Harry Potter Retrospective Part I - "The Sorcerer's Stone"

With the end of the "Harry Potter" film franchise quickly approaching, I've decided to dedicate The Soap Box Office to this wonder filled series for the next week. We'll call it the "Harry Potter Retrospective" because I really like the word "retrospective." Each day, I'll briefly take a look at one of the films, compare them to each other (and possibly the books, too), and delve into my personal experience with each. I invite you to join in the discussion as we prepare for the final chapter of Rowling's wizarding world.

"The Philosopher's Stone"/"The Sorcerer's Stone"

I'm not sure how many people out there are in the same boat as me, but I went into the first Potter film without having read a single page of the books. My brother, sister, and mom had read them but I had resisted. For one thing, I wasn't much interested in reading a children's book even if it did involve the sort of nerdy fantasy that I enjoyed. For another, this series was far too popular for me. I've always enjoyed rebelling against what everyone loves and Pottermania was too much for me to get on board with. My introduction to Harry Potter came on Thanksgiving Day 2001 when my family, for the first time ever, decided to see a movie on a Holiday and this was their choice.

Strangely, I think my appreciation for "Stone" has grown over the years when it seems like the type of film that would get worse and worse with each viewing. Each time I watch it, I am reminded of how smart producer David Heyman was when he put the first part of this franchise together. First off, he got the right director. Now, Chris Columbus has been depressingly retched since his time with Harry Potter ended but when he started, he was the perfect man for the job. He had a track record of making fun family films that appealed to children and adults alike and even more importantly, he understood how to work with kids. That point can't be underestimated enough especially when you consider that the vast majority of his young cast was completely and totally inexperienced as actors. You can tell while watching "Stone" that the kids had fun working on this film and that youthful energy often covers over the rougher acting moments.

Second, Heyman and Columbus together knocked it out of the park when it came to casting Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the young characters. To cast a group of child actors is exceedingly risky when you've got one film to think about; it's almost impossible when you're looking at seven or eight. You have to hope and pray that as they get older, they continue to improve as actors, they stay out of serious trouble, and they look appealing ten years later. Save for a few blips, the people behind Harry Potter did about as good as you could ever hope. Daniel Radcliffe has embraced the spirit of Harry Potter brilliantly, Rupert Grint has turned himself into the most likely cast member to have a legitimate career after Harry, and Emma Watson, the absolute worst actor in the group in "Stone", has practiced and refined her craft to the point that she rarely has an off-key moment. On top of that, they all seem to handle the incredible pressure that comes with these roles with relative ease and that can never be underestimated. They all have horrible moments in "Stone" of course, but in my book you always see the potential they had.

I'm not sure how many people out there are in the same boat as me, but I went into the first Potter film without having read a single page of the books. My brother, sister, and mom had read them, but I had resisted. For one thing, I wasn't much interested in reading a children's book in my late teen years. For another, this series was far too popular for me. I have a contrarian streak within me, even more so when I was younger, and Pottermania was too much for me to get on board with. My introduction to Harry Potter came on Thanksgiving Day, 2001 when my family, for the first time ever, decided to see a movie on a holiday and this was their choice.

Strangely, I think my appreciation for Stone has grown over the years when it seems like the type of film that would get worse and worse with each viewing. Each time I watch it, I am reminded of how smart producer David Heyman was when he put the first part of this franchise together. First off, he got the right director. Now, Chris Columbus has been depressingly wretched since his time with Harry Potter ended but when he started, he was the perfect man for the job. He had a track record of making fun family films that appealed to children and adults alike and even more importantly, he understood how to work with kids. That point can't be underestimated, especially when you consider that the vast majority of his young cast were completely and totally inexperienced as actors. You can tell while watching Stone that the kids had fun working on this film and that youthful energy often covers over the rougher acting moments.

Second, Heyman and Columbus together knocked it out of the park when it came to casting Harry, Ron, Hermione, and the rest of the young characters. To cast a group of child actors is exceedingly risky when you've got one film to think about; it's almost impossible when you're looking at seven or eight. You have to hope and pray that as they get older, they continue to improve as actors, they stay out of serious trouble, and they’re still appealing on-screen presences ten years later. Save for a few blips, the people behind Harry Potter did about as good as you could ever hope. Daniel Radcliffe has embraced the spirit of Harry Potter brilliantly, Rupert Grint has turned himself into the supporting star, and Emma Watson, the worst actor in the group in Stone, has refined her craft to the point that she rarely has an off-key moment. On top of that, they all seem to handle the incredible pressure that comes with these roles with relative ease and that can never be underestimated. They all have horrible moments in Stone, of course, but in my book, you can always see the potential.

Third, to fill the adult roles, Heyman assembled one of the best ensemble casts in recent memory. Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, and on down the list, the Stone cast list reads like a Who's Who of great British actors and it only grows in the following films. Though their roles are fairly limited early on, these great talents do a remarkable job of balancing the inexperience of the kids and drawing attention to themselves in just the right moments.

Fourth and most importantly, Heyman was smart enough to let the world that J.K. Rowling laid out in the book be the focus of Stone. There are some changes here and there, sure, but excluding cosmetic issues, Heyman and Columbus brought the pages of that book to life and let the audience bask in the experience. I obviously didn't understand that the first time I saw this film but even as a first time Potter-er, I was easily wrapped up in the delicately designed universe that Stone introduced me to. The landscapes, the decor, the meticulously detailed wardrobe and set pieces all join together to create a deliciously inviting atmosphere that is difficult to turn away from. Beyond that, though, this glorious presentation takes all the pressure off of Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, et al. It's clear that Stone isn't about the actors and it's not even really about the characters; it's about the world in which these characters live. It is a perfect introduction to Rowling's vision whether you're a fan of the books or not.

It's obvious that this is not the best of the series. The story is (purposefully and rightly so) much less dynamic and serious as the other films, its actors are rough in some places (Watson and Tom Felton in particular), and the special effects sometimes lag behind. But I always view Stone with perhaps more fondness than I do any of its sequels because it opened me up to a magnificent world I might have missed out on otherwise.

Rank in the "Potter" Film Canon: 6th of 7

Part II - The Chamber of Secrets
Part III - The Prisoner of Azkaban
Part IV - The Goblet of Fire
Part V - The Order of the Phoenix
Part VI - The Half Blood Prince
Part VII - The Deathly Hallows Part I

Blu Ray Review: "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"

With the Great War still holding on to England, Edmund (Skandar Keynes) and Lucy (Georgie Henley) Pevensie have been forced to live with relatives who scarcely notice them. Their situation is made all of the worse by the presence of their whiny, bratty cousin Eustace (Will Poulter) who does nothing but mock them. During one of their many fights, the trio is suddenly sucked into a portrait and find themselves reunited with King Caspian (Ben Barnes) on his ship, the Dawn Treader. The Pevensies (and by default, Eustace) join Caspian's quest to discover the truth behind a mysterious green mist and the dark island from which it comes. The world is a different Narnia than the one they left behind, however, and they encounter many hardships on the road to completing their quest.

Based on C.S. Lewis' beloved series of books, the "Narnia" franchise has been on a roller coaster since the first book, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" was adapted in 2005. "Lion" was well received critically and made an insane amount of money, drawing upon the rabid fan base that had supported the story for years and creating new fans as it went. The second film, "Prince Caspian", was less well received and while it still made a ton of money, it wasn't near the success that the first was. I personally quite enjoyed the first film and DESPISED the second. Seriously, my hatred for "Prince Caspian" cannot be overstated. For this installment, the series jumped ship to a different production company (Fox) and changed directors (Michael Apted). As a fan of the books, I find it sad to say that I expect "Dawn Treader" represents the end of these films in their present form.

First of all, "Dawn Treader" is, in my mind, the weakest source material of all of Lewis' novels. Everything else he wrote for this series is inspired; this one always felt to me like he was spinning his wheels. Second, I think the people behind this film attempted to water down the spiritual implications and allegories that run rampant through the series. In doing so, they created a film that may be too far from the Biblically-based narrative of the book for Christians and yet too close to the realm of spirituality non-Christians. Fence sitting is never a great option. Third, let's just be honest, these kids can't act. When your film franchise depends entirely on the growth and maturity of children, you're risking a great deal in terms of longevity and quality. Sometimes you get it right ("Harry Potter") and sometimes you don't ("Narnia"). Poulter is by a long shot the best actor of the three kids but his character is also one of the most obnoxious in the history of literature and film. Keynes and Henley aren't necessarily painful to watch but they just have no idea what to do with the material they're given. Throughout this film they are routinely flat and one note and personally, I could never get past that.

The effects of "Dawn Treader" are outstanding and you can clearly see that this was where most of the film's $155 million dollar budget went. There's also a lot of adventure and swordplay here so it doesn't get boring like "Caspian" did. But these qualities just don't overshadow the film's deficiencies. It's not really a bad film and I'd watch it ten more times before I endured "Caspian" again but there are not enough strengths to recommend it, either. That's a real shame to me because Lewis' series is worthy of being put to the screen and could make for some great films. But it's hard to imagine Fox, Disney, or anyone else continuing to throw $150+ million into a series that struggles to break even domestically.

