Young Adult

The reteaming of Diablo Cody and Jason Reitman leads to a dark comedy starring the gorgeous and talented Charlize Theron as a narcissistic, alcoholic, and depressed young adult fiction writer who is caught up in her fictional drama and returns to her small Minnesota town to wreck the marriage of her old high school flame.

It has the sharp wit of Juno, and the sad, pseudo-sympathetic tone of Up in the Air, Young Adult takes on a bit more of the awkward edge, focusing on embarrassing broken social mores and the aging realization of a life that peaked with the fleeting hyperbole of high school popularity.

Charlize Theron is great in the spotlight. Constantly drinking, primping, and carrying the arrogant attitude that she is better than everyone around her, all the while making the viewer cringe at her lack of self-awareness. The film culminates in a great scene of public humiliation, but Theron's Mavis Gary is unaware that she is the one who looks like an idiot. It is very Rachel Getting Married, and is a great punctuation mark on her absurd quest for an impossible life.

What makes Young Adult work is that the character has depth considering how shallow she is. What I mean is that beneath the veneer of confidence and callousness is a frightened, insecure woman. She uses her sexuality as a cover, and in a rather touching climax to the film, she opens up to an old acquaintance who she demeaned in high school (played surprisingly well by Patton Oswalt).

The old flame, Buddy, played by Patrick Wilson, is a happy-go-lucky guy with a wife and a kid, who just seems oblivious to the ruse that Mavis is trying to play. Wilson doesn't seem to have much range, but plays the everyman with ease. He'll be sharing screen time with Theron again in this summer's Prometheus, which should be quite a trip.

Jason Reitman has certainly carved his niche. The dark romantic melocomedy. He's establishing himself as a bonafide artist, surpassing his father's legacy of comic fluff (expect a revival as Ghostbusters III is on the table). He is destined for a long career in directing, and will win himself an Oscar or more by the time he gives up the camera.

Diablo Cody, who exploded on the scene as the stripper-turned-writer of Juno, has redeemed herself from the debacle that was Jennifer's Body (you can't blame her for trying) and proved that she isn't just a flash in the pan. She has a lot of material to share, and teaming with Sam Raimi in the Evil Dead remake might be a genius move over the next couple of years.

Overall, the film hit a nerve for anyone who's thought about going back to old high school relationships. It grabs onto the coattails of the Facebook generation and kicks it up a notch with the fuel of alcohol, OCD, depression, and a bit of outer beauty. An entertaining film for sure, but brace yourself for a bit of a melancholy ride. 7/10.

My Week With Marilyn

There have been many reiterations of Marilyn Monroe throughout the years, but the iconoclast simply can't be replicated very easily, despite what Hugh Hefner thinks. Michelle Williams is simply mesmerizing as the buxom beauty, and embodies the darker, more fragile side of the woman who captured so many hearts. For the most famous star in the world, she manages to make you actually feel sorry for her by the end of the film.

My Week With Marilyn chronicles the filming of the movie The Prince and the Showgirl, which conveniently led to both Monroe's, and Sir Laurence Olivier's most critically acclaimed work over the subsequent years. The narration is through the eyes of young starstruck Colin Clark, who served as the third assistant director, and wrote the documentary titled The Prince, the Showgirl and Me in 2004.

Without Williams, this film would be nothing more than a British feel-good biopic, but with her, it is magical. The look, the voice, and the mannerisms do more than just show the star working on her craft and yearning for love; she transforms herself into the captivating enigma, and illuminates the screen in verisimilitude.

The rest of the cast blends into the background with the exception of Kenneth Branagh, who plays Olivier, and Dame Judi Dench, who plays Sybil Thorndike, a veteran, yet kind and understanding support for Monroe on set.

The film spans the filming of the Prince and the Showgirl, and at first take, we are taken aback by the behavior of Marilyn; forgetting her lines, showing up late, and basically being a living, breathing nightmare for Olivier in his quest to become a highly regarded film director.

As it progresses however, we see another side of Monroe. One that is quite tender and evokes empathy. She was not a happy and healthy woman. She was the epitome of what every man wanted, and she lived that burden as long as she possibly could, but all she ever really wanted was to genuinely be loved, and it was impossible for her to find that.

Williams will add a third Oscar nomination to her credit for her portrayal. It is absolutely brilliant. She stands a very good chance of winning at this point as well, but you always have to look out for Meryl Streep (the Iron Lady). This film was a great choice for her, and is in line with edgy, difficult roles, for which she is becoming accustomed. It has taken me some time, but I'm on the Michelle Williams bandwagon, and feel she's one of the best actresses out there. Her work last year in Blue Valentine was painfully authentic. I look forward to her future work very much.

Despite the conveyance of such strong emotional turmoil, mostly below the surface, this is a pretty upbeat film with much simplicity. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but don't see much in terms of Oscar buzz except for Williams and perhaps a bone to Branagh if the competition doesn't edge him out. If you're a fan of Hollywood history and sex symbols, this is a must see. 8/10.

The Descendants

Maybe the theme of The Descendants came a little too close and too soon, but the story of a family coping with the impending death of their matriarch is touching and emotional with just the right amount of levity to make it very entertaining but not too despondent.

there is definitely a melancholy feel to Alexander Payne's first full length feature since the critically acclaimed Sideways. He paints a very real picture without delving too deeply in the intricacies of the relationships. Everything remains very cursory, but it doesn't diminish the quality of the story whatsoever. Let me explain. George Clooney's character, Matt King, and his two daughters played by Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller are thrown into the grieving process when their wife and mother has a sudden accident, leaving her in a fatal coma. They haven't had quite enough time to fully comprehend the finality of things, so each of them are at different stages; denial, anger, and depression.

Clooney is a wealthy descendant of Hawaiian property owners, and he is going through a large scale deal that would make all of the members of the extended family extremely rich, but would destroy the history and legacy of the family in the process. The timing of this deal is unfortunate at best, as his wife is just days from her own death, but the situation brings him closer to his two girls, and they all manage to cope in their own ways.

This film has generated considerable buzz, and from all angles is a legitimate Oscar contender. The film, Clooney, Payne, and Woodley will more than likely earn nominations in their respective categories, but I'm not sure there is enough substance beyond the reflective sincerity of the story. Clooney continues to prove that he is one of the best actors around, generating tears and laughs on demand, but more impressive is his choice of films. Syriana, Michael Clayton, Up in the Air, and now this all in the last six years. He chooses strong characters and really seems to immerse himself in his roles, even if they look easy for him.

Woodley makes a bold impression as his oldest daughter who drops a bombshell on him that both rocks the family, but also makes him reevaluate what's important in his life and reconnects him to his progeny. She will receive the breakthrough attention this year that Haylee Steinfeld did last year as a young actress. The supporting cast is fine, with sparkles by Robert Forster and Matthew Lillard as the father of the dying woman, and her affair.

Set amid the beauty of Oahu, Hawaii, and Kauai, the scenery is beautiful and you can just imagine leading an unremarkable life in a tropical paradise. That is part of the magic of this film. Ordinary People in Paradise is a more appropriate title.

We all go through family tragedies, and experience difficult times when least expected, but The Descendants shows that it's okay to release the emotions that come with those hard times, and accept the emotional release of others. It's a wonderful film paced nicely and there is an unmistakable influence of Payne, with a little hint of Jason Reitman. This may be the future model of the dramedy, and I like it. 9/10.

J. Edgar

J. Edgar Hoover was the driving force behind the establishment of the FBI in the early 1920's, and his vision helped the agency grow with forensic science and a national database as the key innovations behind his rise to power. He controlled Washington for nearly 40 years, intimidating Presidents, and taking credit for changing the way we view federal crimes today. He is an inspiring, driven man who is probably better known for being a closet homosexual than anything else. It's a story ripe for film depiction.

Clint Eastwood's latest is a biopic look at one of the most influential crime fighters in the history of the United States. It is delicately put together in a screenplay by Dustin Lance Black, and acted terrifically by Leonardo DiCaprio. It's truly an all star team, but the film doesn't quite take off the way you might expect.

