?

The narration by Mulligan is good, too. I’m just not sure why I wasn’t sad during any of this. A few scenes were very, very powerful; but I cry at the drop of a hat, and never once did I shed a tear. Maybe that’s because, if they don’t care enough to try and escape, it’s hard for me to muster a lot of sympathy for them.

Of the 10 critics I read, most said they were haunted for days by this. And I understand that. When you see one character on an operating table, and some of her organs are taken out and we hear the beeping stop – that’s a weird ethical dilemma we’ve stumbled across.

When we see Andrew Garfield, finally with the woman we want him to be with (Mulligan), he’s walking with a weird limp, after going through his first “donation.” We also see some wicked scars on him.

There’s also a scene near the end where the couple appeals, as couples that fall in love are allowed to do (it gives them an extra two years to live).

I liked that there weren’t a lot of sci-fi clichés, but instead, they really didn’t give us much of anything.

Since so much of this was slow, I was doing a Mystery Science Theatre with my friend nearby. When Mulligan was driving a car, I said “I’m guessing her license says ‘organ donor’ on it.”

I had about 15 good lines. Yes, I was resorted to things like that to entertain us.

And as we left the theatre, we both had the same questions we wanted answers for –
How does harvesting organs make society live to be over 100?
How do the organs cure all disease?

But really, I don’t need all those questions answered. I’m usually fine just going with the premise, and I assume there are lots they aren’t explaining or we’d have a three hour movie.

But, I was left with a beautifully shot film, that’s very melancholy, and which I wished did more with an interesting story. I’m guessing Rod Serling could’ve done more with a 30 minute episode of Twilight Zone.

It gets a D+.

BURIED
I’ve seen thousands of movies over the years.

I saw two movies during break-ups with women. One being a woman that came over for dinner, and we had planned on seeing A League of Their Own. She broke up with me during dinner, but suggested we still go to see the movie together; there was no crying in baseball, and no crying in the theatre, either.

I’ve only been sick during three movies.

As a kid my friends dad took us to see Puff the Magic Dragon. I had the worst fever, and I remember saying how hot I felt. My friends dad said “I’ll buy you some bon-bons. That’ll cool you off.” It was the first time I ever had them.

Another time, I got up during the middle of a Whoopi Goldberg movie where she’s coaching the New York Knicks. Luckily the bathroom was right there, because I puked three times (yeah, the movie was bad, but not that bad).

And the other day I had a fever of 103 when I went to see Buried, the movie where Ryan Reynolds is dirty and angry for 90 minutes.

It’s really a shame this movie wasn’t better, because it really did a few things great.

They build tension and suspense well.

They don’t film anything but Reynolds in the box. We don’t see the 911 operators he talks to, his wife, etc. I think that adds a nice element of claustrophobia to the proceedings.

And surprisingly, we get a few different camera angles, and different lighting at times (he has a Zippo, flashlight, cell phone, and glow stick we can thank for that).

Part of the problem I had was that every person he talked to on the phone annoyed me. And not for the reasons the filmmaker wanted them to frustrate you.

When the first 911 operator in Ohio said “You don’t need to get rude with me, sir!” That was fine. I hardly think an FBI agent would have the same tone and question why his story slightly changed. When someone is panicking, I’m guessing people in that position would listen. That would also include his wife’s sister, when he requests she go online and find a number for the State Department. Or better yet, how about he tell her first, that it’s an emergency and he’s been kidnapped. Instead, I guess he just thinks he can bark orders at people and they’ll do what he wants.

When he calls his mom in a nursing home, we know exactly where that’s going. It didn’t move me.

There’s one phone call with his employer that’s so utterly ridiculous, I wouldn’t be surprised if people just walked out of the theatre at that point.

It was interesting to have a few scenes in complete darkness, with us only hearing Reynolds breathing or grunting.

There’s a scene with a snake that first made me think of O.J. Simpson’s scene in Capricorn One. It quickly became yet another ridiculous scene that was intended to put us on the edge of our seats.