Grade: C+

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

In the first paragraph of my theatrical reviews, I usually try to find a personal connection to the movie I’m writing about. In this case, however, I’ve decided that since there’s no way a human could connect to “Transformers 3” that I’m going to give a couple of brief disclaimers. One, I really enjoyed the first “Transformers.” I find it to be fun, if cheesy, summer blockbuster fun. Second, I don’t hate “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” Every year there’s a film that it becomes sport to dog pile on and in my opinion, 2009’s Dog Pile Film was “Revenge of the Fallen.” Third, this review will have more to do with Michael Bay than anything else. Fourth, I am going to make a sports analogy in the concluding paragraph. Apologies in advance. Finally, the screenwriter for this film is a dude named Ehren Kruger. I say that now because for the rest of this piece, I will write as if Bay wrote the script himself because I have to believe Kruger is nothing more than a Bay puppet. No other conclusion can be drawn from this movie. So without further ado, we move on to the plot summary for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

At the open, “Dark” tells us that an Autobot ship crashed on the moon in the late 50s/early 60s and that this was the real cause for the Space Race between the USA and the USSR. This sets the stage for the present day when Optimus Prime, unknowingly through the manipulation of the Decepticons, finds out about this ship and makes a trip to the Moon to bring back the near-deceased body of its pilot, Sentinel Prime, and the cargo, called the Space Bridge, that could create a terrible weapon. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is floundering in the real world and unable to find a job, though he has found a new supermodel girlfriend, Carly (played by real life supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley). Everything gets crazy when Sentinel turns on the Autobots and forms an alliance with the Decepticons, then forces the US government to essentially deport Optimus and his pals on a high tech spaceship that is (of course) shot down by those backstabbing Decepticons, who then begin the process of taking of the earth and using the Space Bridge to bring their home planet directly into the earth’s atmosphere. With little hope and seemingly no help from their former allies, a small force of guerrilla troops and Sam sneak into the remains of Chicago, now the Decepticons home base, to force a dramatic battle for the salvation of the planet.

Here’s the thing about “Dark of the Moon”: it’s really two, if not three, different movies jumbled together into one massive compilation. You’ve got a Michael Bay action movie mixed with Michael Bay’s version of a quirky (?) romantic comedy, mixed with an alternative reality element that plays out like “Oliver Stone Does His Best Michael Bay Impression.” In all honesty, I should probably give this film three different grades for the different parts that come together to make a semi-whole movie. The alternative history segments are by far the smallest portion of the film and are, perhaps, the best parts. There’s a serious “JFK” feel to this plotline and I bought what I was being sold. The final 60 to 75 minutes is almost entirely a CGI/FX smorgasbord that is chock full of the dramatic moments, larger-than-life explosions, and awesome fight scenes that make up most of the trailers. This segment is exactly what you’d expect from Bay and he doesn’t disappoint, at least from a visual standpoint. The first hour, however, which mostly revolves around the tumultuous relationship between Sam and Carly, is literally one of the absolute worst hours in the history of modern cinema. I don’t think I’ve EVER walked out on a film in a theater; I can hardly bring myself to turn off a DVD as I always want to know the end. At about the 35 minute mark of “Dark of the Moon”, I was just about ready to throw my streak out the window. This awkward and frustrating combination, in my mind, illustrates Bay’s entire career.

I thought long and hard about what to write concerning Bay. I don’t want to be overly critical of the guy because I’ve always said that the first goal of the movie industry is to entertain and if you’re into action movies in any way, you can’t say you’re not entertained by what Bay does. At the same time, however, you can’t really say Bay is a good director despite his long string of mega-hit films and the billions of dollars he’s raked in over the last decade and a half. Likewise, he seems to understand audiences and marketing in a way that many filmmakers do not; he grants a lot of interviews, puts together killer trailers, and seems like the most likely director to pop up in a Saturday Night Live Digital Short. But on the other hand, when it comes down to making a quality film, I just don’t think the dude gets it. Whether or not a person “gets it” is a difficult concept to convey but that’s the best way I can put it. Somehow he’s tapped into the portion of the worldwide audience, and even the part of the human brain, that wants to see some crap blow up but has no idea how to reach the intellectual side of everything. I don’t even think that he’s ignoring that side of things or that he doesn’t care about it; I just think he can’t see past buildings exploding and muscled up guys shooting guns. He wants to, and the convoluted plot twists here puts that desire on display but he can’t get there. He is a confusing, paradoxical man and his movies are almost all the same way.

No attention whatsoever is paid to dialogue (absolutely atrocious) or character development (all of these actors will be pigeon-holed by this franchise) and yet the storyline for “Dark of the Moon” is far too complex for its own good. I don’t know how it’s possible to be both overly complex and oppressively simple but Bay manages to pull that off quite spectacularly. All of these twists and turns do nothing but set up a number of bad clichés while further pushing Bay’s film further and further away from his comfort zone, which is what you get in the last hour. Plot wise, “Dark” felt to me like Bay had a big notepad full of ideas and on the front, he wrote “Transformers 3” then slapped it down on the table and told his puppet that every idea had to make it into the finished script regardless of whether or not it fits together. The motives of the Decepticons seem to change by the minute and none of it really makes sense. For example, at one time it is stated that the Decepticons want to use us as slaves to rebuild their world. Fine. Then in the very next scene, the evil robots are roaming through the streets shooting humans with laser beams that turn their targets into piles of burning ash. These two concepts don’t go hand-in-hand, Michael! If they want slaves they’ll imprison us, not eviscerate us. Come on, man.

For me the absolute worst part of the film (and a perfect illustration for how the storyline was forged haphazardly from a shoebox full of cliché action movie ideas) comes just before the final battle when Sam prepared to head off into the desolate Chicago landscape to track down the love of his life and rescue her. Moved by his determination, his Army pal Epps (Tyrese Gibson), says something to the effect of, “You’ll need this” and hands him a Glock. A Glock! The man is about to head off into a wasteland filled with falling buildings and burning cars, not to mention a fleet of alien robotic giants who are armed with lasers that can instantly reduce you to bones and ashes. But don’t worry, dude! Epps just gave you a single, solitary, low caliber pistol that holds between 10 and 15 rounds of ammo! You’ll be fine. It’s the stupidest thing that could possibly happen at this point and yet, right after this happens, the film totally takes off and becomes a wonderland of FX gooey goodness.

I could go on and on about the shortcomings and successes of this film but I’ve already rambled far longer than any of you will read. In short, Michael Bay is Mike D’antoni, head coach of the New York Knicks. D’antoni has a genius mind for offensive basketball and has created a system that guarantees exciting, high scoring games. But he has no idea how to manage a roster, can’t motivate his players, and his teams never do well in the playoffs. That’s Michael Bay. He has a great mind for entertaining, full octane action and he puts that on display time and time again. And yet he has no understanding of knowledge, he constantly wastes his cast (incredible actors abound in this movie and none of them, repeat, NONE OF THEM, are used correctly), and his finished product is always a disjointed mess that garners more hate than love but always makes a ton of cash. I guess I should just learn to appreciate Bay for the action sequence genius that he is but I just wish that one time he’d put some thought into the other components of film and stop wasting my time.

First Half Grade: F
Second Half Grade: B
Cumulative Grade: C

Aren’t we at a point where Autobots should be considered a real word by Microsoft?
Brian

Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2011 Part II

Every year in January, I write a column pinpointing the 10 films I'm most looking forward to in the next 12 months. This year I changed it up and split the column into January through June and July through December. This was done in part because after the abortion that was the 2010 movie calendar, I was overly excited about pretty much everything that was to open this year and in part because in January, no one really knows for sure what Award Season will bring. I'm certain there will be a "King's Speech" somewhere along the line, an indie-type film I hadn't really heard of comes along late and sets the world on fire so this list is far from the authority. But still, I know much more about what to expect from the latter months now, at the end of June, than I did at the beginning of January. So without further adieu, and bearing in mind my propensity for getting worked up over sci-fi, superheroes, and general nerdery, I give you my top 10 most anticipated films for the rest of the year.

Honorable Mention:
Captain America: The First Avenger (July 22) - Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones
Despite the fact that it doesn't quite crack the Top Ten, I'll definitely be in line at midnight for the "Captain" and I'm digging the visuals in the trailer. Not sure I trust Evans, though.

Another Earth (July 22) - Brit Marling, William Mapother

High concept sci-fi mixed with a tragic love story. I've been back and forth on what my level of interest is here but I saw a trailer earlier this week and my interest is supremely piqued. Doesn't make the list because it'll probably be limited which means I won't see it until February. Blerg.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (December 23) - Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer

Could be the biggest hit of the season though it's always hard to tell with an R rated film. The book is excellent; an incredible read and a smashing success that just about every human read. That said, however, the book was disturbingly heavy for me. After finishing, I wanted to begin the sequel immediately but my mind needed a break. That break has now lasted six months and approximately ten books. Can't imagine that the film will be any less engrossing and disturbing.

10. Apollo 18 (September 2)
A fauxumentary (don't like calling these films mockumentaries as they're not funny and therefore not mocking) in the vein of "Blair Witch Project" that focuses on the Apollo 18 mission to the moon that didn't happen but for the sake of this movie did happen and the crew was attacked by aliens. I'm really enjoying this run of low budget, high concept sci-fi films that we're getting these days as a result of the success of films like "District 9." Totally in for this.

9. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (December 16) - Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner

Look, I know I probably shouldn't be excited about a fourth "Mission Impossible" film but the trailer has reignited the odd affection I have for this franchise (except the second one which deserves to have all copies rounded up and burned "Fahrenheit 451" style). They're ridiculous, of course, but they're fun and relatively intelligent while being ridiculous and I can get into that. And I'm very interested to see if director Brad Bird ("The Incredibles", "Up") can bring it in a live action film like he can in an animated one.

8. Contagion (September 9) - Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard, Jude Law
This is the part of the column where I get excited about a drama no one knows much about and by the time it actually opens, I don't care anymore. I just can't change my ways. "Contagion" is about (duh) the outbreak of a terrible disease and the team of doctors that are brought in to fight it. Aside from the Damon connection (who ALWAYS gets me to the theater no matter what), this film has a dynamic director (Steven Soderbergh) and a killer cast (John Hawkes, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Bryan Cranston in addition to those listed above) and I'm really intrigued.