It was a departure from Eastwood's recent critically acclaimed films, and frankly is a bit of a departure from his typical style as well. He seems to be entering the biopic genre with Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, the Changeling, and Invictus recently made, but this seems a bit more overt than those. I miss the late 90's and early 2000's Eastwood films, clearly his prime; The plot twists or pivotal endings after careful development of likable and real characters. The simplicity of dialogue, tone, and music. OK, the music was very much Eastwood. Single piano key strokes in a very deliberate and whimsical manner.

The mood and scope of this film seemed a bit too large for Eastwood, and it showed at times. J. Edgar is a historical epic production, spanning decades with interwining subplots and monumental events and figures. Some of the casting was questionable, but that is another review for another time. Because of the vast time shift, it was necessary to choose between employing other actors, using CGI, or using old-fashioned makeup. Eastwood chose the latter, and it never quite seemed real enough for me. It reminded me of Johnny Knoxville of Jackass fame when he dons the old man suit, and that's not a good thing. Particularly, Armie Hammer's makeup was atrocious. His actions seemed almost comedic and satiric rather than biographical.

I had very high hopes for this film, and was impressed with how much respect and restraint exuded from the film. With so much rumor and supposition as to the demeanor, the agenda, and the personal sexual proclivities of the enigmatic man, he was portrayed in a very positive light despite his flaws or eccentricities.

For his part, DiCaprio did a very nice job which should garner an Oscar nomination this year. The rest of the cast was simply mediocre, and blurred into the background, even the much hyped Armie Hammer who played Clyde Tolson, Hoover's alleged unrequited gay lover. I appreciate the story for what it was, but it was not overwhelmingly well-done or fantastic.

Eastwood hasn't publicly stated his intentions for future projects, but I am always game for watching a film he has made. At this stage of his career, any film may be his last, and I appreciate the honesty and Hollywood magic that his movies seem to hold. An American filmmaking icon to say the least.

I would actually consider passing on this one, unless you have a burning interest in American history, DiCaprio films, or the justice system. Fortunately for me, I do have an interest in all 3 of them, so I give it 8/10.

The Thing

The requel (That's right, I invented the word for remake/prequel) to the 1982 John Carpenter classic of the same name is rife with next generation creature effects, but the story can't decide if it's a prequel, or a remake. The story follows the exact same formula as the 1982 gem, but throws a not-so-convincing Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and an underwhelming Joel Edgerton in the lead roles. Kurt Russell they are not.

The story takes place showing the events leading up to Carpenter's version, with a mysterious craft and creature found in the barren wastelands of Antarctica. A team of researchers extricate the creature, and celebrate the scientific find, all the while oblivious to the fact that it is malicious by nature. It thaws and wreaks havoc on the research base until the onus of responsibility to prevent its total global annihilation falls on one woman. A paleontologist. Pretty much your standard creature flick.

The film climaxes much like its predecessor, but you can tell that they are trying to be clever and original. There are not-so-subtle hints at foreshadowing earlier on in the film, and you might miss them, but there was absolutely no surprise. Unfortunately, the final scene plays out in your mind about 30 seconds before it hits the screen. Total letdown.

The cast is mostly Scandinavian, and they look like the rough and tumble bunch that joined Kurt nearly 30 years ago. The one bright spot is Eric Christian Olsen, who I really like as an actor. He can't be taken too seriously, but has underrated comic chops. His demise is particularly chilling in an otherwise unimpressive array of gruesome special effects deaths.

The fun of the film isn't quite as present as it should. The "ten little indians" story where nobody knows who to trust, and everyone dies one by one, but you just don't know when or by whom doesn't quite hold weight because you just don't really care that much as a viewer. There are a few jumpy moments (intentional), but this film is about money and action more than fear and science fiction.

Winstead tries a bit too hard to channel her inner Sigourney Weaver, but she simply fails. Edgerton, who was so great in Warrior, doesn't do much of anything with his role as the helicopter pilot who gets sucked into the fray.

Kudos to the visual effects team, who create one nasty monster, and who put some disturbing images up on the screen. Shame on the writers, however, for destroying a perfectly ripe franchise opportunity.

As a huge fan of the Carpenter version, I was disappointed in the lack of originality to the new rendition. There are so many areas of opportunity with this franchise, and with new technology, I was really expecting quite a bit more than I got.

It's a fun way to spend an hour and a half, but it doesn't live up to its legacy, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone other than a Carpenter fan or someone who truly appreciates creature flicks. 5/10.

Moneyball

Moneyball is everything a true sports fan could hope for. What I mean is that there aren't any glorified scenes of heroics, or miracle last second shots. What there is plenty of however, are statistics. Lines and lines of statistics. It's a bit unfair to an uninitiated fantasy sports fan, but the basic idea is that an innovative general manager uses his Yale economics graduate sidekick and turns the way that owners assemble teams upside down, building a winning team with a low salary.

Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's, with a swagger and levity that really makes the game fun again. He's a man haunted by the mistakes of his past, desperately searching for his love of the game. Hellbent on winning, but limited by his owner's shallow pockets, he tries a new strategy aptly dubbed "Moneyball". It's the idea that professional sports have become more business and less heart. That the team with the most stars wins. It's a philosophy commonly accepted among all of the major sports leagues, and incidentally is the reason for salary caps despite monstrous profits.

The problem is that the small market teams such as Oakland just can't keep up. That's where Beane and his new assistant GM, Peter Brandt (played remarkably by Jonah Hill in a rare dramatic role) come in. they analyze what it is that makes wins, and come up with a formula for success that they try to put into play.

The manager, Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman) isn't impressed, and reverts to his tried and true managing ways, as do the advisers and the scouts. But in a series of events, the 2002 season unfolds like a magical tale straight out of fiction. What Beane did changed sports forever.

This film may not have been made with the intent of garnering Oscar nominations, but it most certainly will get them. This is the best baseball film ever made. No offense to Kevin Costner, but Brad Pitt takes Billy Beane and makes him sincerely lovable. He's the Oceans 11 Pitt, but with responsibility and scruples. Just the cool Brad Pitt that's been missing for a few years.

The authenticity of players, statistics, wins and losses, and dollar amounts adds dramatic credibility, but also ensures that you never actually question how likely any of the events are. It's a testament to the men behind the scenes (no offense ladies) who make professional sports go around.

The introspective look at Billy Beane is a metaphor that goes beyond the game of baseball, or professional sports. It's how a kids game can transcend youth and have such an effect on adults of all ages and backgrounds. Pitt conveys the love effortlessly with his eyes, and his playful smile. There isn't a man alive who can't relate to that longing, sentimental love of a sport.

Sports films usually miss the mark on one of five areas: empathetic characters, heartwarming story, believability, likeability, and action. Moneyball hits the mark. Director Bennett Miller is a relative novice, with just Capote on his resume. He will earn his second Oscar nomination for this, a beacon in a season typically crowded with serious, and sometimes dark films. Moneyball is this year's Social Network. A warm, smart drama with no agenda besides sharing a fascinating story.

Moneyball is a must-see for any film fan. The best baseball film of all time, and one of the better sports-themed movies. Brad Pitt receives another Oscar nomination, and the film stands at the end of the year as one of the top five. The only concern is its early release. Often September films can get lost in the buzz of the November/December fare. For my money, it's incredible. 9/10.

Drive

Ryan Gosling channels his inner De Niro as "Kid" or just "Driver" in this stylish, subtle homage to Taxi Driver by Danish New Yorker Nicolas Winding Refn. Refn is hot on the Indy scene right now, and his best picture to date is 2008's Bronson, starring a budding Tom Hardy as the enigmatic and notorious prisoner.

Drive seems like it is cut right out of the 80's, with the neon pink credits, and the hyperactive techno soundtrack. There is something a bit too cool though, and Gosling knows it. He's become an indy film stalwart, stepping outside his normal comfort zone earlier this year with Crazy, Stupid, Love and the upcoming Oscar bait Ides of March. This must have been a pet project for him, and it is a much more turbulent film than you would expect.

We are introduced to the Kid (Cormac McCarthy envy?) as he is working. He has a hard and fast set of rules as a getaway driver; 5 minutes, walk away when done, and he doesn't carry a gun. The opening sequence is a suspenseful cat and mouse sequence masterfully played without music. Just the sound of the police scanner, and the stoic look of the driver's eyes planning the escape route in his mind.

