Blu Ray Review: "The Nightmare Before Christmas"

After another successful holiday, Halloweentown's discontented super-scarer Jack wanders aimlessly out of town and unwittingly happens upon a door to another village. This place, known as Christmastown, is much different than his own home and he begins to pine for something different. When he returns home, Jack starts his own Christmas that invitably falls short, leading to an abduction of Santa Claus and some ensuing chicanery.

Somehow I've never seen this twisted animated feature despite its stellar reputation. I've got a love/hate relationship with Tim Burton. Some of his stuff is incredible and some of it is terrible. "Batman" great, "Planet of the Apes" terrible. "Alice in Wonderland" solid, "Beetle Juice" blerg. I guess that's the case with anybody but I feel like many directors are more predictable as to how I'm likely to feel about their films after seeing them. Still, Burton's style is entirely his own and he is a unique visionary, even if his visions are often creepy and weird. Burton didn't direct "Nightmare" but his finger prints are all over it. "Nightmare" is a solid outing but I'm not as into it as so many other people are. The visuals are excellent, the musical portions are great, and there's a definite entertainment value. But if I'm being honest, I was easily distracted from what was taking place on screen. Despite my ADD tendencies, a 76 minute animated movie shouldn't lose my attention (and interest?). I got bored between songs and drifted away to whatever was happening on Twitter and Facebook and that left me feeling just okay about "Nightmare" as a whole. Maybe my feelings would be different if I'd seen this in a theater or perhaps I'm not really the target audience. Either way, I'm not totally sold.

Grade: B

The Collected Works: Adam Sandler

"Grown Ups" may have been bad, but I'm still a big Adam Sandler fan. With that in mind, I debut a new semi-regular column in which we take a look at the work of a given actor/director/production company/etc. and rank them from worst to first. Feel free to give your input.

The Collected Works of Adam Sandler
(cameos and insignificant films not included)

Haven't seen: "Going Overboard", "Airheads", "Punch Drunk Love"

20. "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" - There was a funny premise in here somewhere and it did bring Kevin James to the forefront, but there is almost nothing at all funny about this movie. 

19. "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" - An absolutely pointless, meaningless, insignificant piece of crap.

18. "Little Nicky" - This might be the least thought-out movie on this list.

17. "Grown Ups" - Half-hearted and lacking in humor.

16. "Anger Management" - I'm still shocked that this one stunk. Sandler plus Nicholson before he completely went off the deep end seems like a sure thing, but it never really got off the ground for me.

15. "Reign Over Me" - This one hurts because it's possibly Sandler's best work. His broken character, whose family died in the 9/11 attacks, is achingly poignant. Unfortunately the rest of the movie is trash, ruined by writer and director Mike Binder.

14. "Eight Crazy Nights" - Sandler's only animated movie, this has some fun moments but not enough to make it truly worthwhile.

13. "Bulletproof" - Not a bad action-comedy all told, this suffers from the Wayans Factor (meaning nothing made after 1991 that features a Wayans brother can possibly be good).

12. "Bedtime Stories" - This has some decent moments but it feels like Sandler is being forced into the Disney Box. Doesn't work.

11. "Mr. Deeds" - Stupid and a bit aimless, Sandler is still quite funny and the supporting players are strong.

10. "Click" - For some reason I really like "Click." It's got the heart that Sandler comedies have become known for and a little less stupidity than some of his other films.

9. "The Waterboy" - More than any other Sandler work, this is the one that you appreciate less and less as you grow up. Funny, but not nearly as funny as it was when I was a teenager.

8. "Spanglish" - A little bit like "Reign Over Me," though much more fluid. Sandler's actual acting skills are overshadowed by what is kind of a bummer of a movie.

7. "The Longest Yard" - A remake that actually works for me on both the comedy and sports action levels.

6. "50 First Dates" - This, along with "The Wedding Singer," are the only real romantic comedies Sandler has participated in. And while he and Drew Barrymore aren't quite Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, they ain't bad.

5. "Happy Gilmore" - Possibly the most quotable Sandler film and an awful lot of fun.

4. "Big Daddy" - The first Sandler movie to display some heart along with the comedy.

3. "Funny People" - You either love or hate "Funny People." There is no in between. I found Sandler's terminally ill stand up comedian to be hauntingly authentic and he brought the rest of the film up.

2. "The Wedding Singer" - There's nothing to not like about "The Wedding Singer," even for an 80s hater like myself.

1. "Billy Madison" - The first one is still the best for me. "Billy Madison" took Sandler from the overstuffed ranks of early 90s "Saturday Night Live" and catapulted him to stardom. This is juvenile, immature, and absolutely ridiculous and I still love it.

DVD Review - "The French Connection"

"The French Connection" is the 1971 Best Picture Oscar winner about a pair of New York narcotics officers pursuing a big case involving a foreign crime syndicate. Naturally, these bad guys are French. Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider star in this slow burning stake-out flick that is widely considered to be one of the "classics." These veteran cops play a slow moving cat and mouse game with the French drug pushers they are stalking, culminating in a final, crafty standoff.

I'm not exactly sure how I've never seen "The French Connection" other than the fact that it came out 12 years before I was born. While it's not as fast paced as today's average action film, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The action moves slowly but efficiently, and the development of the main characters is something most modern action pieces would kill for. Hackman gives what is considered to be one of his best performances and I would be inclined to agree. All that said, I'm not in love with "The French Connection" the way I half-way imagined I would be. It wasn't necessarily boring but I had trouble following along at times and found myself drifting in and out of attention. Perhaps this is a reflection on me and my attention span more than it is on the quality of the film. Nevertheless, my opinion of the film (ranked 93rd on AFI's 100 Years, 100 Films) doesn't quite live up to the reputation it has built up for itself over the last 40 years.

Grade: B+

"Grown Ups"

There was a time in my life when the opening of an Adam Sandler movie would have gotten me to the theater quicker than the Millennium Falcon could complete the Kessel run. To this day thoughts of “Billy Madison” or “Happy Gilmore” can leave me chuckling to myself as if someone just told me an idiotic inside joke. As juvenile and moronic as Sandler can be, if I’m in the right frame of mind, there’s a weird sort of refreshment to the kind of humor that doesn’t make me work to laugh the way the witty banter of more “sophisticated” comedy might. So despite my age and general attraction to humor that is more in line with “Arrested Development” than “Mr. Deeds”, the idea of Sandler reteaming with Chris Rock, David Spade, and the rest of his old cronies appealed to me and brought me to the theater with high hopes for a stupid 90s throwback laugh fest. Man was I wrong.

“Grown Ups” picks up some thirty years after a 6th grade basketball championship, five friends reunite to celebrate the life of their recently deceased coach. The guys (Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, and Rob Schneider) are all in different walks of life with various levels of success, but they all share that common trait that brings all Americans together: discontent with life. (So refreshing.) Sandler’s kids are preppy little punks, James is drowning in debt, Rock is a stay-at-home dad whose is threatened by his wife’s career, Spade is the typically sad single, and Schneider is just…well, he’s Rob Schneider; how good could his life really be? What starts as one uncomfortable night in a lake house turns into a long weekend of bonding between family and friends, leaving each character to reflect upon his/her life. And also, numerous shenanigans take place. Hooray.