It’s a shame that a good premise was poorly written in enough scenes to ruin the film for me.

This could’ve been a great Twilight Zone episode. It was a great story by Edgar Allan Poe. It’s not a great Ryan Reynolds movie, but then, most aren’t.

The film started strong, and finished strong. I enjoyed the ending. It’s the middle hour I had problems with.

I’m giving this a D+.

LAST TRAIN HOME

I love documentaries, but I just sat through one that was very boring.

Last Train Home tells the story of the 130 million migrant works that are trying to get home to celebrate New Year’s. And you think you have problems trying to find a space for your carry-on luggage. The scenes in these train stations would cause panic attacks for viewers with claustrophobia.

The film spends three years with one poor family. We get to see the grandmother, the visits to the grandfathers grave, and a few family squabbles. More fights arise when one of the two children (the teenage daughter) goes through a rebellious stage.

I think this movie could’ve used some narration, to help explain some of the things we were watching.

I think it could’ve shown some of the factory owners, instead of merely showing the workers of these sweat shops.

And I don’t mind that it’s just one family featured – they just aren’t very interesting.

If you want to see a good Chinese picture that deals with the old way of life and the new, rent Shower, from about 10 years ago. It was one of my favorite films of that year.

I’m giving this movie a D-.

LET ME IN

Watching this horror movie, I immediately realized something. Americans get very scared of one thing. And that is subtitles.

There’s really no other reason for the remake of Sweden’s Let the Right One In, only a few years later. It’s almost a scene for scene remake, the way Vince Vaughn’s Psycho was (where was Anderson Cooper to complain about that?)

I remember when I was 12, and the cool older boy on the street, always had the best new rock songs. He was playing Van Halen’s “Pretty Woman” and I commented on the original by Roy Orbison. This kid said “Yeah, well…Eddie Van Halen can shred so much better than Orbison on guitar.”

I wasn’t the best debater at that age, or I would’ve said that Orbisons vocals could “shred” David Lee Roth’s. I simply said “What’s the point of doing the song and having it sound so similar?”

Roth would get it right 20 years later on his first solo record, with a cover version of Tobacco Road, but I digress.

I didn’t care for the movie Kick Ass, but I thought Chloe Moretz was great in it as “Hit Girl.” And she’s great in this as the vampire (they left out the scene that had the close-up, showing a scar where the penis used to be). She did tell the boy she’s “not a girl.”

I also understand, from someone that had read the book, both films have left the relationship the vampire has with the adult male in her life (apparently it was an exchange of child molestation the man gets out of it, in exchange for bringing her blood).
Hey…the Psycho remake had one scene different from the original – Vince Vaughn masterbating while watching her in the hotel. Maybe this movie could’ve given us those child molestation scenes, to add at least something different.

Richard Jenkins, who you can always count on, is fine in his role as the guardian.

Kodi Smit-McPhee, the boy that’s picked on and befriended by the vampire, is perfectly cast.

And speaking of perfect, since the original was a good film, maybe it would’ve been silly to make a completely different film. I’m wondering then, why Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) didn’t add anything to this. He creates the great atmosphere we had in the original, and a nice sense of melancholy. There were some beautifully shot scenes in the snow.

Why not make some scary moments, where we jump out of our seat? There wasn’t one scary thing in this.

Why not have special effects that aren’t horribly done? I’m talking about the few times the vampire attacks. In the original, it’s kind of scary. And you don’t see a lot (one time, all shadows). In this, it reminded me of the bad effects you see in a movie from the 70s.

A few other scenes I wondered about – when Moretz was wearing a KISS shirt and started bleeding from the face (since the boy didn’t “invite” her inside). Why the KISS shirt? They used to spit blood, sure; but I think it would’ve been funnier to either use a contemporary band like Vampire Weekend (get it?) or, since this vampire looks 12 but is probably 212, a concert T-shirt from someone like Stravinksy. Maybe I’ll save that for when I do a remake of it.