Fast forward to the next day at his day job, where he is a stunt driver for Hollywood movies, and a mechanic at a greasy shop in a shady part of Los Angeles. This begins the unraveling of the fiber of this character. He is loyal to his boss, the well-cast Bryan Cranston, but seems to be slumming with regard to his potential, his skills, and his suave, silent, confident demeanor. It just doesn't feel right from the get-go.

He befriends his neighbor, and dances with sexual tension, but there is never really any chance of them being together, because she is married and her husband is just about to get out of prison. He falls in love with her and her son, and has to step in when an opportunity arises to help them out.

Things spiral out of control, and a shocking, yet not altogether unexpected bloodbath ensues, from which Driver (or Kid) must fight to the death to escape the clutches of an organized crime duo played wonderfully by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman (truly underrated, with his fat sausage fingers, and his enormous face).

Gosling picked an odd project here. My first problem is that the main character is unbelievable. The second is that once the carnage ensues, it is entirely too gratuitous. Much like the shock value of Taxi Driver's over the top bloodfest, Drive has a couple of sequences that go down a dark path that would be better ignored.

The driving scenes are incredible and just brief enough to hold your attention. They aren't drawn out or glamorized to be anything special, but they showcase this young man's true talent, and to be honest, Gosling just looks cool with the leather driving gloves and the toothpick in his mouth.

The relationship between Gosling and Mulligan is genuine good acting, but the characters aren't in a position where it can survive. It's doomed from the start and so it's really just wasted emotion on screen.

I liked the vibe of this movie, but the psychotic, bloody turn just turned me off from the fun action suspense film I was hoping to enjoy. I continue to give Gosling credit for choosing projects that are way off the beaten path (Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine), and I would like to see him get a little more credit for it (Blue Valentine Oscar Nomination Snub). He does a great job, as do Cranston, Perlman, and Brooks. Mulligan is just a pretty face.

I wouldn't recommend seeing or not seeing it, but be prepared for a one-eighty about halfway through, and a completely different film during the second half. Refn just took it a bit too far. 6/10.

Warrior

At first glance, Warrior doesn't seem to be an inspirational sports film, which caught me off guard when I saw the first preview. I was dubious that a film centered around a combat sport touting less than an R rating could succeed. The story follows two brothers who each have their reasons for fighting, with a back story of estrangement from an abusive alcoholic father as well as each other.

Tommy (Tom Hardy) is the muscle. A brutish caveman who fits the part of a fighter perfectly. He is a man wearing his personal guilt and resentment like a scarlet letter, and his only release is to pummel whomever is in his way. He returns from Iraq and jumps back into training with his father (Nick Nolte) to whom he has a very rocky past.

Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is the family man. A high school physics teacher who sneaks around fighting for small purses in strip club parking lots, and telling his wife he is bouncing for extra money when he comes home battered and bruised.

A Grand Prix style fighting opportunity piques the interest of both men; for money and for honor, and they end up competing in the winner-takes-all iron man tournament, ultimately facing each other in the finals.

With a story of such preposterous and obvious emotional manipulation, Gavin O'Connor does a nice job evoking the Disney underdog story aura from the film. It is just family-friendly enough to pass as more Miracle than the Fighter, which is probably what the idea was going for. Unfortunately for the cast and crew, that means it's not going to win any awards this year.

The sport of MMA has grown to become one of the most popular and widely followed on the planet, and unlike more traditional sports like football or basketball, MMA is purely gladiatorial. One punch can win a fight, and there is a sense that anyone can win, because it is in many cases true.

O'Connor contrasts the two brothers' fighting styles against each other with much intention and thought; Tommy charging in like a bull, dipping his head down between his enormous neck muscles, swinging his fists wildly and forcefully, hoping to land that one punch that brings catharsis to his numb and tormented soul. Brendan is more finesse, cautiously waiting for an opportunity to shoot in and pull a submission move. These two styles are often discussed and lamented among the pantheon of fight fans, and to pit them against each other yields a predictable result (which I won't give away).

The relationship with Nick Nolte is heartfelt and painful to watch, and Nolte shines brightly as a lonely and remorseful man who can't quite escape the demons of his past. He finds some redemption in the form of the championship bout, but there is never quite closure to the story, although I don't suppose there ever really could be.

The film glosses over much of the periphery and hones in on the two men, which is a smart move. The fighting is intense and realistic, and Kurt Angle makes a nice yet slightly ironic appearance as the menacing Koba, a Russian beast who is undefeated, and is the hands down favorite to win the tournament.

Hardy and Edgerton do a great job in this, both physically, and portraying brothers with Philly accents despite being from England and Australia. Hardy is a little more Rocky than he needs to be, but it must have been a fun and demanding film to make.

At a time of year when summer action movies are dying down, this is just what I needed. A shot of adrenaline in the form of a Disney sports story (Lionsgate actually). It's a great film worth watching, and will make you cheer, whether you are rooting for Tommy or Brendan. 8/10.

The Change-Up

I have been anticipating this film since first reading about the story last year. Jason Bateman is one of my favorite actors, definitely favorite comedian, and Ryan Reynolds can do some pretty good comedy himself at times. You would think that their hijinks while trapped inside each others' bodies would be hilarious, right? Wrong.

The first problem is with the character development. Bateman is a successful family man with a beautiful wife and three kids, and he is just one big corporate deal away from making partner at his law firm. Reynolds is his childhood friend who can't stop offending people with his language, and who is unemployed, philandering, and generally unlikable. In no real scenario would these two spend any time together. This is just the first flaw with the film.

As we progress, the characters pull a "freaky friday" by simultaneously urinating in a magical fountain. They switch bodies, and at this point the direction of the film turns to very raunchy, almost gratuitous comedy, but it is simply off the mark.

Jason Bateman playing Ryan Reynolds is not funny. He is trying too hard, and the character's sporadic funny lines are overshadowed by a feeling of disgust and a lack of empathy for the character. In his defense, Bateman does somewhat capture the character in his performance.

Ryan Reynolds playing Jason Bateman is underdone. Reynolds has no real deviation from his regular loud, obnoxious voice. It seems like he is almost the same character. The failure to capitalize on the polar opposite personalities and subsequently portray both sides causes the downfall of the film. And then there's the writing.

The writers wrote the Hangover, and the Hangover II, and clearly their star is burning out. The dialogue was certainly intended to be R-rated raunchy comedy, which is the hot ticket right now, but the timing was inappropriate, the tone was a bit too abrasive, and at times it made me wonder how the actors could say their lines without saying "wait a minute, could we change this a little?" The story lacked the depth of any critical thought and someone should have spoken up. The director (David Dobkin) also is a fading star, having shot Wedding Crashers in 2005, and nothing significantly successful or funny since.

There are too many attempts at story lines, and it creates incoherency. Olivia Wilde and Leslie Mann do their best to play the supporting women, but in the end they are nothing more than eye candy. Best said, the film is offensive and disconnected. A waste of real talent.

There are some shining parts however. Bateman's character has two twin babies, and their screen time is funny, as babies can be. The miraculous thing is that Bateman's interaction with them (as both characters) is funny as well. Banging heads, changing diapers, electrocutions, blenders, and kitchen knives add to the humor about as much as possible.

What I was hoping for is to be able to see the original character in the new body. To really feel that it was a person desperately trying to get out, or to manage the newly inherited responsibilities of his life. 1997's Face/Off is a perfect example. It was not a great film by any means, but I truly appreciated that both Nicolas Cage and John Travolta really did a 180 with their characters halfway through the film, so you could actually feel that the original person was going through their respective ordeals. This is the feeling I was going for as I was watching the Change-Up.

The conclusion of the film is exactly as expected, which isn't a problem at all. There is always a lesson to be learned: Be thankful for your life and don't take anything for granted. These two men learn their lessons through trials and challenges, and are better men for it. They just aren't very good men to begin with. I was disappointed more in Bateman than Reynolds, but for a few million dollars, I would take just about any acting job. Wait until this is on Netflix streaming, and even then don't feel bad if you miss it. 4/10.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The prequel to the cult classic Planet of the Apes franchise, and the slightly head-scratching subsequent remake by Tim Burton, sets up the story of just how apes took over the world. Apocalypse? Science gone bad? Darwinism? Call it what you will, but when the genetically enhanced apes escape, it is pure visual bliss.