7. Crazy, Stupid, Love. (July 29) - Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Emma Stone
After his wife leaves him, a middle age man (Carrell) seeks the counsel of a womanizing dating expert (Gosling) who has problems of his own. This has a great cast and seems to bring a healthy amount of dark humor to a tough narrative. I also really like that Carrell apparently insisted upon bringing in Gosling despite his relative lack of experience in the comedic realm. Could be an awesome combo.

6. Cowboys and Aliens (July 29) - Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde
It's an action movie that features...um...cowboys and aliens. Do you need another reason to enjoy this movie? Yes? How about a director (Jon Favreau) who is on the cusp of earning my unending trust? I'm sure this will be insanely over the top but I'm really, really excited about it.

5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (December 16) - Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Jared Harris
I know nothing of the plot and I don't want that to change. I looovvvvvveeee the first "Holmes" film. The chemistry between RDJ and director Guy Ritchie is exquisite and the mix of action, caper, and action movie fun is absolutely brilliant in my mind. ("Biggest Celebrity Crush of my Life" Rachel McAdams doesn't hurt, either.) I'm a little worried that this was rushed considering a sequel wasn't definite until after the original became a smash hit and I'm slightly disappointed that the villain, Moriarty, isn't being played by a bigger name (Jared Harris) but that won't keep me away.

4. We Bought a Zoo (December 23) - Matt Damon, Scarlette Johansson, Elle Fanning
The first film (excluding the Pearl Jam doc that's also due later this year) from Cameron Crowe in six years, "Zoo" focuses on a family that purchases and reopens a shoddy zoo. I've already spoke of my love for Damon so let me now say that Crowe is an immediate draw for me. Aside from "Vanilla Sky" (horrible and overambitious) I like every single thing the guy has ever done. If there was no such thing as "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Star Wars," there's a chance that "Almost Famous" would be my favorite film of all time. I also may be the only person besides Cameron himself who actually likes "Elizabethtown." In a year that (so far) finds itself lacking in Academy Award level films, this screams "Awards!" and I'm extremely excited about it.

3. The Muppets (November 23) - Jason Segal, Amy Adams
Even without the AWESOME fake-trailer marketing campaign "Muppets" has undergone, I would be chomping at the bit to see this. If you don't like muppets you're not human. Period.

2. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (November 18) - Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong

During the Cold War, an aging spy (Oldman) is called out of retirement to track down a Soviet mole within MI6. I'm not familiar with the book nor the British TV series this is based off of but if the plotline and the awesome surrounding cast wasn't enough to get me interested, Oldman in a starring role is a surefire way to get me to the theater. Throughout this column I have resisted the urge to refer to RDJ and Matt Damon as my favorite actor because, while both of them are incredible and I value their contributions to film, when he's on his game and in a worthy role, NO ONE is better than Oldman. Absolutely cannot wait for this one.

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (July 15) - Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson

Never really any doubt as to where this one would rank on the anticipation scale. I've already bought tickets for a midnight screening and my little group of nerds and I are currently working our way through the ultimate Blu Ray editions of each film. No fictional universe aside from "Star Wars" has ever sucked me in the way the Potter world has, not even Tolkein's. I love these books and these films more than I love some family members. The only question is whether or not I'll be able to control my emotions or if I'll end up weeping like a small child by the end. 

That about does it. I'm looking forward to the surprises that will no doubt pop up along the way but these are the ones that have my attention right now. Feel free to share your own choices!

DVD Review - "Cedar Rapids"

Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) is an equally loveable and naive insurance salesman from the tiny town of Brown Valley, Wisconsin. After the death of his company's top salesman, Tim is sent to his first insurance convention in the thriving metropolis of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. At this convention he is to deliver a speech which will earn his company the coveted Two Diamond Award and thereby secure his own job and the jobs of his coworkers. Cedar Rapids, however, turns out to be a much more distracting place than Tim could have ever imagined and soon he is engaging in all manner of shenanigans with Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly), the notorious black sheep of the Midwestern insurance game. Can Tim get his act together in time to save his company or will the temptations of life on the road get the better of him?

At its very core, "Cedar Rapids" is basically a coming of age film that focuses on the middle years of life rather than the formative teen years. It's quite quirky as well and as such, the comedy is less laugh-out-loud funny and more snicker to oneself. That's not necessarily a bad thing by any means, it just caught me off guard.  I expected this film to run closer to "The 40 Year Old Virgin" than anything else; instead, it's much more like "Up in the Air" done as a comedy. Helms does a good job of creating a relatively realistic vision of Tim Lippe. He's slightly overdone at times but for the most part, you can believe that a 35 year old who'd never left Brown Valley, Wisconsin would act the way he does when exposed to the great, wide world. Helms is always charming in his very dorky, unassuming way and this is no exception. His surrounding cast, particularly Reilly (always great in my book) and a much-more-appealing-than-ever-before Anne Heche, play off of his charm to create an entertaining crew of characters that I enjoyed watching.

What keeps "Cedar Rapids" from being a high quality indie comedy is its lack of heart. I've railed on and on in the past about heart and emotion in film so I won't go too far here. But the truth is, there's not a whole lot to connect the audience to the characters in this film. It's a fun story and I enjoyed the quirks but "Rapids" could have been, and probably should have been, more heartfelt. At the same time, it doesn't have the comedic teeth of other recent R rated comedies. As a result, this film doesn't really have a true identity and struggles to keep its own pace throughout the whole runtime. In short, it is flawed but worth a viewing.

Grade: B

DVD Review - "The Company Men"

As the recession deepens, GTX, primarily a recreational company, finds itself on the precipice of falling apart. To keep themselves afloat (read: keep the CEO rich), they begin laying off employees. First, we see Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck), a sales executive, get the axe. Then Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper), a man who worked his way up from the factory floor. And finally, Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones), who was once the second most important person in the company. "Company Men" displays each man's struggle to put their lives back together in a job pool filled with overqualified competitors.

"Company Men" obviously tells a highly relevant story. The problem is in the way the story is told. It's not that it's poorly made or even boring as I thought it might end up being. But there's no power or emotional connection within the movie; it simply is. "Up in the Air" illustrated how heartbreaking and real a film about job less can be. I didn't expect "Company Men" to be up to that standard (because "Up in the Air" is an incredible film in my book) but I did expect it to make an attempt to suck me into the narrative. Even a cheesy or cliche emotional pull would have been nice in some ways because at least then the struggle of the characters would have mattered to me on some level. All of the performances are solid, especially that of Jones, but their characters are all weak or underdeveloped. I just didn't root for Walker or Woodward the way that I honestly thought I would. "Company Men" is also a bit too long and drags in places. There's a valid, worthwhile movie in here somewhere but unfortunately it just can't quite come to the surface as presently constructed.

Grade: B-

"Super 8"

There are very few names in Hollywood that garner my attention like Steven Spielberg. It doesn’t matter that his last film (“Indiana Jones and the Murder of My Childhood”) was stunningly bad or that he’s attached his seal of approval to lackluster blockbusters (“Transformers”). In my mind, he will forever be the guy who brought me “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Jurassic Park”, and “Saving Private Ryan” among a whole host of other excellent films. I imagine I will always buy stock in what he’s selling. Over the last couple of years, J.J. Abrams has been rapidly working his way toward Spielbergian territory. The work he did in the early seasons of “Lost,” his devotion to attention in “Star Trek” and a number of other high quality projects have led me to trust Abrams almost unconditionally. I love the guy and maybe more importantly, I love what he represents: at his core, Abrams is a nerd who likes nerdy things; he just happens to have millions of dollars at his disposal to bring his nerdy ideas to life. With those thoughts in mind, you can probably guess my level of interest in “Super 8”, a movie produced by Spielberg and directed by Abrams.

In the summer of 1979, a group of young teenagers gather at the edge of their small Ohio town to create a horror film. Shooting with a handheld 8mm camera at a nearby train depot to add some “production value” to their film, the kids suddenly find themselves in the middle of a harrowing accident when a truck derails a heavily loaded train. They consider themselves lucky but then strange things begin happening. Pets run away; the government floods the area with super secretive soldiers; power outages become routine; and then people start disappearing. All of this comes to a head when two members of the group, Joe (Joel Courtney) and Charles (Riley Griffiths), review the footage shot on that fateful night and catch glimpse of an alien predator that was locked away inside the train. With their neighborhood a war zone and one of their number missing, our young heroes must find a way to save their town, and a few lives in the process.

“Super 8” is like a great recipe that comes together to create an incredible sci-fi entrée. Take one cup of “Stand By Me” and mix it with a cup of “E.T.” if E.T. wanted to rip your throat out and eat your dog. Stir in a tablespoon of “The Goonies” and season with a dash of “Cloverfield.” Top it off with just a hint of “District 9” and then, if you’re really brave, add a touch of early Shyamalan. As a friend of mine said, even if you didn’t know who made “Super 8”, you would guess that it is the love child of Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams. That assessment is spot on as this film draws liberally from the great sci-fi and coming of age films of that past. In no way, however, do I mean that as a negative. Abrams displays great respect and undying affection for these films, making “Super 8” a terrific homage to his influences rather than a rip-off.

Everything about “Super 8” is a throwback, in its own way a slap in the face to the Michael Bays of the world. It is simple but refined, all about the little things, rather than the spectacle and yet the train derailment will undoubtedly end up being one of the very best FX sequences of the year. Camera angles are used to simultaneously hide the alien and hammer home the terror that our characters are going through with an excellent mix of wide shots and close ups. The use of light and natural sounds add organic atmosphere to the film in a Coen-esque way. Prop placement, too, adds ambiance in a subtle, smart way; it isn’t overdone but there’s more than enough to keep nerds like me happy. Abrams’ vision is wide and “Super 8” takes on a number of different (but cooperative) storylines but he, and therefore his film, never loses sight of the end goal. He captures the respective essences of the formative teen years and the duality of suspense and thrill that you get in the best alien/monster films. “Super 8” never suffers from an identity crisis and the blending of its two branches is nearly seamless.