I’d definitely do the pool scene with the bullies, because it was one of the best scenes I had seen in a movie that year. It wasn’t horrible in this version, but the first one just packed such a punch. It makes me mad that I have to be that person that says “Just see the original.” I think a lot of people (especially film buffs) love to go down that path.

I remember in the 70s watching Heaven Can Wait and Invasion of the Body Snatches. It would be a two decades later that I saw the originals from the early 40s and mid 50s (they didn’t hold up as well).

I remember loving the BBC version of The Office, and buying all the DVDs. Yet, the first season of the American version, I told my friends “It’s as funny as the original.”

But if you remake a movie from a few years ago, and do nothing different – well, you can’t say it’s as good. It’s simply a copy, nothing more.

It doesn’t have the bite (pun intended) of the first, or the subtlety. There wasn’t a slow build of tension. And that’s fine, but then go down that different path. Give us a good, scary vampire movie? Have a few things jump out at us and give us some chills.

If I was a teacher and grading a students paper, I’d have to give this an F for plagiarizing a previously written work. Filmmakers don’t have to follow any special rules. It’s just a matter of whether or not the critics will recommend the work. This movie is getting great reviews, which surprises me.

I can only give it a D+ (the original gets a B for doing the same things, but first and slightly better).

HEREAFTER

I was really looking forward to Hereafter.

Clint Eastwood has directed so many great films, even going back to the early 70s with Play Misty For Me.

Aside from the ending, I loved Mystic River.

Sure, he’s had a few clunkers. What director hasn’t?

The trailers for this movie looked so promising. Great special effects show the tsunami and a popular newscaster almost dies in it.

We know she’s popular because of #24 on my movie pet peeve list – when she walks down the streets, there are billboards with her face on them. Every famous person in a movie has those, or buses with their faces plastered on the sides.

Later in the movie, she’d suffer the fate of movie pet peeve #118 (it doesn’t pop up much, but when it does, it’s annoying). That’s the one where the protagonist is angry at the book publisher for a dumb reason. In this case, it’s because she was given a big advance to provide a book on a dirty politician, and instead decides to write about her near death experience and life after death.

Huh. And she’s surprised the editors aren’t happy. I wonder what Fox5 would’ve done if when I came in to review this movie, I instead brought a recipe and started making pumpkin pie for the folks at home. I’m guessing it wouldn’t fly with the segment producer. But I digest (I just ate a huge piece of pumpkin pie).

I find it even more perplexing that the investigative reporter/newscaster talks to one doctor, and is convinced she’s got all the answers. Even stranger that they have some bizarre notion that “nobody wants this information out.” Really? Who? Big oil companies, slave labor factories, churches…who exactly doesn’t want us believing in life after death?

Now, this movie blew it on so many levels. It deals with three stories, in three beautiful cities – San Francisco, Paris, and London.

They have the perfect actors for these stories (the twins in this are so cute and sad, they are brilliant).

The stories all start out promising. Then Clint Eastwood, after an interesting set up, bores us to tears.

Even the crappy Robin Williams movie What Dreams May Come, had a beautiful scene of life after death. This movie gave us nothing. We see some white lights and shadowy figures.

We see Matt Damon do a reading early on, and it’s done wonderfully. Character actor Richard Kind shows up at his apartment. He’s a client that his sleazy brother Jay Mohr brings over (Mohr, always a welcome sight in movies, took the sleaze down a notch from his Jerry MacGuire character).

When Kind and Mohr discuss the reading (which we think Damon messed up), you get goose bumps. And those are more of the moments this movie needed.

Matt Damon would’ve been perfectly cast for this, showing a breezy casualness and caring that is what the character needs. But when it’s all said and done, he really isn’t that caring about anyone. He just rants and raves to anyone that will listen – about what a burden this all is.
Now, it was a burden for Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone (best Stephen King movie ever). Walken got bad headaches from doing it, and he got people angry at him when he gave the future they might not want to hear. What is the burden for Damon? A woman showing up at his house at 5 p.m. offering him a boatload of money to do a reading? Sounds like a cool gift to have.