A scientist named Will (James Franco) is conducting trials on a drug that repairs broken brain cell networks, which would essentially be a cure for Alzheimer's. The subject displays brilliant problem-solving skills and general development, but during a brief skirmish (don't they always happen while the investors are viewing a presentation?) the program is shut down. Fortunately for Will, there is a baby ape that the ape handlers didn't notice (you're fired), and he takes him home to raise him and study him.

He grows up, and yearns for a life of freedom and normalcy, and soon begins to realize that he is different, and that frustrates him. A violent incident leads to his incarceration, and that is the beginning of the uprising.

James Franco is a hit or miss actor, there is something just insincere about him. Don't get me wrong, he was brilliant in 127 hours, but he just seems a bit too casual with his acting. It doesn't matter though, because he is not the star of the film. Neither is the gorgeous Freida Pinto, or the veteran supporting players John Lithgow and Brian Cox. The star is Andy Serkis and the group at Weta Digital.

Serkis is an absolute stud. He has been acting for 20 years, mostly doing voice work and recently, motion capture special-effects driven vehicles. His highest profile work was as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and the upcoming Hobbit films). He physically transforms himself into Caesar, the lead ape, and contorts his body and facial expressions perfectly to allow the visual whizzes at Weta to work their magic.

Weta is a studio out of New Zealand who most recently won Oscars for a little film called Avatar. Their work in Apes will win them more.

The plot of the film is fluff. Everyone knows the Charlton Heston original and the absurdity of the story. It simply doesn't matter however. This film is magic unfolding before your eyes, and it may as well be a documentary. The apes are so realistic, there are times that you just don't realize that it is movie magic. Of course, there are sequences that appear rushed and fake, but we're just not there yet technologically, and who knows what the financial decisions were on this film. Maybe they decided to skimp in places. Either way, the effects are absolutely mind-blowing.

The film is directed by relatively inexperienced Rupert Wyatt, who hit the jackpot with this gig. If you can just sit back and enjoy the beauty that unfolds in front of you, you're in for a treat.

Chimpanzees, Orangutans, Gorillas. They interact, and when their intelligence is accelerated, they work together to wreak havoc and get into shenanigans. The beauty of the film is that they really don't mean any harm to humans, they are just trying to get back to the wild, and be left alone. There could have been a dark turn if they were ripping off faces and killing anyone in their path, but the director and producers opted for a more conservative approach, which was the right move.

Apes on the loose. It's just pure fun. Definitely go see this film, and keep reminding yourself that the apes aren't real, and you will giggle in delight as they outsmart the humans. Plot and acting (besides Serkis), 5/10. With effects, an additional 3 points easy. Some of the best visuals I've ever seen. 8/10.

Cowboys & Aliens

Preposterous in every way, the genre-bending sci-fi western takes state-of-the-art creature effects (and directed by Jon Favreau) and puts them smack dab in the middle of Arizona territory in the late 1800's. The idea stems from a graphic novel of the same name and truly sounds fascinating on paper.

Translating that story into a cohesive film with more than just special effects is difficult, even with a cluster of good actors. Westerns are tricky, and as Harrison Ford stated in an interview (paraphrased), "Make no mistake, this isn't Unforgiven." He was right about that.

You can't fault Favreau on this one though. The direction was great, and he made lemonade out of the lemon of a story. The appeal of Old West gangs and Indians coming together to fight aliens seems like an awesome idea, but when you think about the primitive tools and weapons, and the fact that the aliens (always) are an advanced being with more strength, technology, and presumably, intellect. They always seem to get outsmarted by the humans though, don't they?

This time, bows and arrows, six-shooters, and rifles take down the whole mess of them. Kind of ridiculous. The film took a total of six writers, many of them veterans of sci-fi films, and this is what they came up with? A mysterious stranger appears in the middle of Arizona with a weapon on his wrist, and finds himself wanted by the law. He can't remember anything; name, how he got there, why he has the shackle on his wrist. Enter aliens who capture humans to do their nasty probing experiments, and all the humans posse up and attack the aliens' ship.

Not for a lack of trying, they did as good as they could considering the story, and although Daniel Craig seems like an odd casting choice, and Harrison Ford, although enjoying himself as the elder statesman on set, does a bit of overacting as well. There are some strong actors in the bunch, notably Sam Rockwell, Keith Carradine, and Paul Dano as the despicable son of Ford's cattle baron. There are a lot of supporting usual suspects who grow meaty mustaches and look at home on a horse in a chapeau. The biggest problem however, is the clash of genres.

Great special effects, and to be honest, you get exactly what you are paying for. It's Cowboys & Aliens after all. The creatures look great, although cliche and counter-intuitive in their perceived intelligence yet incredible ineptitude. How many intelligent species don't communicate with each other, and just roar loudly with spittle and slime coming out of their mouths? Oh yea, none.

It's a fun summer action film, but expect no surprises or satisfaction beyond some cool fight scenes. 6/10.

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

The title is a bit misleading as this is a pure dramedy at its core. There is no craziness, no stupidity, just a whole mess of misguided love. That doesn't diminish the heart of this well-cast film, which centers around Steve Carell and Julianne Moore and their flailing marriage. Supporting them are Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, but the true shining light of the film is Jonah Bobo, the 13 year old son who has wisdom beyond his age and makes the family drama a bit more palatable.

The couple split, and go on with their separate lives; Moore with her affair and loveless life, and Carell, trying to move on by learning how the dating game is mastered by a brilliant Gosling. The two strike up an entirely unlikely, but somewhat endearing friendship, and Carell becomes the Pretty Woman of the suburban cul de sac. He learns about slim fitting jeans, layering, and pays more than $10 for his haircut. The beauty of the transformation is that he is the same character throughout the entire movie. Even when he is successfully picking up women in a cringe-inspiring verisimilitude of truisms, he remains the likable family man who just wants to be back with his wife.

There is a relevancy to this story that strikes a chord with any audience, be it the 13 year old boy with the most brazen teenage crush of all time on his babysitter, the babysitter with her own crush, the young woman with the heartbreaking conservative outlook, the pick-up artist, the man whose heart has been shattered, or the woman who cheated. Each member of the ensemble cast comes together in an exceptionally well-done climax that balances the gravity and levity perfectly.

Each piece of the story comes to a satisfying conclusion separately, but also in a realistic crescendo that makes you walk away both appreciating the story, but also doing some self-reflection. It's a nice feeling.

Ryan Gosling is one of the best actors out there. With two more movies coming out this year, his name will once again find itself in the pantheon of greatness discussion. He plays the philanderer with such confidence and swagger, that once his tough exterior shell is broken, you are genuinely concerned about his character. This is a rare transformation in two hours.

Steve Carell has tremendous range. The more dramatic side was briefly shown in Dan in Real Life, but he bares his real emotion while maintaining his comic timing. He has serious potential to move from comedy to serious in the way that Jim Carrey did, and how Will Ferrell is attempting. He has a disarming charm and an everyman quality that just makes you want to root for him.

The rest of the cast does fine, including a nice little appearance by Kevin Bacon (I think the game is getting too easy at this point. We need a new person). As stated earlier though, Jonah Bobo gets the award for the glue of the movie. He holds everything together, even though his screen time is limited. Truly a profound character for a delightful movie. Entertainment Weekly called this the best movie of the year for adults, and I would consider it, as there haven't been any great movies this year that weren't superheroes or comedies (sorry Harry Potter).

Directed by the team of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, and written by Dan Fogelman, it is really a collaboration of a 3-headed monster. They all have extensive writing experience, Fogelman mostly with Pixar films, and the director team with Bad Santa and some recent kids movies. They work together beautifully, crafting a character-driven piece that just hits the audience. Collaboration teams are a rare thing in directing, but it has become the norm in writing. We may see a shift over the next few years where the emphasis is on the quality of the film, and not a spotlight on the director. Here's hoping...

See this with an open mind. It is neither a comedy or a drama, but just a well-done film. Great acting, sharp writing, and pleasing outcome. 9/10.