All of that work would be wasted, however, without a great cast which fortunately (and perhaps surprisingly), “Super 8” has. There are no real names associated with this cast but as I imagine Abrams planned, that only heightens the realistic feel of the film. I am always nervous about a film that puts child actors in important roles (Jake Lloyd, anybody?). This particular group assuaged those fears almost immediately. As Joe, son of the town deputy and the glue that holds the group together, Joel Courtney is delightfully honest and compelling. He seems like a real kid, not an adult playing a kid and not a kid playing adult. Elle Fanning, forever connected to Joe through tragic circumstances, commands attention in every scene and displays her true potential. Riley Griffiths, the obligatory tubby kid with a foul mouth, is somehow refreshingly unique despite taking up perhaps the most cliché role in the film. These kids have excellent chemistry with one another in a way that truly reminded me of “Stand By Me.” In addition, the adults surrounding them really compliment the kids. Ron Eldard is one of those actors who never get big roles but whom I always gravitate to when he appears on screen. (I call this group the Barry Pepper All Stars.) Kyle Chandler is perhaps the most recognizable face and in a way, he’s just playing his character from the “Friday Night Lights” TV show, only he’s got a gun and a badge instead of a whistle and a ball. During the few scenes that he’s asked to carry, particularly one in which he exquisitely displays the pressure he is under both at work and at home, and another in which he offers simple and genuine forgiveness to Eldard’s character provide sincere weight and depth to the film’s more dramatic moments. These are understated, excellent performances across the board.

The final 20 minutes of “Super 8” and the reveal of the alien are a bit off; the last act doesn’t quite measure up to the expectations laid out in the first two. But for me that’s a small issue when put up against the serious awesomeness puts on the table to that point. “Super 8” is gloriously entertaining and as honest as sci-fi can be. It is nostalgic brilliance that I absolutely LOVED and I for the first time in a while, I can’t wait to get back into the theater and see it again.

Grade: A

Spielbergian will be a word by 2025,
Brian

DVD Review: - "Catfish"

In 2007, New York photographer Nev Schulman began receiving paintings of his pictures done by a young girl named Abby who lived in Minnesota. Nev begins an odd friendship with Abby, her mother Angela, and eventually Abby's sister, Megan, communicating by email, Facebook, and phone. Angela claims Abby's paintings have made her a local celebrity and the partnership Nev and Abby have seems to be potentially profitable for both of them. Before long, Nev is in a long distance relationship with Megan and fully integrated into the life of this little family. Some strange events, however, lead him to believe that this family isn't all they claim to be and he begins to dig into the stories they've told him, all while his roommate and filmmaker Rel Schulman rolls tape.

***WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD***

When Nev and Rel get to Minnesota, they find Angela to be a lonely woman who lives vicariously through many fake identities on Facebook. She has a daughter named Abby but Abby shows no indication of any interest in painting. She also has a husband, two stepsons with severe handicaps, and a step daughter named Megan who is somehow estranged from the family. Unable to handle the mediocre circumstances of her real life, Angela created an entirely new world with multiple cell phones, stolen pictures, and a host of Facebook profiles. It is one of the saddest existences that you can imagine in our modern age.

I don't really know how to classify "Catfish" or how to evaluate it. I guess I could include it in the Documentary Project but I don't believe it to be a true documentary. How much of this film is real and how much is fallacy is truthfully known only to the filmmakers but there's no question in my mind that some, if not most, of "Catfish" is play for the camera. From a film standpoint, it's more than a decent effort. The camerawork is good and the narrative is undeniably compelling and entertaining. But documentaries are held to a different standard than other films; they must also provide the truth (or at least some version of the truth) of a real life story. And where "Catfish" ceases to be truth is unclear.

Here's what I believe. I believe that at some point before the cameras started rolling, Angela took a liking to Nev and his photos and sent him a painting or two, posing as Abby. I believe Nev was intrigued by this family and began a correspondence with them. And I believe within a matter of days he guessed what was happening and decided he was sitting on a goldmine. Perhaps he and Rel discovered the full truth before the camera was turned on or perhaps they really did uncover new facts as they went along, but regardless, this guy knew what was happening long before they set out to make a "documentary." There are far too many holes in their story to believe that two seemingly intelligent and technologically savvy New Yorkers did absolutely no research, no background checks on Angela's story, despite the fact that Nev was entering into a relationship with Megan. It doesn't hold up, at least not in this day and age; maybe at the beginning of the internet era but not in 2007, not in the Google age, and certainly not for these guys.

And in my opinion, the way that they exposed this poor woman, the sly way in which they simultaneously humiliated and flattered her, makes Nev and Rel utterly repulsive human beings. "Catfish" is exploitation of the highest order. I think the worst part is a scene in which, after confirming their suspicions about the family, Nev, Rel, and their pal Henry put on a show for the camera (or perhaps their own consciences) talking about how they felt the need to confront Angela about her lies "for her own good" but to do so in a way that wouldn't humiliate her. The slick, shrewd manner in which they play these lines off positively oozes with a demented tone of getting away with something, of pulling a fast one on a parent or teacher. It's a twisted, even sadistic game Nev and Rel play in "Catfish" and it was enough to make my stomach turn. I must give them credit for making their film so engrossing as to keep me (and I would guess many others) around despite the nausea their actions created, but at the end of the day, these guys would be ashamed of themselves if they weren't arrogant, soulless jackholes.

Grade If Authentic: B+
Grade As Is: F

"Green Lantern"

If you go to the theater as often as I do, you develop a sixth sense called Trailer Interpretation. For me, trailer watching is more than just good or bad, see it or skip it; each three minute preview is an opportunity to determine what type of expectations I should have for a given film. I look for faces I recognize beyond the third or fourth billed actor, names in the credits who I trust or distrust, jokes that come from more than one person, and whether action sequences fall more into the gritty, realistic camp or the CGI, over-the-top camp. I’ve turned Trailer Interpretation into a personal art form, allowing it to become a voice in the back of my head that only talks during the ten minutes leading up to a new movie. As Jiminy Cricket is to Pinocchio, so this voice is to me and the voice is rarely wrong. Sometimes, however, I refuse to listen to the voice. I make excuses based on an actor I like or mythology that interests me or even just the fact that I like a certain genre of film (in this case, the comic book/superhero genre) and I ignore the warnings that the voice so desperately whispers in my ear. And that, dear readers, is why I occasionally find myself in a theater at midnight, watching a pile of rubbish like “Green Lantern” and expecting something good when I should have known better.

“Green Lantern” tells the story of Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds), a hotshot test pilot with a scarred psyche and a history of screwing up anything good that comes his way. After ruining a new jet and infuriating his boss/childhood pal/former girlfriend Carol (Blake Lively), Hal is suddenly enveloped by a green light and whisked a hundred miles away to an alien crash site. There he meets Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), a mighty warrior and member of the intergalactic peace keeping core known as the Green Lanterns, who happens to be on the verge of death after an encounter with a serious enemy known as Parallax (Clancy Brown). Abin Sur gives Hal his magical ring just before he dies. Shortly afterward, he finds himself on the distant planet of Oa, the home of the Lanterns, where he learns that the ring can essentially form anything that he can imagine. He is trained briefly by Sinestro (Mark Strong) before deciding that he doesn’t have what it takes to be a Lantern. Meanwhile back on earth, biology professor Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) has discovered Abin Sur’s body and has been possessed by the essence of Parallax, forcing Hal to reconsider his rejection of the Lantern Core and fight to save his home planet.

There is a great deal more to the plot of this film but it is so convoluted and jumbled together that I honestly didn’t even know what to include in my summary and what to keep out. “Green Lantern” tries to cover way too much ground in one film and yet at the same time, it fails to really go anywhere. It’s like the on screen personification of buying a big, expensive off road vehicle and then getting it stuck in the first mud pit you come across; sure, your ride looks nice and all but you’re still stuck in the mud spinning your wheels. It’s quite a mess, really. “Lantern” is written like an over-extended TV pilot which makes a lot of sense considering the lead screenwriters (Greg Berlanti and Michael Green) have spent their careers writing for low rent TV shows. The settings jump from place to place with great abruptness, there are plot holes roughly the size of 18 wheelers, and a miserable flashback that is supposed to illustrates Hal’s haunted past but really does nothing more than make the audience groan. “Lantern” is RIPE with clichés and its predictability is only bested by the cringe-worthy dialogue. Gems like, “The superhero always gets the girl!” and, “The mask thing is pretty cool” litter the landscape of this film. Berlanti and Green should never be allowed near a film again. Director Martin Campbell (“Casino Royale”) does nothing to help the situation, continually allowing the movie to drift aimlessly through its thoroughly uninspiring narrative. I had hoped Campbell would bring some grit to the film and keep it from becoming overly kitschy but that hope turned out to be ill advised. This movie doesn’t even have the decency to be campy; it treads so heavily as to become cheesy, one step up (or down) from a Saturday morning cartoon.