Where do I even begin? As much potential as “Grown Ups” has and as much fun as it could have been, it never managers to pull together a single complete scene that carries any momentum. From the very beginning the entire thing feels half-hearted and incomplete, disjointed and lifeless. Multiple times the film begins to build continuity and flow, only to have it quickly crushed with a pointless cutaway or flatulence-related joke. Generally speaking, “Grown Ups” fails to develop a single character or plotline. The direction of Dennis Dugan, which has worked so well in the past for Sandler projects, comes across as completely disinterested and un-invested. No, honestly, it seems like EVERYONE here is disinterested and un-invested. “Grown Ups” is a train wreck and a massive waste of time and talent.

And make no mistake; there is a lot of talent involved in this thing. Whether you like Sandler’s brand of humor or not, the guy is a talented comedian, as are James and Rock. Even Spade has had some strong moments over the years (“Tommy Boy” is a personal favorite of mine). Their wives are portrayed by Salma Hayek, Maria Bello, and the always-funny-except-for-this Maya Rudolph. And yet nothing consistently good comes from any of them. The jokes are heavy-handed and crude, very rarely drawing a laugh-out-loud from me (and may I say it is notoriously easy to make me LOL or even ROTFL). One scene after another falters under the weight of its own stupidity and the actors seem to know it. Even worse, the chemistry between these characters is nonexistent. This was the most shocking failure to me. I expected some weak moments and petered-out jokes mixed in with fart humor and general immaturity. But I thought if nothing else, the dynamic between Sandler and the rest would be strong. After all, these guys are actual off-screen friends who’ve had success together in the past. Alas, this hope was crushed early on and never was revisited. The screen never feels shared by all the talent. Instead, it feels like each joke is a race for each actor to get to the half-thought out, relatively unfunny punch line.

Throughout the entire course of this film, I kept coming up with hypotheticals to explain how all of these big names got roped into this soul-crushing piece of crap. The best I could come up with was that Rob Schneider really needed some money and called on his old pal Sandler to help him out. I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Rob: “Hey Adam thanks for taking my call. Listen man, I hate to put you in a bad spot but I’m really up against it here. I’ve gambled away all my “Deuce Bigalow” money and I owe some serious cash to some really bad people. I need some help.”
Adam: “Rob, I’d love to help you but I just can’t loan you any more money. Not after that Shanghai incident…”
Rob: “No, no, no, I’m not asking for money, Adam. I’ve got a great idea for a movie and I think it’s perfect for you.”
Adam: “That’s great, Rob. Just fax it over. I’ll have to say I wrote it, of course (you know how these things go). Anything for an old friend. Spade is sitting right here. He’ll do anything to stay relevant so he’s in. We’ll get Dugan to direct; he owes me his entire career, anyway. Let’s start shooting next week.”
Rob: “Oh that’s great, Adam, I really appreciate it man.”
Adam: “No problem, Rob. Hey, while I’ve got you on the line: remember that bit you used to do on SNL? The copy guy thing? The one and only thing that you’ve ever done that mattered to anyone and somehow catapulted you to semi-stardom? Do some of that for me; I haven’t heard it in so long.”

And that’s what I came up with to keep my mind off the plot-less drivel unfolding on screen.

The real tragedy here is that somewhere in all of the mediocre jokes and failed writing, there’s a decent movie. 30 minutes, maybe even 45, of what “Grown Ups” forces the audience to endure is worth showing if it was totally rewritten, reshot, and reedited (by people who are care about making a quality film over making money and/or are not stoned). I like to think this 30 minutes is what attracted me to this film in the first place but maybe I’m just trying to make myself feel better about the terrible life choice I made in entering this theater when “Jonah Hex” was right across the hall (I’m only sort-of kidding). Or maybe the truth is I’m 27 years old and that makes me an old curmudgeon when it comes to this type of movie. Still, I expect more. I can handle and enjoy juvenile, immature humor as long as it is, in fact, humorous and “Grown Ups” just doesn’t fit that bill.

Grade: D

I feel really old now,
Brian

"Toy Story 3"

I’ve seen a lot of movies over the years. Some good, some bad, some memorable, some that I forgot the moment I left the theater or returned the DVD. There are some, though, that stay with you no matter how long it’s been since you first saw them. It is a small group of films that not only resonate with the viewer but also with the movie industry as a whole, changing the face of film. “Star Wars”, “Jaws”, “Jurassic Park”, and (for better or worse) “Avatar” come to mind for a younger movie fan like myself and I’m sure older movie goers could name a few that go further back than those. One that often gets lost in the mix, though, is “Toy Story.” Despite its great reputation and ranking on AFI’s Top 100 Movies (#99), I think “Toy Story” gets left out of the “changed the industry” conversation unfairly. Fifteen years later, however, we come to “Toy Story 3” and perhaps a little vindication for the former installment.

“Toy Story 3” picks up (fittingly) 11 years or so after “Toy Story 2” ended. Andy (the owner of the toys for those who have been off the grid for the last couple of decades) is getting ready to head to college. Through a crazy mix-up, the last remnants of Andy’s beloved toys (including Woody, Buzz, Jesse, the Potato Heads, Rex, and Hamm) are donated to a daycare instead of being placed in the attic where they were intended to go. While Woody wants to return to the house he was mistakenly cast out of, the rest of the his friends appreciate the lavish lifestyle of the Sunnyside Daycare, as described to them by resident head honcho Lotso, a giant purple bear. Quickly, however, the toys discover that they’ve been sold a lie and that they have been purposely placed with the younger, rougher toddlers to insure a longer life expectancy for the other toys. What follows is an outstanding series of adventures as Woody and the gang attempt to breakout of Sunnyside and reunite with their former owner.

I have been in love with the “Toy Story” universe from the very beginning. When the first movie debuted in 1995, I was 12 years old and starting to go through that inevitable phase of feeling too cool for “childish” things. “Toy Story” bounced me right back into the reality of the deep-down nerd I truly am and I will be forever grateful for that. Never in my life have I seen an animated film that matters the way “Toy Story” does. “Toy Story 2”, while nowhere near as good as its predecessor, is still a great movie that crushes your standard cartoon feature presentation. I’ve watched them both dozens of times and each time I find myself chuckling at the funny moments, taking in the more dramatic parts, and reflecting on just how special these movies are. To say that I was bursting with anticipation for volume three would be quite the understatement. Yet not even at my highest level of anticipation and expectation could I expect a result like what Pixar has given us.

“Toy Story 3” is…wait for it…a masterpiece. Please hear me when I say I do not throw that word around lightly. I’m a big fan of “amazing,” “great,” “incredible,” etc. but I almost never say “masterpiece.” “Masterpiece” is my one bugaboo, my one hold out for only the best of the best. But “Toy Story 3” is good enough for me to reach into that don’t-hold-anything-back part of my descriptive lexicon. From the opening credits, it took me about five minutes to adjust to, one, the 3-D nonsense that will undoubtedly torment me for the next few years, and two, the fact that I was actually, finally sitting in for a conclusion to a story I love so much. Everything that followed was pitch-perfect.

In all truthfulness, I can’t think of a single thing that is wrong or even slightly off about “Toy Story 3.” Visually it lives up to the unbeatable standards that Pixar is so known for and while the 3-D addition doesn’t really add anything to film, it certainly doesn’t detract or distract. Likewise, the voice talent that Pixar is able to assemble (when they want to) is legendary and “Toy Story 3” doesn’t disappoint. In addition to the veterans like Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, and Joan Cusak, a host of “names” like Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton, and Whoopi Goldberg seamlessly integrate themselves into the fabric of the franchise, exactly the way their characters do.