Now, when he complains he can’t have a love life, because touching a womans hand brings out information neither of them want to hear – well, is this inadvertent? He touches other hands and this doesn’t happen. Can he turn it off and on? Shouldn’t he wear gloves for the time he isn’t thinking about it? I’m confused.

Damon also does the Good Will Hunting thing. He takes a low-paying construction job, so he can live a “normal” life. He refuses the opportunity to make millions of dollars. Then, with his brother pushing him, agrees to make the money and help people, only to not show up at the job and instead travel. Oh, and that’s pet peeve #58: agreeing to do something you don’t want to do on screen, and then when the big day comes, you just don’t show up. Does this even happen in real life, or is it merely done for the drama of how that will look in movies? I mean, his brother wasn’t that pushy. He could’ve just said “Look, I understand why you want me to do it, and why it seems like a good idea. I’m just not ready to get back into it right now.”

And, the last of my movie pet peeves, is #4. It’s the house guest that hears a message on your machine you don’t want them to hear. Instead of merely coming home, and turning your answering machine off so the person doesn’t hear an ex-girlfriend call and curse you out, a mother asking why you don’t meet any nice Jewish girls, a friend talking about the strippers from the poker game last weekend, a boss telling you you’re fired, etc etc etc. Instead we need these scenes in movies to push the story along. The love interest can now pester and pester and pester Damon for a reading. And we know exactly where that’s going, too (not sure why Damon couldn’t just hold her hands and say “Uh…well, someone with the letter J. Was there a John in your life? No, uh…okay, what about a Jerry? Still no. Okay, well, now you see why I don’t do it anymore. I’m not very good. Let’s eat dinner now!”)

Eastwood may not have appeared in this movie, but he added the musical score. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

It’s just so disappointed that the slow-paced movie starts out so promising and becomes such a let down.

Damon is supposed to be this character that has empathy, but I found him to be just the opposite. He doesn’t want to help people that really need it (an older black woman, a poor white child). No matter how much of a “burden” this is, surely he could’ve done a quick reading to re-assure them, and just set some ground rules on how he won’t be bothered. The way celebrities do it with autograph seekers – no in restaurants or in bathrooms, etc.

Some of the side characters have interesting moments – a caring couple interested in the welfare of a child, one of the Sopranos running a cooking class for adults, etc. And it’s great that they didn’t throw eight different stories at us, where they all coincidentally tie up nicely at the end. We just have a few stories that all end with them meeting up in London.

Oh, and I forgot about another movie pet peeve. It’s pet peeve #19. That’s the comedic montage. In Pretty Woman, it’s hearing the title song while Roberts tries on various outfits in dressing rooms and boutiques. In Single White Female, it’s the various crazy looking roommates that show up answering the ad in the paper. In My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it’s the various crazies the parents want to set their lonely daughter up with.

So, any guesses on what the montage is in this? (cue the Jeopardy! theme in your head)

It’s a child seeking answers on the afterlife, who meets with various quacks and charlatans wanting to take his money.

This movie has a few engaging moments, but it had so many missed opportunities to be a wonderful epic movie on a subject we all think about. I even thought of a few scenes that could’ve helped it get there; maybe Mohr telling a few stories of how his readings have helped people. I know those scenes in Sixth Sense were powerful (hey – their tagline was “I see dead people.” This movies should be: “I see dead people. And they’re dead to me!”)

Hereafter is maudlin garbage that maybe others in Eastwoods age range (80s) might find interesting. It should’ve been a two-part Lifetime movie of the week. It’s nothing you should waste $11 on. And if you do, well…I don’t need to grab your hands and see that you’re sad you killed some money you had in your wallet.

This gets a D (for dead).

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

Same shit, different demon.

And different house, too. The first Paranormal Activity (which had a few good scenes, but was a below average horror flick) was filmed at a house in Rancho Penasquitos. PA2 movies up north to a bigger, nicer house in Carlsbad. And a bigger budget (the first movie cost $15,000; this one cost $3 million).