From an acting standpoint, “Lantern” is a wreck. It’s all about Reynolds, obviously, but he struggles to hold on to the spotlight. I’m a huge fan of Reynolds and last year’s “Buried” proves that his range of talent stretches far beyond comedic roles. But in what should have been his finest hour, Reynolds comes across as unappealing and lacking in charisma, a combination I didn’t think was possible going in. His counterparts, meanwhile, are given next to nothing to work with and all of them end up with performances that they’ll wish they could leave off their resumes. These are all fine actors but if you’d never heard of any of them and I showed you this film, first you’d say they were all community theater actors, and then you’d punch me in the face for making you watch “Green Lantern.” The poor use of this cast and the apparent lack of motivation falls squarely on the shoulders of Campbell. Even Sarsgaard, one of the most professional actors of his generation, seems completely out of sync and wholly un-invested. His “villain” may be the worst aspect of this entire film. As any superhero movie fan will tell you, a compelling villain is just as important, if not more important, than a compelling protagonist.

All of that brings us to the CGI and the special effects which are, in all truthfulness, horrid. HORRID. “Lantern” looks like a video game and in no way do I intend that to be a compliment. It appeared to me that many of the effects were done simply to show off the technology that Campbell had at his disposal with no thought given as to whether or not it should be done. CGI should be used as an aid to the movie making process, a supplement when a filmmaker’s imagination dreams up something that can’t be done in real life. It should NOT be used in place of stunts, costumes, and camerawork. Even the suit is needlessly computer generated and it looks bloody awful on top of that. “Lantern” reminded me all too much of “Phantom Menace” which threw out all of the incredible work George Lucas had done in the first three “Star Wars” films in favor of lifeless CGI. And that’s exactly what “Lantern” is: lifeless. There is so much to work with, so much that could have been, but instead the end product belongs in the pantheon of bad superhero films along with “Daredevil,” “HULK,” and “Spiderman 3.”

Grade: D

SAAARRRRRRRSSSSSSGAAAARRRRRRRRRD,
Brian

"X-Men: First Class"

Like most kids, I was a big fan of superheroes growing up. Batman was my favorite but I had admiration for all the standard comic book legends and had the action figures to prove it. My superhero fascination kicked into high gear, however, when FOX started running a Saturday morning cartoon called “X-Men.” It was a life changing series for a kid who loved superheroes but had never really read a comic book. Much more mature and well-written than the average cartoon, it was the thin note of darkness that made “X-Men” so engrossing for me. These guys ran in a much more complex world than Superman or Batman did at the time and it was certainly a far cry from the cheesiness of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.” I quickly kicked “TMNT” to the curb (sorry, Raphael) and dove full boar into the “X-Men” universe. As such, I love the first two films, tolerate the third because I can’t bring myself to hate it, and was more than a little upset by “Wolverine.” I confess that last entry dulled my interest in the franchise and I really only gave “First Class” a passing glance every now and then as news of its production hit the internet. But as the film’s debut got closer and closer, I found myself unable to forgo my typical anticipation and expecting a great deal. I wasn’t disappointed.

“First Class” is an origin film that tells the story of how Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), aka Professor X and Magneto, came to be the almost unwilling enemies they are in the other “X-Men” films. Set in the early 60s, we are first introduced to the radically different worlds that Charles and Eric inhabit. Charles, an intellectual prodigy who uses his abilities to further his career, is a product of unending prosperity and opportunity. Eric, meanwhile, developed his abilities under the pressure of Nazi scientist Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), whose sick methods fueled the rage and pain that already ran through a young victim of the Holocaust. While teaming with the US government to track down Shaw, Charles and his pseudo-sister Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) come in contact with Eric who had just been foiled in his attempt to kill Shaw who has become a highly powerful mutant even compared to Charles and Eric. The two men become fast friends and with the help of a mutant-tracking invention designed by Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), who will later become Beast, they begin recruiting and training a team of young mutants. Their solidarity, however, is constantly tested as Charles pushes for peace and integration into the human society while Eric would have the group head off another Holocaust by exerting their dominance now. These differences are briefly put aside when the team learns that Shaw is pushing the US and the USSR into nuclear war via the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the two nations head toward World War III, Charles and Eric take on a joint mission to stop the planet’s destruction and kill Shaw.

There is a TON to like about “First Class” but let’s get two small complaints out of the way up front. First, if you’re an “X-Men” comic book lover, you’re probably not going to be a fan of this movie’s narrative. I don’t know all there is to know about the comics but my brother does and he was more than a little hacked off concerning the disregard for the already-established storyline. Second, there is a real clash of attitudes within “First Class.” It is at times disturbingly dark and at others almost overly campy. In one of the opening scenes we see Shaw murder Eric’s mother right in front of him. Later on, we get not one but two 80s-style montage scenes and another in which the young X-Men come up with their hero names. As a friend of mine said, it’s like director Matthew Vaughn went for a fun, campy comic book movie then realized what a goldmine of intense, dark action he had when he got into editing. I would argue that the real attempt was to illustrate the difference between the worldview’s of Charles and Eric but there’s no question that the clash is a bit of a detriment to the overall flow of the film. It’s less an identity crisis and more the on-screen personification of two roommates whose differences boil slightly under the surface but who like each other too much to let the conflict leak out.

That said, whether you’re looking from an action, comic book, or prequel standpoint, “First Class” is an extremely high-quality piece of work. Each of the actors do an admirable job of conveying the mixed emotions these mutants would go through. McAvoy and Fassbender are the keys, obviously, (more to come on these two), but most of the others, including Rose Byrne (Moira MacTaggert), Hoult, Caleb Landry Jones (Banshee), and Lucas Till (Havok), do their part as well. Bacon and Lawrence, meanwhile, are both magnificent. Shaw has to be the embodiment of abject evil in order for Magneto to become who we know he is in the later films and while that’s not an easy task, Bacon comes through with one of his best performances in years. Likewise, Lawrence is stunningly brilliant. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: no matter what she’s doing, no matter how important or unimportant her place is in a scene, Lawrence ALWAYS manages to draw your eyes to her, even when she’s masked in a CGI blue scaly skin. In many ways Mystique is the starting point for the battle between Charles and Eric and Lawrence displays the weight of that battle with pinpoint accuracy. I cannot wait to see what this girl does in “The Hunger Games” films.

The mix of fiction and history is inspired and brings just enough realism so that surface objections to the alternative history can be satisfied but not so much as to delve into the obvious absurdity of a bunch of mutants preventing the escalation of the Cold War. (There’s a stroke of genius in that mix that might go unnoticed but I was highly impressed.) The dialogue is all at once simple and yet very smart and witty. It is a balance that should make “First Class” approachable to kids and adults alike which can be a big key for summer blockbusters. And the action sequences are dynamic and completely satisfying. One scene in particular, when Shaw and his cronies attack the mutant complex, is incredible.

But as I said above, the real meat of “First Class” is in the performances of McAvoy and Fassbender. I’m not a big fan of McAvoy and I admit I was truly disappointed when he was cast as Professor X. I’ve just never understood his charm. I do now. Xavier from “First Class” begins s a much less serious, intense character than he does in the original “X-Men” movies and McAvoy embraces that beautifully. The gradual change in his demeanor from carefree would-be ladies’ man to begrudging leader of a mutant resistance is much more harrowing and painful than you might expect and McAvoy absolutely nails it. Even more impressive, however, is the powerful performance that Fassbender puts out. Eric (or Magneto) is the PERFECT example of the tiny differences between a hero and villain. A different choice here or there and Magneto would be a great asset on Xavier’s team. Instead, the torment he underwent as a child and the anger that has burned through his soul leads him down a darker path. But the thing with Magneto is, he thinks he’s right, that he’s doing what needs to be done to preserve his race. That’s absolutely crucial to this story. If Fassbender plays Magneto as evil or if he doesn’t seem conflicted, this entire franchise falls apart. Magneto has to be torn by his actions, he has to struggle with morality, and he has to hate himself for fighting against his best friend. Fassbender displays all of that and then some, creating an unforgettable on-screen experience. In the pantheon of great comic book film characters, this version of Magneto is right up there with Downey’s Tony Stark, Ledger’s Joker, and any other superstar you can think of. It may not have started out this way but by the end of “First Class”, it is clear that this movie belongs to Fassbender. He almost singlehandedly propels the film to greatness when it probably should have been just “pretty good.”

The finished product is a proud achievement in the canon of superhero/comic book films. “First Class” wipes the palate of the less-than-stellar “Wolverine” (though Hugh Jackman does have an AWESOME cameo) and sets the stage wonderfully for whatever the franchise has in store for us in the future. It’s a film that nerds and casual movie goers of all ages should enjoy and represents the standard that we can only hope the rest of this summer’s movies can follow.

Grade: A-

Gambit was always my favorite X-man,
Brian

Blu Ray Review: "The Switch"

Wally (Jason Bateman) and Cassidy (Jennifer Aniston) are best friends with a brief dating history in their distant past. With their younger days waning, Cassidy decides she's going to have a baby through artificial insemination and evens asks for Wally's help in picking the donor, a guy named Roland (Patrick Wilson). At the insemination party (I'm not making that up), Wally gets drunk and accidentally flushes the sample and makes the brash decision to replace it with his own. He, of course, forgets that this happened and goes on with his life after Cassidy and her newborn move to Minnesota. A few years later, however, she moves home and Wally begins to see similarities between himself and the child, Sebastian (Bryce Robinson), and this forces an awkward confrontation between old friends.

"The Switch" essentially comes down to a clash between the what happens on screen and what takes place behind the camera. Off screen, this movie is an absolute, unmitigated disaster. Directors Josh Gordon and Will Speck ("Blades of Glory") and writer Allan Loeb ("Just Go With It") hamstring "The Switch" from the get go with a pointless, antiquated voiceover narration that never pays off. I'm not against narration as a principle but it can definitely be the first sign of bad things to come. This one is one of the most worthless I can remember. On top of that, "The Switch" has no idea whether it is supposed to be a romantic comedy with heart of a slapstick comedy. The concept in and of itself seems like a Farrelly Brothers-like comedy but either Gordon and Speck don't know how to make this kind of film or they don't have the stones to go as far down the "stupid funny" road as you have to make it work. Even the characters themselves are up-and-down and unbalanced, particularly Bateman's Wally, who has almost no consistency throughout the first half of the film. The supporting characters are also painfully cliche or one note.