But the story is where it’s really at for “Toy Story 3.” The best screenwriters (or better yet, any kind of writer in history) in the industry can only dream of putting together the quality scripts that Pixar’s writers come up with for each and every endeavor. Truth be told, no one can tell an original story like Pixar can. It would be very easy for a third chapter of a story to be a bit tired, unoriginal, or burdensome. Instead, I’m going on record as saying this is the best story of the bunch. Each character, each scene, each line does nothing but further and deepen the story and thereby the enjoyment and the investment of the viewer. Simply put, nothing, not a single line, is wasted. The ability to make such ridiculous situations that Pixar is famous for seem so real is a true gift that cannot be understated. It’s difficult to imagine a world in which animated toys could provide some of the best, most authentic visions of what it means to be human, and yet that is exactly what “Toy Story 3” does. I would say it is impossible not to become emotionally invested in the lives of Woody, Buzz, and the rest as they essentially transition from mid-life crisis to empty nest syndrome. And the appeal which these characters have is masterfully crafted.

As much as I love the first “Toy Story,” I think “3” might be the best of the bunch. In a year that features very few highlights and following the road paved by last year’s “Up,” I’m left to ponder if this isn’t the time for an animated movie to win a Best Picture Oscar. While the final moments of the movie played out, I had a look around the room. The packed theater that had been so dreadfully loud in the beginning was now near silent, everyone’s eyes transfixed upon the screen. My entire group of 20 and 30-somethings sacrificing sleep, work, and common sense to be at a midnight showing we were way to old for all sat sniffling and red eyed, some choking back tears, other bawling like the big babies we are. And I was reminded of how significant a movie, a story, can be when it’s told the right way. Masterpiece.

Grade: A+

Take that every other 2010 movie,
Brian

"The A-Team"

A brief survey for my reader(s) before we get into “The A-Team”:

Have you, while watching a ridiculous action movie, ever uttered one of the following statements? :
A.) “He HAS to be out of bullets by now”;
B.) “No one could live through that”;
C.) “There’s no way in Heaven or earth that this could ever happen”:
D.) “It is not possible to fly a tank”.
If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then please pay attention to what I’m about to write:

Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, watch “The A-Team.”

I want to save those of you that fall into this category from the time you will lose and the pain this movie will put you through. This is quite simply not the movie for you. If, on the other hand, you’re alright with a bit (okay, a LOT) of absurdity as long as it’s done correctly, then may I present to you the epic ludicrosity of “The A-Team.” (That’s right, it’s so ridiculous I had to make up a word.)

Part origin story, part retooling the “classic” TV series, “The A-Team” drops us into the corrupt back woods of Mexico, with Colonel Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson) and Lieutenant Templeton “Face” Peck (Bradley Cooper) on a fool hardy mission. Hannibal enlists the aid of some muscle in the form of B.A. Baracus (Quinton “Rampage” Jackson) and a mentally unstable pilot, Murdock (Sharlto Copley), to rescue Face and race across the U.S. border, birthing the A-Team in the process. Eight years and numerous missions later, the team is asked to take out a group of baddies that have obtained printing plates for U.S. currency. The “plan comes together” (hahaha, I’m so funny) just right, until they are betrayed by a team of mercenaries who steal the plates and frame the A-Team for the crimes. A few months after being imprisoned, the guys break out and begin an all-out assault in an attempt to reclaim the plates and clear their names; all while staying one step ahead of an Army investigator (Jessica Biel) and one step behind a CIA spook (Patrick Wilson). And oh, the shenanigans that ensue!

I came into “The A-Team” with feelings that could only be classified as somewhere between magnificent doubt and brooding anger. I could smell the “Clash of the Titans”-like stink all over this thing and made no qualms about my expectations of complete and total failure. Even as the opening scene unfolded, I rolled my eyes numerous times and looked at my movie-going teammate with exaggerated expression to convey my “I freaking told you so” attitude. Within three minutes, however, my feelings of impending doom vanished, swallowed up by the immense amount of fun being had on screen and by proxy, myself and the rest of the audience. “The A-Team” is an enormously entertaining, action packed thrill ride chock full of exciting, kick-you-squarely-in-the-butt ridiculous action that only takes a break long enough to allow for some well placed, witty one-liners.

Top to bottom, “The A-Team” delivers on just about every level you can reasonably expect an action movie to have, and that all starts with the cast. Neeson continues his reinvention of the last few years and you can tell he’s quite enjoying his new-found action stardom. With shades of last year’s “Taken,” Neeson handles himself in with a cool, calm-in-the-face-of-incredibly-bad-odds swagger that makes you wonder if he’s not acting as much as he’s just playing himself as Hannibal Smith. Cooper brings the necessary charisma to Face, a role he might have been genetically engineered to play. As a CIA spook who jumps in and out of the A-Team’s adventures, Patrick Wilson delivers a strong performance, blending arrogance with debilitating incompetence. He is the perfect antagonist for the A-Team and personally had me wishing he would have been cast in Jason Patric’s place in “The Losers,” a film which struggled to find its rhythm due to the weakness of the villain. Even Biel and Jackson feel comfortable in their roles and have moments of strength. Copley, however, takes scene stealing to a whole new level. Murdock is a nutcase first, pilot second and Copley strikes that balance PERFECTLY, delivering the goods with every single line.

No one is ever going to confuse “The A-Team” with an award-caliber film. I completely understand the number of critics, not to mention my own “readers,” who are panning “The A-Team” or refusing to see it just on principle. The plot takes a serious backseat to the action and that occasionally creates a problem. Some of the “acting” is pretty bad, with “Rampage” Jackson especially bringing very little to the game. And really, the entire thing is one giant ball of insane absurdity.

But let me be quite frank with you, dear friends: none of those issues matter. “The A-Team” takes realism, throws it from a high altitude, and shoots it down with a heat seeking missile, sending it back to earth in tiny, scorching fragments. From minute one, director Brad Carnahan makes it clear that he’s not looking to make an authentic, important film that will be praised for its biting political commentary or that will be called the “Saving Private Ryan” of its genre. Neigh, Carnahan is after outstanding stunts, intense action sequences, and seriously well written dialogue that truly fits the story it helps to tell. There are a couple of weak points in which the movie tries to strike an emotional chord it just can’t hit. Truthfully, there’s no need for these scenes save to add length to the movie’s runtime and perhaps add a bit of humanity into the action. But these moments are short and few in number and don’t take away too much from the overall flow of the movie.

After all of the outspoken doubts I expressed over the last few months, darn it if “The A-Team” isn’t one of the best, most fun action movie experiences I’ve had in quite some time. It doesn’t quite stack up to, say, “Die Hard,” but then again, in the 22 years since “Die Hard” debuted, how many action movies do stack up to it? (None, that’s how many.) It is, however, a slap in the face to any Michael Bay movie and a big, “Check this out, SUCKA!!!” to Jerry Bruckheimer and all his cronies. Quite simply, “The A-Team” is just an absolute blast. I would say perhaps the most enjoyable watch of the first half of 2010 and one I would gladly take in again.

Grade: B+... No, you know what? Heck with it. A-.