Mid-Summer Oscar Watch

OK, it's still July, but I'm already getting excited for a handful of films that are on the horizon. The first batch come out in September. Some of these films are by critically acclaimed directors, some are certain to elicit acting Oscars, and others are simply original or adapted stories that are fascinating and compelling. I have chosen the 10 that I see as serious contenders, and of course there are more out there that will rise to the awards radar. With the Academy's new requirement for nomination, we will see between 5 and 10 films, which probably means 7 will get nods. Let's take a look in order of release.

September

Moneyball - Sports films typically have a hard time at the awards, but this one is a bit different, chronicling the paradigm shift in the way that baseball teams are assembled. Brad Pitt is Billy Beane, the Oakland A's general manager who uses statistical analysis to predict who will succeed, and determine with formulas how to win baseball games. Pretty cool. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the team's owner. It's directed by Bennett Miller, whose only other feature length film was Capote, that one that scored Hoffman his Oscar. Should be an entertaining Oscar film that will bridge the mainstream audience gap as well. Think last year's the Social Network.

the Debt - Three Mossad agents must dig through their past to uncover a spy. The film flashes back and forward between the real time team (Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, Ciaran Hinds) and their younger selves hunting Nazi war criminals. The film is worth watching for the three older cast members alone, but the story seems compelling and intense. Directed by John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) it is one of the films that could really go either way, but with the cast, story, director, I am expecting big things.

October

the Ides of March I just saw the preview, and this is a heavy hitter. Clooney, Gosling, Seymour Hoffman, and Jeffrey Wright (one of my favorites). It looks great from all angles, and is directed by Clooney, who is establishing himself as Mr. Hollywood (Actor, Producer, Writer, Director). What can't he do? The film follows a campaign manager of a presidential hopeful who finds himself torn between loyalty and ethics. Will be poignant to our current political climate, and should be a sharp acting clinic.

J. Edgar I am looking forward to this one in particular. Directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular infamous FBI director. It's still being shrouded in secrecy, so maybe there are post-production issues, but it's written by Dustin Lance Black (Milk), and has rumored gay love scenes, so brace yourself for a controversial, yet incredible film.

November

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - a Swedish director handles Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, and Tom Hardy in this Cold War political espionage thriller. Oldman is already getting rave reviews in his first leading role in who knows how long. It will surely be worth watching.

Carnage - Love him or hate him (let me clarify - if you can separate the personal from professional), Roman Polanski knows how to make a movie. Christopher Waltz and John C. Reilly are the husbands of Kate Winslet and Jodie Foster as they sit down for dinner to hash out their sons' schoolyard fight. Sounds fascinating, and I imagine two hours of the four of them eating and talking could be pure magic. Looking forward to this one very much.

the Descendants - Clooney again stars as a man coping with his wife's death and struggling to keep his family together during the aftermath. Directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways, Election), it should be a character-based emotionally-charged experience.

December

the Iron Lady - Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Need I say more?

the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - David Fincher takes on the Swedish best-selling trilogy with an unflinching attitude. Graphic sex and violence, and marketed as the feel bad movie of the year. It will be full of controversy and will get mixed reviews (I guarantee), but it is David Fincher, who is a master of cinema.

War Horse - Steven Spielberg returns after a brief hiatus to film this and Tin-Tin, which is a CGI endeavor. War Horse follows Joey, a stallion who is taken from his young owner and sent to the trenches of WWI Europe. His young owner takes on the mission of saving him, despite his young age. It will be a family drama to the extreme, and when there are animals involved, there will be tears. When there are tears and Spielberg, there are Oscars.

That's it for now, I hope you enjoy some of these films, and I'd love to hear what you think of this list.

Captain America: First Avenger

The superhero who has epitomized American ideals since his creation by Stan Lee in the early 1960's has finally found his place on the silver screen. It's no surprise either, given the enormous success of the other superhero films of the past few summers.

Captain America is yet another puzzle piece in the Marvel universe that connects the Avengers into what will certainly be a wildly successful culminating project next summer. Joe Johnston (Jurassic Park III, Jumanji, the Wolfman) is the next in line of theoretically odd director choices, but whose stylized action and almost cheesy effects make the film light-hearted, and ultimately perfectly appropriate for the subject and the audience.

The film follows perfectly the comic storyline set forth by Lee, where the Americans infuse a physically weak, yet lionhearted young man with a super-serum to fight back the Nazi invasion of Europe in WWII. How can anyone whose last name doesn't end in a "tz" not root against the Nazis? Let's be honest, even Germans are ashamed of that little historical hiccup. Anyway, my point is that the Nazis make the ultimate villains in any historical fiction story, and throw some jingoistic underdog into the mix, and a super-villain played by Hugo Weaving, and you've got something special.

Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers, the Captain, with his typical casual humorous, yet dashingly handsome and rugged demeanor. It appears very natural for him, which makes him more believable. He makes the physical transformation from barely 5' tall, 98 pounds, to at least 6'2, 200 lbs. right before our eyes, which is incredible for an actor (alright, they CGI'd his "before" body) and becomes Captain America, and truly gives the role justice.

Weaving shakes off his distinct British intonation that makes him so recognizable (he's actually from Nigeria, I bet you didn't know that) and tries on a schmaltzy German accent that is actually kind of fun. He is a good bad guy, and has great make-up and special effects to make him the Red Skull.

Hayley Atwell comes on strong as the flirty government program liason, and has good chemistry with Evans, although they both look a bit too movie star to be in combat in WWII. Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci deliver wonderful supporting performances, and the rag-tag group of Rogers' military friends (ethnically diverse to instill the melting pot feeling) help fill any dialogue void and some comic relief.

Ultimately, this was an unexpected treat. They took what to me is a bit of a boring superhero, and made a really fun popcorn flick. Another hit for Marvel, and a great choice in Johnston. I'm looking forward to Evans' character again in next year's Avengers. It's hard to imagine how Joss Whedon will display all that talent and movie gold, but that's why he gets the big bucks, and why I keep coming back to the theatres.

Sitting through the credits, I was expecting one thing, but got another entirely. Always thinking one step ahead, you will get your first glimpse at the Avengers, though I was secretly hoping for a Jeremy Renner fueled Hawkeye. Maybe 2013. If you're tired of over the top special effects and boy wizards, but still have a hankering for popcorn and superhero action, go see this film. You won't be disappointed. One of the best Marvel has done to date. 9/10.

Actor Spotlight - Leonardo DiCaprio

This is an introspective look at my favorite A-list star who is still under-appreciated in his extensive and incredibly impressive body of work. Three time Oscar nominee (What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Aviator, Blood Diamond), Six time Golden Globe nominee and one time winner (Aviator, 2004) 36 year old Leo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio is certainly not the greatest actor of his time, but he may be the most savvy and selective actor out there now. He has delivered incredible performances, and for the most part has been recognized amply. He will certainly win an Oscar or two in his career, perhaps this year for his portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover. The point of this editorial is to put a spotlight on his film choices, which seem to be driven by the opportunity to work with specific directors rather than the project per se.

Let me explain further. I follow many actors' filmography and anxiously anticipate many projects that are coming down the pipeline. What I began thinking about when I was reviewing DiCaprio's films is just how wide a range of roles he has played in his 20 or so years of acting. Further analysis revealed an interesting trend, which I will now share.

Starting with his Oscar nominated role in 1993's What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Leo was 19 years old, and worked on a small budget film by a budding foreign Director, Lasse Hallstrom. He would later go on to make a handful of critically acclaimed films (and some panned), but is certainly an interesting choice for a young actor. I will concede that a young actor will take just about any leading or supporting role that is offered, so that may be some justification.

From there, he worked with Sam Raimi (Spider Man trilogy) and an all-star cast in the Quick and the Dead. Not a great film, but a fun Western and a chance to work with a truly unique director.

His next big film was 1996's Romeo & Juliet, directed by the quirky and eccentric Baz Luhrmann. This was DiCaprio's gateway to stardom, catapulting him to teen heartthrob status.

After that, he did a little thing called Titanic directed by James Cameron, who is truly a visionary and a perpetual pioneer in film. This was DiCaprio's A-list ticket, and from this point on he was able to pick and choose projects simply due to his profitability.

He was then in a critically panned film called the Man in the Iron Mask, which for as bad as it was, was directed by Randall Wallace, who is more of a writer than a director, but was the mind behind Braveheart. This might have been a turning point for DiCaprio in that he began to be a bit more cautious about his role selection.