With that said, and I'm as shocked by this as you are, the chemistry between Aniston, Bateman, and even Robinson is excellent. I would not have believed that statement had I not said it myself. I love Bateman (who doesn't?) but let's be frank, he often takes the shotgun approach. That is to say, he'll make three, four, five movies in a year and hope that one hits the mark. He's not exactly trustworthy. Meanwhile, Aniston's career failures have been well documented though, I guess out of sympathy more than anything else, most of us tend to continue rooting for her. My point is, you wouldn't think that these two (and the kid who brings them together) would be able to completely and totally hold a movie together. But they really do. Their relationship is remarkably natural in a film that is WHOLLY unnatural and absurd. In addition, the dynamic between Bateman and Robinson is a quirky take on the father-son relationship. All of these actors truly give "The Switch" their all which is both highly respectable and sad considering what an awful film they're working with. The chemistry isn't enough to make this a "good" movie but it's certainly enough to turn a world class atrocity into a reasonably decent effort.

Grade: C+

Blu Ray Review: "The Mechanic"

Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) is a hitman. Working for an international organization that matches him up with potential hits, Bishop finishes his assignments with detached efficiency. The only real relationship in his life is the one he has with his handler, Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), who treats him almost like a son. When Bishop is presented with evidence of McKenna's treachery, he puts his mentor down himself but takes no pride in what he was forced to do. Soon after, McKenna's son, Steve (Ben Foster), shows up and asks Bishop to take him on as a pseudo-apprentice. The pair work together successfully until Bishop learns that Harry was set up by the agency that employed them both while Steve begins to become suspicious of Bishop's involvement in his father's death.

A remake of a Charles Bronson flick, "The Mechanic" has the classic Jason Statham flare mixed with a touch of old school action. You can't call this a full-on homage to the Bronson era but you can see it was a major influence in the film's production. I, for one, quite enjoyed the combination. I've bagged on Statham in the past for being a one trick pony and for making occasionally awful films ("In the Name of the King", anyone?) but at the same time, you have to appreciate a man who gets the most out of his one skill and manages to provide passable entertainment more often than not. I mean, if you were given the option of seeing a Statham film or a Nic Cage film, is there any question that Statham would be the choice? This film plays well with Statham's sensibilities and is chock full of explosions, shootouts, and various action stunts.

"The Mechanic" is also, however, much smarter than I would have expected going in. It's not rocket science, mind you, and Christopher Nolan certainly didn't write the script. But it does progress with more sophistication than the average hitman action movie and that keeps the plot from bogging down or becoming tiresome. The only real issues I have with "Mechanic" are the ending (unfitting to the rest of the narrative and unsatisfying) and the dynamic between Statham and Foster. I get the casting choice. Statham is smooth and debonair, almost care free while Foster's intensity always burns to near homicidal levels. (Seriously, if you met Foster in a bar, wouldn't you be scared of him?) On paper that combination sounds good but for me, the two contrast so much that it almost feels like a fight to see who's style will win out. It's not awful chemistry but it doesn't consistently push the film along on the right path. Still, "The Mechanic" is high quality entertainment and contains excellent action sequences that should satisfy your jonesing for explosions and gunplay.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "Morning Glory"

After losing her job at an early morning New Jersey talk show, Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) finds her life at an impasse. Desperate for a break, she accepts a job as the executive producer for Daybreak, once a hallmark of the IBS network that has now all but vanished from the public consciousness. With one host position filled by Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), Becky exploits a contract loophole to force longtime newsman and current curmudgeon Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford) to fill the open seat. Peck and Pomeroy do not click and before too long, Daybreak is on the verge of being cancelled. With one last shot, Becky galvanizes her show with quirky ideas and out of the box thinking, topped off by a Pomeroy news piece that puts the show back on the map. But will her new found success take Becky off to bigger and better things or will the little family she created at Daybreak be enough to hold her in place?

I rooted long and hard for "Morning Glory." I wanted it to be great and in fact, there are several truly strong elements in play here. The tone is refreshingly light and easy; there's very little depth or darkness to the film and I mean that as a compliment. Some movies aren't meant for deeper pools (storylines) and this is one of them. It is colorful and bright which makes Ford's cranky, bitter Pomeroy all the more apparent. McAdams, meanwhile, fits the film's overtones perfectly. She is frantic and all over the place, but overwhelmingly sunny and determined. Perhaps this makes Becky a bit less likable than McAdams' normal character but for me this wasn't so much a detriment to my enjoyment of the film as it was an indication of her ability to create a fitting character, ala Kate Hudson in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days." In other words, Becky is supposed to be slightly obnoxious and overbearing. (Admittedly, however, the integrity of this point is in question as my unabashed love for McAdams could definitely overwhelm my sense of reason.) Even Ford, while somewhat wooden (as he has been prone to for the last fifteen years or so), seems to invest in his performance in a way that he hasn't in some time. It's not great, mind you, but at least he's trying.

What holds "Morning Glory" back is its script (written by Aline Brosh McKenna) and director Roger Mitchell's use of said script. Honestly, this movie is a script away from being an excellent film instead of just ho-hum pretty good. The dialogue is often weak; other times it's downright oppressive, severely limiting anything that the actors might be able to do. And while I didn't find "Glory" to be overly cliche, many of the more important scenes and emotional moments are just hollow. The movie moves far too fast, too, jumping from scene to scene with very little to hold it together. It plays out as if Brosh McKenna wrote her script then ripped out every third page and that's what they took into production. It is impossible to connect with the characters or to revel in what should have been witty banter and that robs "Glory" of its real impact. Fun and entertaining, this movie is worth a viewing, to be sure, but it misses out on being the powerhouse it should have been.

Grade: B-

The Documentary Project - Volume 7: "Restrepo"

Throughout 2007, filmmakers Tim Heatherington and Sebastian Junger followed The Men of Battle Company 2nd of the 503rd Infantry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. During their tour of Afghanistan, this group of soldiers were assigned the task of taking and holding the Korangal Valley, one of the most dangerous battlefields in the world. "Restrepo" takes an in depth look at the lives of these courageous men throughout the length of their tour.

I'm not sure I'll ever write a shorter review for a film as stirring as "Restrepo" is. The kind of access that Heatherington and Junger got to shoot this film is unheard of and you see why early on when the camera winds up basically down and in the dirt after the platoon is ambushed along a mountain road. Soon after, the soldiers establish Camp Restrepo (named for the first man in their company who was killed in action) atop a large hill and find themselves caught between the horrifying violence that takes place in the Korangal Valley and the almost-as-bad boredom that sets in between battles. Mixing the footage shot during the tour and interviews done after they returned stateside, Heatherington and Junger do a magnificent job of literally putting the audience into the shoes of these men and displaying just what sort of hell they've been put through. They also manage to pull no punches (including a harrowing scene in which the men are attacked and one of their number dies just off camera) without glorifying the awfulness of war. And in addition to all of that, perhaps the greatest stroke of genius lies in the fact that "Restrepo" is completely void of politics. From the first moment to the last, this film is about the men and nothing else and regardless of your political leaning, it presents a message that we can all get behind.

"Restrepo" is a tough, gritty, REAL look at war and as such, is not for the faint of heart. But if you can muster up the stomach to sit through it, then I highly recommend a viewing. Incredible film.

Grade: A

Blu Ray Review: "I Am Number Four"

John Smith (Alex Pettyfer) is an alien. A refugee hiding out on planet earth and on the run from a vicious rival species that destroyed his world, John moves from town to town with his only friend, Henri (Timothy Olyphant). a warrior from his planet who serves as his guardian and poses as his father. There are nine refugees on earth and the enemy race (called Mogadorians) is systematically tracking them down one by one. John, naturally, is Number Four and knows he's next on the list. After moving into a small town in Ohio, John meets Sam (Callan McAuliffe), his first true friend in years, and falls for Sarah (Dianna Agron). His relative happiness, however, is quickly unraveled with the Mogadorians show up and force a dynamic battle in which he is joined by Number Six (Teresa Palmer) to create an unstoppable team.

The big problem with "I Am Number Four" is readily apparent after the first two scenes. Scene one involves the nighttime attack and subsequent murder of a pre-adolescent alien (Number Two). Scene two shows John and his Florida buddies riding jet skis while a Kings of Leon track blares in the background. This movie has no identity. It is all at once a teen drama, a sci-fi thriller, and a horror/suspense film with a coming-of-age-in-the-Midwest undercurrent. Each scene seems to combat with the one before and the one after and no middle ground is ever established. I quite like the work of director DJ Caruso ("Disturbia") in many ways but he has an absolute mess on his hands here and the constant mix of genres is like drinking a Suicide, that mix of soda that you make at a pizza buffet when you're 10. It's awesome when you're a kid, not so much when you're 28. Is it "Twilight," "Star Trek," or "Hancock" because it can't be all three.

This convoluted mix really frustrates me, too, because, nerd that I am, there are some really cool sci-fi ideas on display here. It bums me out that these concepts are wasted on a movie that plays out like an episode of "One Tree Hill." Olyphant is solid even if he isn't given much to work with script-wise and Agron brings the charm she exhibits on "Glee" to the big screen with relative ease. I would also go so far as to say that the relationship between John and Sarah is, shockingly, not that bad. Plus, the soundtrack is killer, even if it is a bit too hip for its own good.