Liam Neeson for President,
Brian

DVD Review - "Star Wars: The Clone Wars"

"Star Wars: The Clone Wars" is an animated feature presentation that attempts to bridge part of the gap between episodes II and III of the "Star Wars" films. This is only part of the story, as there is a weekly cartoon that tells more of the happenings of the Clone Wars. What we have here is a universe at war and the Jedi at their thinnest, barely holding on to the worlds which they control. In the midst of this, Jabba the Hutt's son (who knew that guy could reproduce) is kidnapped and the Jedi send Anakin Skywalker and his new Padawan, Ahsoka, to find him. Chaos ensues.

Look, all cards on the table: I got the opportunity to watch this for free. Family Video, which has become my go to source for new releases as Blockbuster continues to crash and burn, has a deal where if you rent a new release on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, you get a recent release for free. After picking through the shelves for something I hadn't seen and wouldn't make me want to drown a puppy, I settled on "Clone Wars." So at least it was free...

...because that's about all it was. Sometimes I wonder if George Lucas secretly likes being hated. Since 1999 it's like all he's trying to do is rip my childhood memories away from me and set them on fire right in front of me while laughing like Hans Gruber. It's just not fair to be given the gift of "Star Wars" only to have all of its greatness tainted by Jar Jar Binks and (even worse) Hayden Christensen. I guess "Clone Wars" is supposed to be for kids so maybe we can forgive the childish dialogue and questionable voice talent. But how do I reconcile a story that seriously plays out like an episode of "Full House" with aliens? Just like everything else in the "Star Wars" universe post-1985, the entire thing comes across as only half plotted; the rest is just thrown together on the fly, like a middle-of-the-show SNL skit. We're now looking at two entire generations of kids who only have this type of crap with which to form an opinion of "Star Wars" upon. Curse you, George Lucas. Curse you.

Grade: C-

"Shrek Forever After"

I've made no bones about my disdain for the summer movie schedule of 2010. The writer's strike of a couple years ago finally caught up to us my fellow movie freaks and me. 2009 was a banner year (hence The Summer of the Nerd) and both 2011 and 2012 look to be legendary and chock full of nerdy goodness. Sandwiched right there in the near middle, though, is 2010, the gay red headed stepson of a wealthy Republican family from the Northeast. It's absolutely embarrassing. So on the Friday before Memorial Day, the third biggest traditional movie weekend behind only Christmas and July 4th (which I'll have a HUGE rant on), I found myself wanting for movie options and sitting in for "Shrek Forever After," a show I wasn't all that excited about.

"Shrek" picks us up in the middle of the title characters mid-life crisis. Maybe crisis is the wrong word. Rather, the middle of his suburban rut. Every day it's the same thing and that is starting to wear on everyone's favorite surly ogre. After blowing up at his kid's birthday party, Shrek stumbles into the path of one Rumpelstiltskin who has an axe to grind with the Shrek. Stiltskin tricks Shrek into signing a magical contract that will give the ogre one day to be an ogre, complete with rampaging through the countryside and striking fear into the hearts of villagers. When Shrek nears the end of his day of fun, however, he discovers that the fine print of the contract has virtually stripped him of his existence. His wife, Fiona, and friends don't know who he is and Stiltskin is now the king of Far Far Away. At the end of the day Shrek will vanish forever unless he can again experience "love's first kiss" with Fiona.

“Shrek” has always been a bit of inconsistent for me. The first one was decent enough, though I think it's quite overrated. I very much enjoy the second installment and find it quite funny every time I watch. The third film, however, is awful. No laughs, no plot, no writing of any substance. The wit of the first two is completely absent from the third film and it soured me on the franchise as a whole. "Shrek Forever After," though, pleasantly surprised me. From the beginning, it is clear to the audience that everyone behind this film recognizes the failure of the third film and its lackluster departure from the style of its predecessors. The story, while far from original, is much livelier than the third “Shrek 3” ever was. (Though to be honest the third “Shrek” seemed like it was mapped out by an 8 year old with a hangover up against a deadline.) Laughter is again a part of the “Shrek” universe here while it was painfully absent before. Some of (okay, maybe most of) the laughs are predictable and easy, but not so easy as to make me feel dumb for laughing. Perhaps I was just happy to take what I could get on a weekend when the only other options involved Jake Gyllenhaal or four rich women complaining for 150 minutes.

For me the real difference between “Shrek 3” and “Forever After” is the voicing. For one thing, “3” was overfilled with cameo voices that swallowed up too much of the script. I’m a huge fan of the well placed cameo but when you pile them on one after the other, they begin to take away from the actual cast. “Forever After” doesn’t fall into that trap. There are still a lot of extra recognizable voices but they work with the main cast instead of fighting against them. More importantly, though, the headliners feel more invested this time around than they have before. In “Shrek 3” all of the voice talents sound bored and unconcerned. This time around Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, and the rest are actually trying. Maybe that’s because they all hate “Shrek 3” like the rest of the world does or maybe it’s just that they have something to work with this time that they didn’t before. Or maybe it’s that they need this one to be good. Myers and Murphy in particular are in desperate need of a hit. Myers is bordering on dropping into Straight-to-DVD Hell after the disastrous turn his career has taken over the last few years and Murphy isn’t far behind. Even though it’s only voice work, you can sense a bit of urgency in both of their performances and “Forever After” is better for it.

“Forever After” is far from flawless. As I mentioned, it’s not so original, playing out a bit like “It’s a Wonderful Life with Ogres.” I wasn’t just overrun with the need to laugh out loud, either, which would have been a welcome distraction to the 3 year old sitting behind me, kicking my chair repeatedly. And if nothing else, I’m still not convinced that either of the movies that followed “Shrek 2” needed to be made or that there’s a story here that needs to be told. Still, this movie is a bit of summer fun in a year that DESPERATELY needs it and a solid final chapter to the franchise.

Grade: B

I can’t think of a closing line,
Brian

DVD Review - "The Wolfman"

Upon learning of his brother's disappearance, Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns to the home he left many years before. When he arrives, he finds the house in shambles with his father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), teetering on the edge of insanity. When his brother's body is discovered, Lawrence stays around, in part to comfort his brother's former fiance Gwen (Emily Blunt), and in part to determine how his brother died. The story around town is that the death was at the hands of the Wolfman, a local legend. Soon Lawrence is himself attacked by the creature, setting up a brutal showdown with the demons of his past.

At one point, "Wolfman" was so respected as to garner award anticipation. Quite quickly, however, this attention waned as the movie was shifted all over the calendar until it finally settled into the Movie Dead Zone that is February. I held out a small measure of hope if for no other reason than the actors involved. I think Del Toro is an excellent talent who usually delivers and while Hopkins hasn't done anything of value in years (and years and years), I still want to believe he's got something left in the tank.

Unfortunately, "Wolfman" is a train wreck. The story is mediocre at best and seriously choppy throughout. There is little to no character development and the special effects are of low rent video game quality. Del Toro holds up his end of the bargain but he is left completely and totally alone on the acting front lines. Emily Blunt, whom I have a giant crush on, just doesn't get much of a chance to do anything as her part is basically pointless. And then there's Hopkins. Oh, Anthony Hopkins, how I miss you. Hopkins gives one of the most mailed-in performances I have ever seen. He is completely uninspired and uninterested in his role, the movie, and maybe even breathing. I equate the last 10 years of Hopkins' career to that of Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis in that both were GREAT in their day but now it's unclear if either is still alive. It's like Hopkins died years ago but his family, in need of some quick cash, has reanimated his body and run a scam on the whole of Hollywood, continuing to sign his name to awful movies. Del Toro and the occasional glimpse of inspired FX keep "Wolfman" from being a total loss but it's not far off.