I think this movie is a lot better than the first, but the problem is it rehashes so many things from the first – it loses a lot of points for that. Some of the scenes are exactly like the first.

They do some really interesting things with the automated pool hose filter, but I think they could’ve gone farther. I remember in Poltergeist, we keep seeing the toy clown in the childs bedroom. At the end it’s hiding under the bed. As it jumps out at the kid, the arms wrapping around the boy, it’s like a childs worst fear. I thought it would’ve been clever to have the pool filter thingy come through the doggy door and kill their German Shephard.

I think they could’ve gotten clever with the letters that spelled the baby name “Hunter.” If the name would’ve been “Daniel” at some point in the movie, when all the doors are flying open and pans are dropping, it could’ve had letters missing to spell “D ie.” (note to self: contact filmmakers, offer to write PA3 for the low, low price of $10,000)

And speaking of the dog, they make great use of him and the baby. It creates an interesting atmosphere having them look off to the side, where we just saw a door open by itself.

Some of the writing had funny scenes which worked well. I also enjoyed the fact that the teenage daughter had a rebellious side (Misfits and Ramones posters on the wall, boyfriend sneaking over one night), but was also a sweet kid. There’s a scene when she’s upset her dad fires the maid that’s very well done.

I did find myself bored a few times, and creating my own jokes.
When the dad (who often sports a Chargers cap) says that he’s going to watch the Chargers games on his new big screen, I thought to myself – if they black it out, is he going to think ghosts caused that?

I was a little unclear about the maid and how she knew the house was “haunted.” In movies, maids seem to know just what to say to the kids, or the married couple that’s fighting. And I guess they know when a house is haunted. My mom has a maid, and she can’t even seem to clean the tub properly. She needs to find one of these genius maids.

I was also unclear in one scene whether or not a ghost left a big dump in the toilet, or if that was just from the Jackass crew that was in the next theatre over.

After recently seeing Let Me In, and complaining about how it was just like Let the Right One In, I have the same complaint with this. Sure, there are a lot of scary moments, but they just milk from the first one so much, it’s redundant. It was a case of déjà boo.

If you’re looking for a scary movie for Halloween, though…this fits the bill nicely.

I’m giving it a C-.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

The 70's

This is a test. This is only a test.

Remember as a kid in the 70s when you'd hear that on your TV, and there was nothing you could do about it? It was before the days of remote control, and you'd just have to listen to the loud annoying buzzing, that I'm sure drove dogs nuts.

And have we ever needed the emergency broadcast system to chime in on anything?

I thought of that right now as I'm testing this, with my first blog (well, first blog on this site). I've done blogs for various periodicals I work for. This is the first one I'm doing and not getting paid for!

Not only that, I had to pay to create this damn site (JoshBoard.com if you're interested).

Last night I met a few friends for dinner downtown. They had their kids with them, and I mentioned something about the 70s. For some reason Meatloaf came up (the singer, not the food). I said "I don't remember much about him in the 70s. I don't remember a lot of the 70s."
The parents laughed, as if I was making a play on the "If you remember the 60s, you weren't really there." I merely meant that I didn't remember certain things.

For example, I saw Tommy on HBO. I think it was made in 1976. When I watched it a few years ago, I said "Hey -- Nicholson and Ann-Margret are in this!" When I was a kid, I had no clue who Ann-Margret was, nor did I care.

The coolest part of this dinner, was telling them I had to go, because I was meeting a few other friends for dinner in North Park. Part of me thought, as I left this dinner after only having an appetizer -- who tries to hit two dinners in a row, unless they're someone really important?

Now I'm sitting home by myself, with the two dogs looking at me...and I'm wondering what I'm going to do tonight.

My friend already called and cancelled the dinner party she was having. And my girlfriend is mad at me.

But really...I didn't post here to talk about that. This was a test. It was merely a test...to see if this blog thing is working properly.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)