None of that is enough, however, to even come close to overshadow the nails-on-a-chalkboard acting of the rest of the cast. I'll stop short of calling Pettyfer a bad actor; he's just unseasoned. This is one of only nine credits to his name and obviously he's gotten where he is based on looks, not ability. In my mind, there's no question that he has some talent; it'll just be up to him (and the roles he takes) to determine if that talent can be brought out or not. McAuliffe, meanwhile, is as one-note as they come and Palmer is just...I mean, awful. Since this script was obviously not well written, perhaps I should give her the benefit of the doubt but seriously, her limited lines are by far the worst moments of the film, only challenged by any scene that involves any of the supporting/background characters from smalltown Ohio. Painful. I tried to find the good in "I Am Number Four" but there just wasn't enough to grasp hold of as I slipped further and further into the void of worthlessness.

Grade: C-

"Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"

Back in 2003, I was caught completely off guard by the original “Pirates of the Caribbean.” I wasn’t quite so in touch with the movie industry back then and I certainly didn’t have an awesome blog or anything like Movie News Today (shameless plug). I simply walked into a half-full theater with a couple of friends expecting to see a throwaway summer action film. Instead, I was introduced to a cultural phenomenon that made a ridiculous sum of money, garnered an Oscar nomination for one of the more unique characters of the decade, and spawned two of the most financially successful sequels ever. Who would have thought all of that could come from a rather mediocre amusement park ride? With “Stranger Tides,” the franchise is back from a four year hiatus with a few changes to the cast and crew and a stripped down plotline that will only marginally pacify the average “Pirates” fan.

We open on Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) up to his normal shenanigans, this time breaking out of the custody of a British duke and looking for a ship with which to sail forth to find the mythical Fountain of Youth. Soon afterward, he runs into Angelica (Penelope Cruz), an old flame who has been posing as Sparrow to draw a crew for a very similar quest. After being drugged, Jack awakens to find himself aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge, a treacherous ship helmed by the famed pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane), who turns out to be Angelica’s father. Having recently heard a prophesy concerning his own death, Blackbeard is hard on the trail of the Fountain of Youth, only just ahead of the Spanish who wish to claim the Fountain for their own uses. Just behind the Spanish is a British ship, captained by Jack’s old nemesis Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). With three potential enemies closing in on his prey, Jack must think fast and come with a scheme that (per usual) calls for multiple double crosses and the pitting of each group against the others.

It’s clear from the outset that director Rob Marshall was given the directive to simplify his first venture into “Pirate” territory. One of the staples of the first three films is an overdone, convoluted plot that twists and turns so many times that it causes the viewer to simply fish or cut bait; you end up just saying, “yeah, sure” or “this is stupid and I’m out” pretty early on. This is especially prevalent in the sequels. That confusion is at the same time genius in that it covers up a multitude of plot holes and frustrating in that you spend half your time trying to figure out who just double crossed who (and more importantly why) and that ultimately takes away from your enjoyment. Or so I thought, anyway. As it turns out, the simplification of the plot results in what boils down to a pair of meaningless, shallow love stories that do their very best to stop the momentum of the film at every single turn. While the on-again-off-again, “maybe we’ll just kill each other, no wait, let’s make out instead” fling between Jack and Angelica is at least relevant to the story, the budding relationship between a young priest (Sam Claflin) and a captured mermaid (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) registers as nothing but noise and time filler. Their chemistry makes the connection between Thor and Doctor Jane Foster seem comparable to that of Harry and Sally. These wasted scenes combined with one of the biggest plot holes ever in the history of action movies (spoiler free version: pretty much everything to do with the Spanish) really detract from the value and enjoyableness of “Stranger Tides.”

That’s not to say it’s all bad. For one thing, I would say the fight scenes here are better (and even, dare I say, slightly more realistic) than in any of the previous “Pirates” films. Excellent, well-staged sword work abounds. In addition, the sets and settings are incredible. I expected this as each of the previous films, even at their worst, featured dynamic effects, sets, and landscapes and “Strangers Tides” certainly doesn’t disappoint. And all three of the leading men each have moments of brilliance. McShane, one of my very favorite actors and a menacing presence even in such lowbrow fare as “Hotrod,” is excellent as Blackbeard. Rush, meanwhile, does what he does best which is steal scenes with style and flair. In my mind, Barbossa is the most underrated part of this franchise as a whole. And then there’s Jack who I found to be a slightly more progressed version of himself here as opposed to when we last saw him in 2007. I felt that these new elements of (slight) maturity and morality complimented his usual quirky, jester-like persona. I’ve seen some reviews who have criticized Jack’s new sense of reality and the extra attention that he receives without Orlando Bloom or Kiera Knightley around to draw the camera away and I quite understand those points. At the end of the day, however, I think the majority of people who go to see “Stranger Tides” are doing so because they want to see Jack Sparrow and he doesn’t disappoint.

“Stranger Tides” definitely has some fantastic moments, though most take place in the first 30 minutes. In the end, I’m not sure how much better or worse this movie is than its two predecessors, quite honestly (though it’s clearly not in the same league as the original). It is meant to be nothing more than summer fun and yet its entertainment value is hampered by the missteps that keep it from ever getting traction. The end result is decent enough but not overwhelmingly enjoyable as it could have been.

Grade: B-

Pointless love stories are my nemesis,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out Marshall and the Movies slightly less positive take.

Blu Ray Review - "The Way Back"

In 1941, a small group of prisoners escape from a Soviet gulag with the intention of making it to freedom across the Mongolian border. Led by a falsely imprisoned Pole named Janusz (Jim Sturgess) and an American soldier known only as Mr. Smith (Ed Harris), the crew braves the treacherous Siberian weather and battles starvation before reaching the lake they plan to follow to salvation. Along the way they add a member to their group, a "gypsy" girl named Irena (Saoirse Ronan) who raises the spirits of the men and proves to be a hardy survivalist. Upon reaching the border, their celebrations are cut short when they realize that Mongolia, too, has come under the influence of Communism. With few choices, Janusz leads his friends further overland in an attempt to make it to India, some 4,000 miles from where they originally started.

With a great cast and a compelling storyline, "The Way Back" should be a lot better than it is. The performances are all admirable if underwhelming and each actor holds his own within what they're given to work with. Harris is a calming influence over the whole film, Sturgess is good as the quiet-yet-strong man with the plan, and Ronan sufficiently provides a little bit of sunshine to the darkness. The cinematography is INCREDIBLE. From the Siberian forests to the Gobi desert, the landscape shots are plentiful and magnificent, perfectly embodying the vast and desolate settings the group continually finds themselves in.

Yet for all its merits, "The Way Back" is surprisingly void of emotion or at least it was for me. I liked all the characters and wanted them to survive (naturally) but it wasn't painful to watch them struggle or inevitably succumb to nature. Director Peter Weir simply tells a story rather than pulling you into the narrative and the movie suffers drastically because of this. You get the feeling that there was so much to this story (which is based on a supposedly non-fiction book) that Weir and his writing partners had to trim a lot of fat to bring the runtime down and in doing so, they cut out all connection and exposition. It's like reading a rather long magazine article on these events rather than taking in an epic, two hour story of survival. "The Way Back" is still worth a viewing and I certainly didn't hate my life while watching, but it is a case of what you get when "what could have been" is a great deal more than "what actually is."

Grade: B-

"THOR"

For me, the beginning of summer isn’t signified by the length of daylight or the end of the school year since that has zero impact on me these days. It’s certainly not a change in the weather. I live in Texas; it’s been hot enough to count as summer for a month. No, the beginning of summer is fluid; it changes year-to-year and it’s based on one thing and one thing alone: when does the first real summer blockbuster open? With that in mind, dear readers, let me officially tell you it’s time to break out the flip flops and swimsuits, crank up the AC, and fire up the grill. “Thor” is here and it’s brought summer with it.

The son of the great Norse god Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is an arrogant, brutish king-in-waiting within the kingdom of Asgard. Already strong, Thor is emboldened by the power of a mighty hammer with which he seeks war and destruction. After inciting a battle with an ancient foe (frost giants), Thor is stripped of his power and banished to earth along with the hammer he so cherishes. Stumbling through a dark New Mexico desert, Thor is struck by a van carrying scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her pair of companions (Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) who take him in and help him acclimate to his new surroundings. After failing to remove the hammer from its resting place (while it is being watched and examined by our old friends S.H.I.E.L.D., the organization that pops up throughout the Marvel universe), Thor resigns himself to a mortal life. At the same time, however, his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has taken the throne in Asgard and given into his darker nature, causing a ton of trouble that only Thor can stop.

There is an awful lot to like about “Thor.” Kenneth Branagh seemed an odd choice to direct such an FX-heavy, comic book flick. I mean, I love Stan Lee but he’s no Shakespeare. Surprisingly, Branagh seems a natural. The scene structure, backgrounds, and cinematography are all brilliant, not to mention the stunning special effects which are truly awesome. Branagh (and a host of screenwriters) also does an excellent job of giving us the basic information about Thor and the world he lives in without bogging the film down in an extensive origin story. There are a lot of nerds out there who have grown weary of origin films and while I’m not sure I’m in that camp, I can understand the discontent. What you get here is really a crash course in the mythology of one of Marvel’s lesser known superstars. (I know several people who only knew of Thor as he relates to “Adventures in Babysitting.”) There’s no doubt “Thor” is a setup for sequels and “The Avengers” movie next year, and at times that thinness shows through, but for the most part that’s easy to overlook and a light hearted, brighter superhero movie is kind of refreshing these days.