Grade: D

"Robin Hood"

I think it's safe to say that of all the classic stories the world has ever known, the one of Robin Hood is my third favorite behind Jesus and "Star Wars." I've read a few books about the man and, of course, seen and loved all the movies. Disney’s "Robin Hood" is my favorite animated film of all time that does not involve Buzz Lightyear. My relationship with my mother was severely strained in 1991 when I was informed I would not be allowed to see the "Prince of Thieves" version due to its rating. It took quite some time to get over this insult. Errol Flynn's version of the man is one of the few pre-1977 films that would make it on to my Top 100 List were I to take the time to make one. Even the absurdity of "Men in Tights" doesn't deter my love for the Robin Hood character. So it was with great anticipation that I greeted the opening of the latest installment of the legendary robber-of-the-rich.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" starts us off in a different place than the traditional setting. Think of this is as a prequel to the story you already know. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe), an archer in the king's army, is Crusading his was back to England when Richard the Lionheart is killed in battle. Seizing an opportunity to increase their fortunes, Robin and his men assume the identities of a group of knights, including Robert Loxley. Upon returning home, Robin finds the country in chaos. The new king, John (Oscar Isaac), rules with an incompetent iron fist, the people are taxed behind reasonable measure, and a rogue knight, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is in collusion with the French in a bid to stake his own claim to the throne. Robin and his men attempt to live a semi-peaceful life (with the occasional grain-heist thrown in to keep it interesting) as he fulfills the wishes of Robert's father Walter (Max von Sydow), taking up his dead son's place next to Marion (Cate Blanchett). Meanwhile, Godfrey is running amok through the countryside under the guise of collecting taxes for King John, bringing the nation ever closer to a full on French invasion.

To be fair, “Robin Hood” really isn’t a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination. It has some extremely strong moments and excellent battle scenes. It also displays some good ideas that could/should lead to a solid follow-up in the next installment and if nothing else it didn’t turn off from the franchise altogether. With that said, this isn’t what I’d necessarily call a good movie, either. The truth is, “Robin Hood” is just remarkably average. That might be acceptable for a run-of-the-mill-Summer-action-movie but not for a Scott-Crowe production with a 237 million dollar budget. Scott has developed a reputation for himself as a great filmmaker and the only problem with that is expectations are sky high for every single film, ESPECIALLY when you take on an iconic story like “Robin Hood.” It doesn’t feel like Scott ever really puts his stamp on this film. Likewise, Crowe very rarely makes a poor or even average film these days and I expect more from him because of that. Here he drifts from scene to scene and doesn’t feel completely invested. In all honesty, though, the problem with “Robin Hood” isn’t the direction or the performances. The problem is the script.

Brian Helgeland’s script, for lack of a better term, sucks. From beginning to end this movie finds its way into every pitfall you could possibly fall into in an action epic. To a man, the characters are weak and poorly developed. There is not a single moment of inspired or significant dialogue. The action sequences are solid but sprinkled in sparsely, leading to more than a few moments of boredom. I am all for a long run time and I’m not opposed to an action movie that doesn’t run straight from one piece of action to the next. In other words, I don’t need Michael Bay’s brand of action to have a good time. But if you are going the route of a longer, slower action piece, the rest of the script better be gangbusters and this one just isn’t. The biggest issue is there are way too many moving parts and not enough development of any of them. Somewhere between three and five villains take their turns being the alpha baddie and none of them are so strong as to demand any kind of respect, either from the heroes or the audience. With so many supporting actors who have “face value,” it feels like Helgeland tries too hard to get them all screen time and lines. Mark Strong is especially underused, though Cate Blanchett also gets the “could have been anyone” treatment. The result is a cluttered story line that doesn’t allow any one part to shine. In addition, “Hood” is full of clichés, rendering it not only a bit of a mess but an unoriginal mess to boot.

All told, “Robin Hood” is not a lost cause and, despite the unabashed setup, I’ve still got some excitement left in me for the franchise as a whole. It’s possible, however, that my love for this story and this character are overriding my actual feelings toward this film on its own. There are some gaping holes here that left my pining a bit for a giant rooster with a guitar or even (call me crazy) a Muslimed-up Morgan Freeman. And maybe that’s part of the problem: when you take on a story that brings forth so many fond memories for so many people, you better be able to deliver an outstanding, fresh take. In the wake of the success of the Christopher Nolan “Batman” series, J.J. Abrams “Star Trek,” and several other retellings that have taken the screen of late, the audience expects more and “Robin Hood” just doesn’t deliver.

Grade: B-

Cate Blanchett looks ridiculous with a sword,
Brian

Blu-Ray Review: "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus"

"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" centers around the title character (Christopher Plummer) and his band of carnies that go from town to town setting up their side show. Truth be told, the side show is just a cover for a Battle of Souls between Dr. Parnassus and Satan. The two have made a bet (or a series of bets), the wager being the soul of Valentina (Lily Cole), Parnassus' daughter. With the end of the bet at hand, the group comes across Tony (Heath Ledger), a young man on the brink of death who has the gift of persuasion. Before long business is booming but the group begins to question Tony's motives. The deadline with the Devil draws near, however, which sets off a chain of events that pit Parnassus, Tony, and Satan against each other in a final showdown.

Let's just get this out of the way up front: "Parnassus" is a freaking weird film. It is NOT for everyone. I myself ignored it for a while, assuming it wasn't for me. Terry Gilliam is one of the best, most gifted directors in the industry and I really mean that. Very few people can take a vision to the screen the way he does. With that said, however, his films are SUPER weird. And if you haven't seen a Gilliam movie then you can't understand what I mean. He has a style completely all his own and more often than not, it's too weird even for my slightly strange tastes. So take my statement of this not being for everyone seriously when considering the next paragraph.

"Parnassus" is a magnificent film. Gilliam's script is inspired and pulls some original content from a story that's been told a number of times. The visuals are outlandish, of course, but fantastic and work with the story as opposed to overshadowing it. The performances, however, are the bread and butter here, especially those of Plummer, Ledger, and Tom Waits. Question: is Christopher Plummer the most underrated actor of our time? Answer: Yes, yes he is. The guy brings the noise to every single role. Dr. Parnassus is a doubtful, broken, and desperate man, yet good to his very core, and Plummer brings all of that and more. Likewise, Ledger shows some serious talent in what was to be his final performance. Waits is the equal, if not the superior, to them both, however. His version of Satan is smooth, debonair, and terrifyingly appealing. Waits steals every scene he's in and that's a serious compliment given who he's stacked up against.

In addition to all of this, the finishing of the film is a stroke of genius. As you may or may not know, Ledger died in the middle of production. Rather than starting over or scraping the project entirely, Gilliam cast Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Ferrell in Ledger's place. Gilliam weaves these faces and the changes into his story, making it a plot point within the movie rather than asking us to simply suspend reality and ignore the change in appearance given the circumstance. A masterful finishing touch in my opinion. In the end, "Parnassus" is that rare film that grows on you. While watching I thought it was solid, a day later I described it as very good, and now, a week or so removed, I feel it borders on great. A truly, truly special film.