After that, he worked with Woody Allen, no doubt for the experience more than the accolades or paycheck in a film called Celebrity. His next starring role however, was in Danny Boyle's the Beach. Not the greatest film, but an interesting project with a blooming director.

At the age of 27, he began his relationship with Martin Scorcese, which would span 4 films and over a decade, and earn Martin his sole Oscar of his illustrious career (so far). There is a fifth collaboration in the works; a biopic about Frank Sinatra.

2002 was the year that DiCaprio worked with Steven Spielberg on Catch Me if you Can. The beginning of Leo's fascination with portraying historical figures (Howard Hughes, J. Edgar Hoover, Frank Sinatra).

2006 was arguably DiCaprio's most successful single year, with roles in the Departed, and Edward Zwick's Blood Diamond, which gave Leo his third Academy Award nomination. At this point, he has become bigger than just about anyone in Hollywood, able to hand select projects to star and produce. His name alone is marketable enough to draw a box office success.

Over the following three years, he would work with Ridley Scott, Sam Mendes, and Christopher Nolan. All three films (and one Scorcese thrown in the mix) were both critical and box office successes.

His current projects team him with Clint Eastwood, Baz Luhrmann (2nd collaboration), and Quentin Tarantino. His performance in Eastwood's J. Edgar Hoover will certainly earn Leo his fourth nomination, and if competition isn't too stiff, perhaps his first win.

Future projects team him with Marc Forster, Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott again, and possibly Michael Mann. These are in pre-pre-production stages, but don't be surprised to see them come to fruition if Leo wants them to. Interestingly, he was signed on to work with Mel Gibson on a Nordic-themed film, but Leo pulled out because of Gibson's drunken career-killing breakdown.

Snubs. Because the Academy doesn't allow an actor to receive 2 nominations in the same year in the Best Actor category, Leo was denied a nomination for the Departed, which in my opinion was his best performance so far. He was also over-shadowed by Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, and carried Revolutionary Road even though Kate Winslet and Michael Shannon received most of the acclaim.

You would be hard-pressed to find another actor who has worked with a laundry list of Oscar-winning directors. 22 wins, another 70 nominations among them. It's a staggering and mind-blowing amount of cinematic achievement.

The sheer variety of his selections of projects and directors leaves any fan of cinema anxiously awaiting his next work. Personally, I think he is genius and look forward to watching him for the next 50 years.

Bad Teacher

There was a certain magnetism for me toward this movie because, well, I am a middle school teacher, so some of the humor was magnified a bit and seeing kids being yelled and cussed at is kind of a secret fantasy of mine at times.

There was one great thing about the film, and one terrible thing. Which do you want to hear first? I'll give you a little summary before jumping to that. Cameron Diaz is a despicable gold digger who thinks she's about to hit the jackpot, and thus, enter a life of early retirement. The problem is, she's a bit transparent in her ambitions. She returns to her job as a middle school English teacher and decides to save up to buy herself a new pair of boobs (which might have been a good choice for Diaz about 15 years ago). Anyhow, she vies for the attention of the wealthy substitute teacher, while completely dissing every co-worker around her, and building a rivalry with the teacher across the hall. The film comes to a climax around the dreaded state standards test, and as usual, the group of teachers are made out to be incompetent, desperate, and completely unprofessional. OK, maybe that last bit was a bit too close to home, but teachers get a bad rap, even in film.

The movie plays out simplistically and predictably, and Diaz does a decent job in the role. Justin Timberlake is simply a terrible actor, no excuses to be had. He may have some good skits on SNL, but make no mistake, he is no feature film actor. There has to be a reason that Friends with Benefits has been shelved for so long, and I have a feeling its name isn't Mila Kunis. Had he been replaced with someone a bit more thespian, maybe, oh, just about any B-list actor in his late 20's or early 30's, it would have had a major impact on the film. My suggestions would have been Chris Evans, Seth Myers, or BJ Novak. Or maybe the lesser known Matt Lauria. Someone who could pull off the role better than Timberlake, who for some reason, I just can't take seriously, even in a comedic role. A great risk would have been Andy Sandberg, who hasn't done much in film despite his incredible potential.

The great thing about the film was Jason Segel. He owns as the gym teacher who is actually kind of cool, who is trying to get together with Diaz. He is given the best lines, and ends up impressing Diaz with his personality instead of his money.

The terrible thing about the film is one of my all-time pet peeves in cinema. With the exception of one or two scenes, all of the best lines and scenes are in the previews. If you watch a few of them, including the red-band trailer, you've seen the entire film and don't need to waste the $9. Boo.

Jake Kasdan directs his first movie in four years, since Walk Hard, which was disappointing. He's got the lineage, and writing skills, and this was a noble effort for a summer comedy. To be honest though, I was really looking forward to it, as there is a natural connection to Bad Santa, which is one of the most underrated holiday films of all time. Overall, it underwhelmed me, and I'm a sucker for middle school films. 6/10.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Transformers 3 upgrades the franchise with 3D, IMAX, and a stronger cast featuring Oscar nominated and winning actors. It also weighs in at a hefty 2 hrs and 40 mins. These wonderful upgrades don't save it from its recurring Achilles heel however; a terrible storyline.

Michael Bay follows the current trend and goes Historical Fiction by taking the Apollo moon landing, and Chernobyl and making them a critical part of a human conspiracy that teams people with Decepticons. You can't make this up, folks.

Bay does something that I truly thought impossible considering his style and skill set; he bored me at a Transformers movie.

As Sam faces the challenges of life after college, attempting to start a career, and running into obstacles at every turn due to his criminal record in spite of his heroics which are deemed top secret (really? expunge?) and he painfully can't discuss with any of his potential employers, he finds work for John Malkovich. Wasted talent aside, this angle was a bit unnecessary, and didn't really create the sympathy for Sam that was intended as much as sabotage the action and slow the pacing.

Frances McDormand and Patrick Dempsey join the cast as well, and add nothing but nonsense to the mix. McDormand is wasted talent, but she looks like she enjoyed the role, and Dempsey's character throws the story off the tracks completely.

Finally, Rosie Huntington-Whitely replaces Megan Fox as Sam's love interest; a somehow wealthy personal assistant to Dempsey who is desperately in love with Sam, and supports him as he continues his job search. You get what you pay for with a Victoria's Secret model in her first acting job. She makes you cringe with each word out of her mouth, and although she fills the eye candy role beautifully, her expressions and reactions are painfully robotic and prescribed. As gorgeous as she is, she truly needs to stick to the runway.

I hate to admit it, but I kind of missed Megan Fox. As terrible as she is at acting, there is something about her that goes hand in hand with Transformers and Shia LaBeouf. I suppose she'll think next time before calling her director "Hitler" in front of her Jewish producer...

I digress. By now you are probably scratching your head thinking what the redeeming qualities might be. There are three, and they make the movie entertaining and watchable, even if all else is snooze-inducing.

1. Special Effects. Need I say more? The Transformers franchise are ripe for creative effects with amazing explosions and visual stimulation that makes the viewer melt into the seat. Even compared with the first film, the seamless integration of the robots and the humans, and the scenes with pyrotechnics and destruction of cars and buildings is believable. To Bay's credit, he does this better than just about anyone else out there, but he needs to keep up the momentum, because I think viewers are coming to expect more and bigger and better each time out, and his delivery isn't quite as mind-blowing as someone like James Cameron. A high expectation, but he's established himself as king of his genre.

2. Transformers. The franchise is awesome, and as a fan-boy, I'm blown away by how they have been brought to the silver screen. It's a far cry from the low-tech cartoons that captivated me in the 1980's. The robots are amazing, and with more added with each film, the variety was satisfying in this one. Many of the original robots were showcased, like Sound Wave and Laserbeak, Shockwave, and Wheeljack (some of my personal favorites). There were still the carry-over from the second TF film with the annoying personalities of the little, lesser-known robots who are given ridiculous lines to cut the tension of an action scene.

3. Sound. Just as this film will be nominated for special effects awards, the sound was equally amazing. IMAX amplified this experience, but Bay really knows how to integrate heavy beats, chilling riffs, and over-the-top rock music. It's cliche and a part of his personal arsenal, but it works.