From an acting standpoint, I think “Thor” comes down directly to the writing. Some of the actors were given good source material to work with and their characters shine through. Some were not and these characters are flat and underdeveloped. Hemsworth embodies the attitude, physique, and behavior of Thor magnificently. Much like Robert Downey, Jr. was the perfect choice to play Tony Stark, Hemsworth gives you the impression that he is Thor in a way. He seems comfortable in what amounts to his first leading role and the film feeds off of his confidence. Hopkins, meanwhile, gives a performance that temporarily makes you forget the laughable career choices he’s made over the past decade. He even has a few moments that harken back to his former glory wherein he commands your attention. I honestly can’t remember the last time he was able to do that. Skarsgard and Clark Gregg (reprising his role as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Coulson) also chime in with flair and Skarsgard even shows a hint of comedic timing. And as the gatekeeper who makes it possible for the Asgardians to cross into their other realms, Idris Elba steals every scene he’s in. I would watch an entire movie just about that guy.

On the flip side, the rest of the supporting cast is seriously hamstrung by corny dialogue and weak plot points. Loki, for one, is poorly developed. His mischievous nature and fascination with the gray parts of morality is more stated than illustrated which takes away from his impact. Hiddleston does an admirable job but the character is just too threadbare to allow for much surprise when he does turn the corner toward evil. Thor’s warriors (led by Ray Stevenson) are all horribly cliché and left me wincing more than once. Likewise, as an intern to Dr. Foster, Dennings is neither humorous nor relevant to the film in any way. She could have been cut out without “Thor” missing a beat. Personally, I’ve yet to enjoy Dennings in anything. I don’t get her appeal and this character did nothing to enhance that view.

More importantly, Portman’s Dr. Foster is an extremely monotone, one dimensional character. Unlike her intern, Foster is important to both this film and the inevitable sequels and yet Portman is given next to nothing to work with which I don’t understand on any level. If you’re going to write a throwaway female character, then save some money and cast Megan Fox or someone similar. In no way am I saying I want to see someone like Fox playing a genius scientist (remember Denise Richards in “The World Is Not Enough”?). I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense to cast someone as talented as Portman and give her a mindless character that borders on damsel-in-distress foolishness. This simply isn’t a well-rounded script and in no area is that on display more than in the shallow love story shared by Thor and Foster. The pair knows each other for approximately 48 hours before Thor goes off to save the world and yet somehow their connection somehow transcends the vast universe. Weaksauce.

I don’t wish to sound overly critical of “Thor.” For the most part, it is a great deal of fun and a more than solid introduction to the hero himself and continuation of the “Avengers” series. I just wanted a little more from the story and more quality material for the outstanding cast to work within. Still, “Thor” is at times magical and gives Hemsworth a chance to literally burst into the mainstream consciousness. And if nothing else, it is exactly the type of movie you crave to jumpstart the summer and get this year’s movie calendar moving in the right direction.

Grade: B+

I can’t be alone in my dislike of Kat Dennings,
Brian

NOTE: If you’re a true nerd, make sure you stay through the ending credits for a sneak peak of things to come.

Care for another take? Check out Movie Muse's eerily similar opinion. (Every once in a while it's nice to link to someone who just about agrees with me.)

A Life In Movies

Fandango Groovers Movie Blog is hosting an event called "A Life in Movies" this weekend. The idea is to list your favorite film from each year of your life. This is my entry and I encourage you all to head over to Groovers and check out the full project. Some pretty cool lists out there.

1983 - "Return of the Jedi" - Easiest choice on the list. If I'd been alive in 1977 or 1980, "Star Wars" and "Empire" would top those years as well.

1984 - "Ghostbusters" - Not a great year for movies all around but "Ghostbusters" is still a comedic classic and probably has my favorite Bill Murray performance.

1985 - "The Goonies" - Tough call between "Goonies" and "Back to the Future" but I had to go with my heart. Goonies R Good Enough, after all.

1986 - "Stand by Me" - The quintessential coming of age film in my opinion.

1987 - "The Untouchables" - Sure, it's a bit over the top at times but "Untouchables" has two or three of my all time favorite scenes. The train station shootout...amazing.

1988 - "Die Hard" - Greatest action movie ever. 'Nuff said.

1989 - "When Harry Met Sally" - Debated between this and "Batman." In the end, "WHMS" is my favorite romance ever and "Batman" is slightly overshadowed by "Dark Knight."

1990 - "Home Alone" - The most quotable film of my lifetime until "Anchorman."

1991 - "Terminator 2" - Not a lot of choices for '91 but this is definitely one of the best sci-fi action movies ever. Arnie's best?

1992 - "Patriot Games" - There's just something awesome about Harrison Ford and Sean Bean trying to kill each other.

1993 - "Jurassic Park" and "Tombstone" - This was a "Sophie's Choice" situation that I just couldn't handle. Both of these are in my top 10 favorite movies ever. I can't choose and you can't make me.

1994 - "The Shawshank Redemption" - There are some GREAT movies from 1994 ("Forrest Gump" is not one of them, by the way) but "Shawshank" is my continual choice for "Best Movie Of All Time" and I imagine I will argue that to my grave.

1995 - "Heat" - Tough three way race here between "Heat," "Braveheart," and "Toy Story." "Heat" is almost a perfect movie, though, hard to go against.

1996 - "Independence Day" - Hey, this list is "favorite movies" not "best movies." This was the first real summer blockbuster that I was a part of.

1997 - "LA Confidential" - Noir classic that's exceedingly rewatchable.

1998 - "Saving Private Ryan" - Best war movie ever in my book. Each viewing brings me a new respect for this film and a renewed hatred for "Shakespeare in Love."

1999 - "Office Space" - A cult classic and one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

2000 - "Almost Famous" - Gets almost no love anymore but very few movies make me happier than "AF." Top 10 favorite movie. Simply glorious.

2001 - "Ocean's 11" - I would wager that since I started purchasing DVDs about a decade ago, I haven't watched any movie as many times as I have "O11."

2002 - "Signs" - Totally underrated film that I still argue about with friends and family.

2003 - "Lord of the Rings" - I'm combining all three chapters of LOTR because really, they're all one giant, epic film, and anyway it wouldn't have been fun to list "Fellowship" in '01, "Towers" in '02, and "King" in '03, which is what I'd have to do otherwise.

2004 - "Anchorman" - Tough call between this and "The Incredibles," I just couldn't make a list of favorite movies without listing "Anchorman." The most rewatchable film of the decade.

2005 - "Serenity" - Sci-fi nerdiness aside, "Serenity" would be a really good action-comedy in its own right. Then you add in the "Firefly" mythos...so good.

2006 - "Casino Royale" - Not my favorite year in film but "Casino Royale" will always hold a special place in my heart for reinvigorating a stale James Bond series. Second place goes to "The Departed."

2007 - "Into the Wild" - Based upon what is probably my favorite non-fiction book, "Into the Wild" manages to crush me every time I watch it. Honorable mention to "No Country For Old Men," the Coen's masterpiece.

2008 - "Dark Knight" - Greatest superhero movie of all time.

2009 - "It Might Get Loud" - The only documentary to make the list, I am completely enthralled by "Loud" every time I watch. It just doesn't get much better than Jack White and Jimmy Page in the same room. Could have gone with "Star Trek" here, too, though.

2010 - "Inception" -  I don't think I will ever forget the feeling I had after seeing "Inception" for the first time. Complete and total genius.

HBO Special - "Bram Stoker's Dracula"

A supposedly-accurate retelling of the literary classic, "Dracula" begins with the creation of the great vampire (Gary Oldman) himself and the events which led to his decision. Some years later, a young law clerk named Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Dracula's Translyvanian estate to investigate the man who has bough up a chunk of property in London. Dracula soon realizes that Harker's fiance, Mina, is the reincarnation of his lost love. Imprisoning Harker, Dracula makes haste to London where he first bites and enslaves Mina's best friend, Lucy (Sadie Frost), drawing upon her life and making himself appear young again, a trait which allows him to seduce Mina. All of these strange events draw the attention of Doctor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who soon realizes that the king of all vampires is on the loose and setting the stage for a dramatic battle between good and evil.

I found "Dracula" to be a bit of a roller coaster. There are some truly inspired moments and then some that completely fall flat. The very idea of Gary Oldman as a classic villain is, of course, magnificent and Oldman holds up his end of the bargain. If there's a better actor than Oldman, I don't know who it is. His Dracula is menacing but alluring, a perfect balance for the role. Likewise, director Francis Ford Coppola creates a dark, tension-filled atmosphere for his characters to work within and that suits "Dracula" well. The shot selection and scene setting is excellent, even if the scenes don't always flow together brilliantly. There's also a natural vein of fear that runs through this movie and I imagine some of the scenes would be quite scary if I was viewing in a dark theater instead of my home TV during the middle of the day. And I, for one, felt the film's open ended conclusion is glorious and fitting, a point I know other viewers might dispute.

On the down side, "Dracula" suffers from 80s hangover wherein it occasionally falls into unnecessary moments of over-the-top absurdity. Some of the more "frightening" moments are hindered by ridiculous, cliche dialogue and some of the special effects seem like they belong in a Stephen King made-for-TV movie, not a $50 million dollar horror epic. There's also a scene or two that I understand are based upon the novel but probably should have been left on the book stand. And then we come to Keanu Reeves. Good gracious. What an incredible drain he is on this movie. Every time he spoke I felt myself slip closer and closer to a coma and was only revived by Oldman ripping the place apart with awesomeness. Reeves has a place in Hollywood (see: "Matrix" and "Bill and Ted's") but this isn't it. He is horribly miscast and the only saving grace concerning this decision is that his role is fairly limited; otherwise, I'm not sure I could have made it through. Just...I mean...what were you thinking, FFC?! Painful. These missteps don't completely overshadow an excellent performance from Oldman or the glorious, appealingly dark overtones of "Dracula" as a whole but they do take away from the overall impact and left me wanting more.

Grade: B