Grade: A

Blu-Ray Review: "The Messenger"

When Staff Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) returns to the US with a war injury, he assigned to a Casualty Notification Unit for the remainder of his service team. Along with his mentor, Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), Will travels around the base delivering the news of soldier's death to loved ones. It is a horrible assignment that messes with the already fragile mentality of a wounded soldier. The relationship Will forms with Tony is deep but volatile and he begins to find himself becoming closer and closer to a woman he recently informed of her husband's death.

"The Messenger" is an excellent film that gives the viewer an honest look into the life of a soldier when he's not at war. As you might imagine, though, it is very difficult to watch. Will Montgomery is broken and delivering the notifications to families unwilling or unable to accept this news slowly breaks him down even further. Watching the scenes of Will and Tony talking to the families is a haunting experience and makes you wonder how anyone could do this job. However, it's a worthwhile investment if you can fight through the authentic, heart breaking tone of the film. Both Foster and Harrelson (who earned a Best Supporting Oscar nod for the role) are OUTSTANDING and the emotions contained within the film are genuinely human. "The Messenger" at its deepest level is about humanity and how that is personified through the results of war. There are some continuity issues here and there and a couple of unnecessary lulls, but these are only minor bumps in comparison to the strength finished product.

Grade: B+

DVD Review: "Gentelmen Broncos"

Home schooled would-be fantasy writer Benjamin (Michael Angarano) goes to a writer's convention where he meets his hero, Chevalier (Jermaine Clement). After entering Chevalier's writing contest, Benjamin is stunned to discover that Chevalier has stolen his ideas and published a new book without crediting the young writer. Meanwhile, Benjamin has already sold the rights to his book to a local filmmaker who butchers his work, leaving him a bit frustrated and volatile.

A few years ago, director Jared Hess caught lightning in a bottle with the cost-nothing-to-make blockbuster "Napoleon Dynamite." "Napoleon" was a weird piece of ridiculousness that you either loved or hated and I happened to love. To this day if I'm flipping channels and come across the "Canned Heat" dance scene, I stop down to watch it no matter what. Since then, however, Hess has been chasing that success like an Indian casino poker player dumping his paycheck into the flop (not the best analogy I've ever put together, I admit). "Nacho Libre" drew in a big name (Jack Black) and made a little money but flopped critically. "Broncos" takes flopping to a whole new level. With a production budget of around $10 million, this stinker has brought in approximately $200,000 total. It's really hard these days for a movie to not at least break even when it's all said and done, but "Broncos" has made that feat look easy.

This movie has absolutely no flow and very, very few laughs. The script is thin and the story just not worth telling, at least the way it's told here. The whole thing is just uninspired and that immature quirkiness that made "Napoleon" work so well is completely absent here, replaced only with cringe-inducing moments of utter stupidity. In all seriousness, the epic failure of "Broncos" may very well make it the last mainstream movie Hess ever directs, which is sad considering where he started.

Grade: F

DVD Review - "Pirate Radio"

In 1960's Britain, no radio station would play rock 'n roll, leaving the youth of the country without a viable means to accessing their music of choice. Rock's only hope came in the form of ships anchored off the English coast that broadcast the genre 24/7. "Pirate Radio" centers around one of these ships and the DJs who man the airwaves, led by The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Their semi-legal exploits draw the ire of Sir Alistar Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), a stuffy government official who hates rock 'n roll and the influence it has on kids. As pirate radio gains listeners, Dormandy and his cronies increase their efforts to make the ships illegal, setting off a war between the rebels and the powers-that-be.

"Pirate Radio" has some solid performances. Bill Nighy, for example, is always enjoyable and seriously, there might not be a better Funny Angry actor in the world than Hoffman. I stinking love that guy. Unfortunately the story unfolds like a Michael Moore documentary: all shock value, little factuality. There's a very interesting story to be told here that I, being the ignorant American that I am, haven't heard. But even someone who knows nothing of the actual story can smell the bias that emanates from "Pirate Radio." I'm not saying I expected a completely fair and unbiased look at the intricate details that surround this story, but director Richard Curtis could have done a better job of disguising his "good guy, bad guy"  approach. The music for "Pirate" is excellent and there are some funny moments (especially those involving Hoffman, naturally). But the end product is unsatisfying and, quite frankly, irrelevant. The whole thing just made me want to watch "Almost Famous," a coming-of-age-in-the-music-business film that actually matters.

Grade: C+

Blu-ray Review: "The Men Who Stare at Goats"

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a journalist who, after being left by his wife, heads for Iraq to report on the war. While there, he comes in contact with Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a former "special ops" soldier in the Army whose training was in psychic warfare. He is, in his own words, a Jedi whose abilities include making himself invisible and killing goats with his mind. Sensing a story, Wilton follows Cassady on a mission only to be dragged through the desert into some crazy situations that eventually reunite Cassady with his mentor, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges).

"Goats" is apparently loosely based on a true story, though I have no idea how much of this is fact and how much is exaggeration. Regardless the whole thing is, quite frankly, pointless. "Goats" has an identity problem in that it cannot decide whether it wants to be a dark comedy, a drama, or a political satire. I think it has dreams of being the latter but that's certainly more an assumption on my part than it is anything I could really pick up from this poorly developed film. Meanwhile, the cast all give mailed in performances and make you feel like they all figured out this was a sinking ship early on and acted appropriately. There might be a story worth telling somewhere in here but it definitely doesn't show itself here.

Grade: C-

Blu-ray Review - "The Lovely Bones"

Based on the book by Alice Sebold, "The Lovely Bones" is told from the perspective of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), a 14 year old girl who was murdered by her neighbor, George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). Susie is "stuck in the in between": no longer alive but unable to move on to heaven as of yet. Meanwhile in the real world, Harvey carries on, having never been caught, and Susie's parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) are left to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Susie's spirit runs wild in a dream world of her own imagining but always finds herself haunted by Harvey. As the psychopath gets closer and closer to her sister Lindsey (Rose McIver), Susie tries to communicate with her family to lead them to the right conclusions.

There are two reasons, in my opinion, as to why "Bones" did not do very well either with critics or audiences:

1.) It's too sci-fi/fantasy for the average movie goer but not enough so to reach a sci-fi audience;
2.) It reeks of Shattered Award Ambition, meaning it wants and even expects to be award worthy but it just isn't. That doesn't really bother me so much but I know it drives a lot of people stinkin' crazy and looks like a giant target for anyone who wants to take a shot.

Award ambitions aside, I found "Bones" to be a quality movie.The visuals are outstanding and as with all Peter Jackson films, the actors are put in position to succeed. Ronan does a very good job in a very difficult role. Wahlberg, Weisz, and Michael Imperioli are solid across the board and Stanley Tucci lives up to the Oscar nomination (Best Supporting Actor) he received. Creeeeppppy. What holds this movie back is the story, or rather, the conclusion of the story. Usually if a movie lulls or drops in quality, the drop comes in the second act; the bridge between beginning and end is usually the part that struggles and that's what I've come to expect more often than not. Here, however, the set up is good, the middle act pulls its weight, but then the wrap seems rushed and a little haphazard.