I'm ready for something a bit different from Michael Bay. His slow motion upward angled panned shots with the actor looking toward the sky with a concerned look on their face, hair perfectly coifed and dirt strategically placed on designer clothes. The background a perfect sunset hue of yellows and reds. I'm getting tired of it, sorry Michael. Time to move on to something new, which sadly won't happen due to the billions of dollars his films have generated. I'm sure we'll see more of the same, and I'll still go see his movies because the action is so damn captivating.

Ehren Kruger missed the mark when he wrote this piece of work. His only gem was Arlington Road, and that was twelve years ago, so I wonder how he is still working. I could have written a better script for this film, and could have done so without the star-studded mess of a cast.

All in all, this is exactly what you should expect when you walk into the theatre. It's loud, visually orgasmic at times, and ultimately a cool movie. It's frustrating to see Michael Bay make the same mistakes over and over, but as much as we're used to it, it's pure movie fun. Get your popcorn, put on your 3D glasses, and settle in for nearly three hours of action. Appropriate for the 4th of July, there are plenty of fireworks in this film. 6/10.

Horrible Bosses

This review is going to be a bit different, for reasons that will become obvious momentarily. You are probably thinking "wait, doesn't Horrible Bosses come out on July 8th? How did you see it over a week early?" The answer is simply that I have my connections, and was able to sneak a peek at the film at its premier at the historic Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, California.



The night started with an electric buzz. We pulled in to the parking garage, and upon exiting, were met with hordes of people waving signs and cameras, screaming to see celebrities (and this movie has more than its fair share). We walked through the security checkpoint, waving our VIP premier passes, and found ourselves immediately outside the theatre, just inches from the red carpet.



We entered with the masses just minutes before the film began. The concession stand was giving out free popcorn and drinks, so I indulged (obviously). Finding my seat, I began scanning the packed audience for celebrities. I had seen Sudeikis and Aniston walk the red carpet, but everyone else was either inside, or running late.

My first spotting was Craig Robinson, of the office, then Oscar Nunez and Masi Oka immediately in front of him. I noticed a tall, slender blonde walk in with a tight white dress, and she drew quite a crowd. I couldn't tell at first, but it was Chelsea Handler. It was about this time that Jesse Metcalf walked by, looking for his own seat in the theatre. We got the five minute flash of the lights, and people started making their way to their seats. One last scan revealed Jennifer Love Hewitt and Joey Lawrence sitting down my row, across the aisle, and it caused me to exclaim "Woa!"

The film started to much applause, and it was a laugh riot from start to finish. I am biased because of the authentic movie magic of the environment, but it was fresh, funny, and just raunchy enough to make you forget all about the Hangover II.

Three friends commiserate over beers each evening about just how horrible their respective bosses are, and each has their unique flaw that is accentuated with great calculation. Kevin Spacey is a heartless narcissist, Farrell is a spoiled cocaine addict company heir, and Aniston, in what is perhaps her most entertaining role ever, is the sexually aggressive dentist who molests her assistant and comes up with more euphemisms for the penis than you've ever heard come out of a Friend's mouth.

They decide after one drunken night, and just enough frustration at work to kill their bosses. They hire a murder consultant named Motherf**ker Jones (Best character name of the year) played by Jamie Foxx, who convinces them to re-enact Strangers on a Train. A series of unfortunate events lead to both hilarity and calamity, and each winds up in for much more than they ever thought they would.

The three stars of the film are Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day, who is destined to break out as the next big comedy actor. This film will do for him what the Hangover did for Galifinakis, just watch. The Jasons interact with a natural flow that accentuates their strengths, which is timing. What makes them and so many others great isn't necessarily that something funny is said, but more how it's said, and they play off each other nicely.

The writing of this film is fantastic, and the actors were allowed freedom to improvise dialogue, and play these outrageous characters (more the bosses than the 3 stars) while being led in a direction that leads to a smart and satisfying conclusion. I happened to meet the girlfriend of one of the writers, John Francis Daley, who you might recognize from Freaks and Geeks, or Waiting. Expect good things from him in the future, as he seems to be running with the New Line comedy crowd.

My opinion is obviously a bit amplified by the excitement, but the film frankly ended too soon. I could watch Day and the Jasons just hanging out for days, and Spacey and Farrell entered territory that we haven't seen much of before. The real icing is Aniston though. Never before have I been a fan, but she's on the upswing in my book, departing from romantic comedies. She has a real dirty mouth, but clearly enjoyed the role, and used her sexuality to push it to the edge of the envelope.

The most funny film of the summer season so far. Definitely worth watching. 10/10*.


After the film, we exited Grauman's to massive crowds and paparazzi just waiting to take my picture. Wait, they were waiting for celebrities. I digress. The stars exited one by one; Bateman, Julie Bowen, Charlie Day, and finally Jamie Foxx. I took an opportunity to get a picture with Craig Robinson (Darryl) and gave him the "It's Bo Bice...s Brother!" line. He was really impressed (or just a happy guy). Once clear, we worked our way past the lines of autograph seekers, and hopped in the Escalade for the after-party.



At the after-party, I saddled up to the bar to take the edge off. My mission of the evening was to engage in a meaningful (or any) conversation with a full-fledged movie star. I missed my first opportunity, as Ioan Gruffudd was getting a drink right next to me. I took a lap around the club, which was called the Colony, and found some delicious spare ribs, chicken with mole, and mashed potatoes. I enjoyed my meal a mere fifteen feet away from Jason Bateman, who was entertaining a small group of his friends. I saw a few other celebrities while on my stroll; the wedding singer from Old School and the Hangover, Dan Finnerty.

Strolling around, I found an empty booth, so I sat down to take in the magical atmosphere that was going on around me. I was rubbing elbows with the Hollywood elite; producers, executives, writers, directors, and yes, movie stars.

A woman and her mother sat down at my booth, and we began chatting. I talked about my life and career in Seattle, and she talked about her boyfriend, John Francis Daley. Impressive. I found my group again, and we sat down for a few minutes before my liquid courage kicked in, and I made my move. Right for Jason Sudeikis. He was chatting to someone I didn't recognize, but the two of them were very receptive to my interjection. We talked about the movie, teaching, Nirvana, Charlie Day's impending superstardom, and Will Ferrell (not sure how the conversation took that turn) I left before I felt too intrusive, and was secretly jumping up and down on the inside.



The night ended the way any good night should. I shook the hand of a Best Actor Oscar winner, Jamie Foxx. I was feeling brave, so approached his booth while his six foot eight, three hundred-fifty pound bodyguard left (presumably to get another plate of food). I told him I enjoyed his performance in the film, and wanted to shake his hand. He was receptive, and my only regret was to not take advantage of a photo op.

We left, and I felt a sense of self-satisfaction. I couldn't help but think as I was leaving, I could do that. It's not that difficult to make movies. I still maintain that mindset, but it's a truly fortunate life that these men and women lead, and considering the social pressures and public scrutiny, I found each and every one of them to be very congenial and friendly.

It was truly an incredible once in a lifetime experience that I hope I someday have the privilege of repeating.

Super 8

JJ Abrams' follow up to Star Trek is this creature feature throwback about a group of Midwest kids who find themselves in the middle of an Air Force research project cover-up that destroys their whole town and turns their lives upside down.

Kudos to Abrams and Spielberg for keeping this project shrouded in mystery virtually up until the release. Teased for months, there was little in terms of Internet leaks that would spoil the plot. Unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot to the plot, or anything magical, which is what I was kind of expecting.

A group of middle school kids who are hellbent on filming a zombie movie and submitting it for an amateur contest are filming a critical scene when a tremendous train crash rocks their worlds. This particular scene was extremely well done, and having seen it in IMAX, this scene alone makes the additional investment worthwhile. The kids are scared, but return to their normal lives until strange things start happening. They realize that they have captured something out of this world on their Super 8 camera, and become a part of the evil military quarantine of their town.

Where it goes from there is mostly predictable, taking cues from such classics as ET, Explorers, Stand By Me, and Signs (that's right, I went there). The kids mature throughout the process and grow closer together, and endure an experience that shatters their innocence all at once.

This film is a fresh departure from the safe superhero genre, and carves a deeper grove in Abrams' niche as a master monster filmmaker. He captured the essence that he was going for, a nostalgic trip back in time to the 70's, and with the focus on the kids, it was a deliberate success.

Abrams excels at explosions and special effects. Not in the way that Michael Bay does, but in a more clever and intriguing way. There is a mystical sense to his craft that lures the viewer with movie magic that has been missing for a long time. His teaming with Steven Spielberg is brilliant, and I imagine that they will produce more successful sci-fi flicks together in the future.

I really liked the ambition of the project, and the simplicity of how it turned out, but I think there was a bit of a misstep in the target audience. I love the boldness of bringing a group of kids in the middle of a monster movie. It is what embodied the beauty of ET, and is what I was expecting to see a bit more of in Super 8. What Abrams did though, was up the ante just a bit too much with foul language throughout and quite a bit of violence that didn't seem to mesh entirely with the mood. They could have easily done this movie with a hard PG or soft PG-13 rating, and it would have been much more true to the genre it is reviving, and I think it would have been better received.

That being my only complaint, it was a pretty cool movie, and the scenes with the creature were extremely well-done. The cast of unknown kids carried the movie nicely and it did evoke a sense of nostalgia for a simpler time with muscle cars, no technology, and bad fashion. Kids riding bikes to each others houses, being trusted to stay out late in their communities, and getting outside and playing. No Facebook, iPods, or texting. It's a refreshing thing to see. 7/10.

Super 8

Special Guest Reviewer Today!

An outstanding collaboration between J.J. Abrams (director) and Steven Spielberg (producer). I am still pumped and wish all movies could be made by these two geniuses. Yes, it is reminiscent at times of ET, Close Encounters, or Stand by Me, and the problem with drawing from these great films that is what exactly?

It combines realism and fantasy, small town life and aliens, plus quiet teenage angst and blockbuster explosions. In short, something for everyone. The one glaring cliché was that the government was working against everyone as usual.

I thoroughly enjoyed the story and the flavor of a simpler time in 1979 Americana (pre computers or cell phones and little parent involvement). The unknown young actors held their own nicely with the older familiar character actors. I remembered during the movie that I have read of Spielberg spending his teenage summers making home movies like the kids in this movie and hope there are young future filmmakers out there doing the same instead of sitting glued in front of a computer or TV.

This was an enjoyable experience, and I look forward to more projects from this team. Oh, and don’t leave too soon. There is a treat during the credits. 9/10.

X-Men: First Class

In the first film of the summer to tackle pivotal American historical events with a fictional twist (superheroes, giant robots, aliens), X-Men: First Class takes us to the heart of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The second of the Origins storylines, this one shows the beginning of the X-Men, and the evolution of their cause to the backdrop of the sixties.

Director Matthew Vaughn follows up Kick Ass with a foray into Marvel territory, and he does a very nice job. This is probably the best of the X-Men series for a number of reasons, which I will mention later. Vaughn carries the torch of unorthodox director choices by Marvel, but it works in their favor. Each of the films has a distinctly unique flavor, and that keeps it fresh and watchable. Vaughn does a great job of capturing the setting, particularly through the props and the costumes (January Jones makes a great 60's bombshell). It never waivers from its X-Men roots too far though.

The first reason that this is the best film of the franchise is Michael Fassbender. He plays Magneto with a cool attitude, and is just plain fun to watch. Given an opportunity again to use his native German language, he plays Erik Lehnsherr, the scarred, scornful survivor of Nazi death camps beautifully. His counterpart, James McAvoy, who is a wonderful actor in his own right, just didn't seem to fit the character to me, but the interaction between the two was entertaining and genuine.

The second reason is Kevin Bacon in the surprise performance of the blockbuster season thus far. He plays the bad guy, Shaw, with swagger and arrogance, showing the dark side of Bacon that we haven't seen successfully since Sleepers or Murder in the First. He shows off both German and Russian, and is just plain cool. Add another film with a deep cast to the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game, it just got easier.

The third reason that this is the best X yet is that it is driven by character development and slow pacing rather than explosions and action, which adds to the credibility, unlike Brett Ratner's orgy of special effects in X3. There is plenty of action, and cool mutant superpower demonstrations, but it is not overdone. Bryan Singer did nicely with the first two, but they jumped into action without much explanation.

A couple of well-placed and timed cameos by Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Romjin remind us that there is a whole Marvel connection that all of Hollywood is embracing. There is an excitement around the superhero genre, and audiences are clearly not getting tired anytime soon. As I've said before, Marvel has something special, and they are making this universal connection in a way that has never been done before. The passion shown by everyone involved (except maybe Terrence Howard and Ed Norton) shows a lighter side of action movies that is electric. The culmination of these films next year with the Avengers, which is going to be massive will open up endless possibilities.

People love superheroes. The reboots of Spiderman and Superman, the third Batman, and all of these originals and sequels proves it. Stan Lee had better be a rich man because of all of this, because he has created some amazing stories.

X-Men is a fun ride, and worth the price of admission to see Fassbender and Bacon. January Jones isn't bad to look at either. 8/10.

Hangover Part II

the wolf pack is back, this time in Thailand for Stu's second wedding (planned this time). His future in-laws are traditionally Thai, and her dad makes Meet the Parents' DeNiro seem almost friendly with his scathing analogy of Stu to a bowl of soft, soggy rice. Stu is a very conservative man, reticent to have any kind of pre-marital celebration with his friends due to his wild experiences at Doug's bachelor party in Vegas. Totally understandable. Enter Phil and Alan, both pushing for a good time, but each with their separate motives.

Alan (Galifinakis) is truly the catalyst of the shenanigans and mostly uncomfortable situations. Burning buildings, gunfire, animals, hermaphrodites, and criminal dealings are just a part of the 24 hour endurance of hell that Stu, Phil, and Alan go through while searching for Teddy, the missing little brother of Stu's fiance.

The film picks up right where the last leaves off, but there is a lingering sense of deja vu that never quite goes away. The reason for this is that the story is an exact retelling of the first film. The formula changes venue and in some cases characters, but the plot mimics like a remake.

That can be overlooked for the simple fact that Ed Helms and Zack Galifinakis are hilarious. Stu hates Alan, but reluctantly invites him on the trip to satisfy Doug's wife's request. Immediately, the story shows multiple angles that create foreshadowing, and before we know, the gang is waking up in a dingy Bankok motel room with a tattoo, a severed finger, and a monkey.

The crude meter is pushed up a notch with more gratuitous male nudity, finding itself in Sacha Baron Cohen territory. I suppose in this day and age, R rated comedies can't succeed without that little envelope push, and this film although not entirely surprising, is a bit refreshing with some of the jokes.

Todd Phillips continues his comedy success with this no-brainer. After grossing as much money as the original did, the studio would be stupid not to pursue a sequel. The only problem is that they played it a little too safe. A little too easy. The outlandish jokes were set up like an intentional walk, and knocked out of the park with predictable grace by the funnymen.

Helms takes more of a lead role in this one, and is hilarious doing a rendition of Billy Joel. Galifinakis owns as well. He was born to play Alan, and a likely third installment will focus on his nuptials, which will certainly be the best of the trilogy. Bradley Cooper is another story. Not entirely funny, he's given some good lines, but plays the pretty boy, the frat boy who wants to party, but who doesn't feel the bane of poor decisions as much as the others. He fits though as the leader of the wolfpack, and seems like he is having a great deal of fun along the way.

The wild rumors of Bill Clinton, Mel Gibson, and Liam Neeson turned out to be nothing more than a tease, but the bar was set so high that it is impossible to please the audiences.

To be honest, I was expecting a bit more originality, but what I wanted to see was Zack Galifinakis, and I got a lot of uncomfortable laughs, and a few unexpected ones. The plot dragged on a bit too long, and the resolution was quick and unsatisfying. There will be a third one if the film breaks the $200 million mark, which it is well on its way to doing. It is already the 4th highest grossing R comedy of all time, so you can expect another if the cast is agreeable and a good script is written.

My advice for what it's worth, take a leap of faith on a new storyline, give me a call Warner Bros, I'll write something up for a very small back end percentage.

Funny movie, but not as good as the first. 7/10.