Think of this as the Saturday Night Live Effect: think of how many zany bits SNL put on over the years that ended so bizarrely that you wondered if they were running out of time or coming down from a high. Maybe we could call this the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" effect. The third act tries to wrap everything up in about five minutes and it is simply a bit lacking. I'm not someone who needs a tidy, happy, cliche ending to every story. Sometimes the bad guy needs to win or the girl needs to get away or the band needs to stay broken up because that's reality. SPOILER: What I don't like, however, is the middle ground ending, the one that says, "Well they never did catch the guy but oh by the way he died later anyway so it's all good." It's just a bit unsatisfying. For me, it doesn't keep it from being a solid movie but it does keep it from being one of great substance as I imagine it intends to be.

Grade: B.

Blu-ray Review: "Daybreakers"

It is the year 2019 and the vast majority of the population has been turned into vampires. Only five percent of the world are humans and that leaves the vampires without a sustainable food supply. Lower class vampires are wasting away and reverting into bat-like creatures while the upper class is looking for a blood substitute. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is a leading hematologist who happens to come in contact with Elvis Cormac (Willem Defoe), a human who has been cured of the vampire virus. Dalton and Cormac work to create a mass cure while being hunted by Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) and his army who don't want to be cured.

First off, I am not really a fan of horror movies, particularly those centered around vampires. They just don't do it for me. But I was suckered into "Daybreakers" because of the interesting plot line. And I have to say, there's a really good movie in here somewhere. The cast is strong all around and the story is solid with some new innovations into the vast catalog of vampire legend. In the end, however, there are just too many holes and wasteful, gratuitous scenes to call this "good." It's actually quite disappointing in that the directors (the Spierig brothers) come up with some truly original ideas concerning the story and then resort to B-movie rubbish to fill in the other 45 minutes of the film. All in all it's not a complete lost cause. Instead  "Daybreakers" has just enough good to make the bad all the more frustrating.

Grade: C+

"Iron Man 2"

Last year I started a phenomenon that took hold of the masses. And by the “masses” I mean the 8 or 12 nerdiest people I hang out with. It was called the Summer of the Nerd and it was awesome. We celebrated the large amount of nerd fare the summer had to offer and had a blast doing it. Recently, a friend and I just had a debate as to which year, 2011 or 2012, was the more appropriate summer for a sequel to the SOTN and ultimately decided that we might just have to make it a trilogy. Both ’11 and ’12 are rock solid with nerdy goodness. 2010, however, is the black sheep of the nerdy family. It is to the rest of the surrounding years what Timothy B. Schmidt is to the rest of The Eagles: odd, off putting, and completely unhip. Even Schmidt, though, had his moment in the sun, leaving hope for poor little 2010. “Iron Man 2” is destined to be to 2010 nerds what “Love Will Keep Us Alive” was for old Schmitty. (I’m pretty excited about the upcoming Eagles tour if you can’t tell.)

When we left Tony Stark in “Iron Man,” he had taken a route uncommon to super heroes and given away the secret part of his secret identity, announcing to the world that he was, in fact, Iron Man. “Iron Man 2” drops us right back into the snarky world of Stark as his self importance reaches an all time high. From the rebirth of the Stark Expo to his verbal destruction of a senator demanding possession of the Iron Man suit, Stark is publicly riding high and loving it. Behind the scenes, however, Tony is suffering. The technology he uses to keep himself alive is slowly poisoning him and his struggles to find a better alternative have proven useless. While he is at his reckless, self endangering worst, baddies Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) and Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) come out of the woodworks to challenge Iron Man’s power. Sarcasm, one liners, and action packed battles abound.

When Jon Favreau was announced as the director of this franchise in 2007, I was incredibly skeptical. I really enjoy Favreau’s work, mind you, but to ask a guy whose biggest accomplishment was “Elf” to take on a big time superhero action movie like “Iron Man” seemed quite a stretch. To his credit, however, Favs made it clear that he understood the task at hand. (I like to refer to him as Favs because I feel like, if I knew him in real life, he’d be cool with me calling him that.) He dug deep into the comic book mythology and worked extremely hard to make sure that the finished product bridged the gap between the Comic Purists and regular movie goers. “IM2” takes up where the first left off and makes it pretty easy for anyone, whether a comic junkie or not, to enjoy the ride.

Justin Theroux’s script is, for the most part, solid. He takes the elements that made Stark such a brash yet charismatic character in the first film and cranks them up a notch while managing to keep him from going over the top. While Stark is the meat, potatoes, and second vegetable choice of the whole shebang, Theroux and Favs do a pretty good job of developing the rest of the characters and the world in which they live. There are times when the story, at least for me, drifts a bit and I would suggest there are a couple of scenes that are unnecessary. But on the whole, you can deal with a few errant swings when your batter is slugging .500. The action sequences, meanwhile, are more backdrops to the cast rather than main characters. This is a rarity in a world that is dominated by Michael Bay and the like, though this was a principal upheld in the first “Iron Man” so perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. That does, however, put a lot of pressure on the talent which is where “IM2” truly shines.

Let’s just be open and honest here, friends. I have a huge man crush on Robert Downey, Jr. Always have. Even in the drug years when he was pulling roles that even John Travolta would turn down, his performances never felt flat or uninspired. The dude just exudes talent and I don’t think any role could suit Downey better than Tony Stark. It would be very easy for a guy of Downey’s abilities coming from where he’s come from to take the $20 million bucks he’s getting from a superhero action movie and mail in his performance. Instead he embraces Tony Stark (or maybe he IS Tony Stark) and brings a rocking A-game. Truth be told, I was worried going in that “IM2” was going to get the “Spiderman 3” treatment: too many known faces, too little screen time to go around. Instead, Rourke, Rockwell, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johannson, and the rest all actually provide support for Downey (shocker) instead of clogging up the screen. I particularly like Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts, a role that just seems much more lively than most of her other work.

I will say that I think the first “Iron Man” is a better film from a quality standpoint than the sequel. At times you can feel the pressure on “IM2” to live up to the standard of its predecessor, whereas the first one had no such stress. Sometimes that pressure comes across as strain in the story or even a scene or two of gratuitous action that I personally believe might not have been there in the first one. With all that said, however, “IM2” is an absolute riot. I LOLed (I like to use that phrase in jest because it drives me freaking nuts when people use it for real) more times in the first 30 minutes than I have in a lot of really good comedies. It’s all a bit absurd, of course, and at times the dialogue DEFINITELY crosses the line between tongue-in-cheek and overly campy. But overall the entertainment value is off the charts. “IM2” provides enough laughs to serve as a stellar comedy, enough explosions to work as a straight action film, and enough heroics to be a worthy comic book film. It is a good (if not great) piece of filmmaking that is a must see for any movie fan, nerd or otherwise.

Grade: B+

Man crushes are totally acceptable, right?
Brian

"The Losers"

I don’t mean to shock anybody with my following statement, but I must confess I am a nerd. In fact, I am such a nerd that there are different levels to my nerdiness. I am a Sports Nerd, a Movie and TV Nerd, a Super Hero Nerd, at times a Book Nerd, and a Joke Nerd (Conan voice: I love science). Perhaps the only kind of nerd I am not (not counting creepy nerds like the dudes on that toy trains show) is Comic Book Nerd. I never got into the comic book thing. Even as a kid I was far too busy collecting Star Wars figures, organizing basketball cards, and reading “The Hobbit” over and over again to concern myself with comics. So basically, anything that could be done to prevent girls from liking me EXCEPT reading comics. (I was this close to a perfect game, darnit.) This new wave of comic, the graphic novel, has always intrigued me but not quite enough to actually invest in the Time + Money = Knowledge equation. Now that so many of these books are being turned into movies, I’m pretty sure that it’s better for me just to see the movies to save myself from the inevitable, “that’s not faithful to the booooook!!!” comments that seem to be required from these situations. And yet, movies like “The Losers” often leave me wanting to catch up on all the great graphic novels I’m missing out on.

“The Losers” are your typical mercenaries with a conscience lead by Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) based on characters from the graphic novel of the same name by Andy Diggle. They might be out on a CIA endorsed mission of death but they’re sure not going to accept collateral damage. When one of these missions turns south, their handler, Max (Jason Patric), leaves them stranded in Bolivia. Considered dead and unable to return to their lives for the sake of their families, the Losers are left only to ponder their growing desire for revenge. When Aisha (Zoe Saldana), a mysterious woman of questionable integrity but unquestionable sex appeal, shows up with a plan of getting their lives back, the Losers jump on board and bring the war on Max to the U.S.

Each member brings their own skill set to the team. Roque (Idris Elba) is the muscle, Pooch (Columbus Short) is the munitions expert and driver, Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) is the sniper, Jensen (Chris Evans) is the computer geek, and of course Clay is the suave-but-rugged leader of the pack. This crew is the type that enjoys a good shoot out, especially when the odds are stacked against them. From office building invasions to full on fire fights in the streets of Miami (complete with a 50 millimeter cannon), the Losers provide an action junkie’s dream. These guys are ticked and the only time they take a break from stealing helicopters, blowing up Hummers, and taking down airplanes is when the occasion calls for witty banter and slightly camptastic one-liners.

“The Losers” is, quite simply, a fun piece of action throwback goodness. The writing is adequate enough to keep the audience from groaning or becoming disinterested. Sometimes the pacing is too fast and leaves you feeling like you’re jumping from frame to frame. But if you’re making an action movie, you can live with too fast over too slow. The acting, for the most part, is solid. Evans, who was recently cast as Captain America in a new franchise of films, is particularly and shockingly good. Best known for playing the Human Torch in the atrocious “Fantastic Four” movies, I’ve always thought Evans was a terrible actor. Here he is funny enough as to make me wonder if perhaps he brought somebody else’s A game instead of his own. Morgan is an underrated lead and he does a good job of bridging the gap between James Bond and Rambo. Elba, Short, and Jaenada all provide good support as well. The story is good enough, if underdeveloped, and did I mention a 50 millimeter machine gun? Hence, the action sequences are undeniably awesome.

Still, this is far from a perfect comic book hero action flick. Saldana’s character is unnecessary, similar to the female roles in many an action movie. She is underdeveloped and, judging by her work in “Star Trek” and “Avatar,” underutilized. Jason Patric, meanwhile, is terribly miscast. I have no problem with Patric and consider him to be a solid actor. But his Max is just not convincing. This script puts a lot of pressure on the villain to carry a heavy load and Patric just comes across as flat and uninspired. The biggest issue, however, is the film’s overall lack of emotion. Perhaps that’s just not the director’s intention, which I can understand, but I personally found it a bit lacking. The Losers don’t display any heart, even when they’re saving Bolivian orphans from a fast-approaching missile and that lends itself to a certain disconnect with the audience.

“The Losers” is pure entertainment that revels in its comic book nerdery and doesn’t trouble itself with such trivial concerns as reality. Though, I must say, reality is a relative term when it comes to the world of film. There’s much more authenticity here than, say, 2009’s “Taken,” a film I absolutely loved in spite of its complete detachment from reality. I wouldn’t call this any sort of crowing achievement in the comic book movie genre. Rather, it’s quite predictable, full of clichés, and displays a litany of holes. Still, I consider “The Losers” to be an all around good time that reaches out to the potential Comic Book Nerd inside and only strengthens its demands to be heard through all the other levels of nerdiness.

Grade: B-

Spell check tells me I invented three words in this review,
Brian

"How to Train Your Dragon"

I’ve always been a big fan of the well made animated feature. There’s something special about that rare cartoon that crosses the barrier between “fun kids movie” and “all around good movie.” Animation let’s the filmmaker do things that might not be possible otherwise and put you into worlds that are chalk full of imagination. It’s like a free pass to think like a kid for 90 minutes and get wrapped up in talking toys, foxes dressed like Robin Hood, or an old man flying his house to South America. The best-of-the-best from this genre make you forget you’re watching a cartoon as you get sucked in to their subject matter, outlandish as it may be. And so it is with “How to Train Your Dragon.”

“How to Train Your Dragon” drops the audience smack dab into the middle of a Viking village and the life of a scrawny kid named Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel). These Vikings aren’t so much into plundering as they are dealing with dragons. Dragons infest their tiny island and all good Vikings devote their lives to the hunting of and defense against these sheep stealing beasts. This is where problems arise for Hiccup. Hiccup is less the Village Idiot, more the Village Misunderstood Visionary. His lack of size and strength prevents him from taking on the dragons head to head, but what he lacks in brute strength, he makes up for in technological advances. One of his inventions allows him to take down a dreaded Night Terror dragon, something no one else in the village has ever done. Unfortunately the beast lands somewhere in the distance and no one in the town, especially his father Stoick (Gerard Butler), believes him. Determined to prove his worth, Hiccup tracks down the dragon to finish him off. When the time comes, however, he finds himself unable to do so and eventually finds himself forming a very unlikely friendship.

Everything about “Dragon” is solid. The voice work is strong and I must say these characters are extremely well cast. Too often animated movies rely on “name” talent that is designed to get people into the theater but then forces you to focus on those well known voices. Here, however, the work done by Baruchel, Butler, and the rest feels genuine. You’re not distracted by the voices as they just seem like a bunch of real cartoon Vikings (as weird as that description may sound). In addition, the visuals are excellent even if the 3-D aspect is a bit unnecessary. The design of the dragons is an especially nice touch. Toothless, Hiccup’s dragon, is unlike any other dragon I’ve seen on screen. His movements are quite catlike and it has the desired effect of making the dragons seem more pet-quality than you might think.

The script, however, is “Dragon’s” real strong point. Writer William Davies gives the story proper pacing and allows for authentic emotion, something that is often lacking in any movie, let alone an animated one. The bond between Hiccup and Toothless is reminiscent of dog and owner, and that comes across naturally rather than relying on the cliché play-up that so many movies resort to. The two work together as Hiccup tries to fix Toothless’ broken wing and Toothless in turn teaches Hiccup about dragon psychology, something no Viking has bothered to study. It’s an authentic relationship that these two share not only with each other but with the audience as well. The dialogue is full of humor and wit, never leaving the viewer wanting for comedy on top of everything else. Overall, “Dragon” is an extremely original story that is brilliantly told.

“Dragon” is a major step forward for Dreamworks animation. Their previous films (“Shrek,” “Flushed Away,” etc.) have done well at the box office but have failed to garner the critical attention that the Pixar films have. For me, this has always been because where the Pixar movies connect on an emotional, relevant level, Dreamworks features simply aim to make the audience laugh. There’s nothing wrong with that, par se, but great movies connect, not just entertain. “Dragon” manages to connect and entertain along the same lines as some of the better Pixar films. It is 98 minutes of pure imagination in cartoon Viking form and leaves the viewer wanting more from the inevitable franchise that is to come.

Grade: A

My old dog is going to be Toothless pretty soon,
Brian