"The Pacific"

"The Pacific" is the third part in the history of World War II, as brought to you by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. "Saving Private Ryan" is one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time and I would argue that "Band of Brothers" is the best mini-series I've ever seen. So, "Pacific" had some big shoes to fill. This installment follows three Marines in various stages of their tours in the Pacific and the horrors they had to deal with. One is a war hero, one an idealist whose beliefs are brought into question, and one a disillusioned veteran who has a harder time than most adjusting. Each sees a terrible slice of action that indelibly affects the course of their lives.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, thrusting America into the throes of World War II, the country undertook a two front war, fighting one war in Europe and a much less heralded war that spanned the Pacific ocean. Though both fronts brought their own unique hazards, in many ways the fight in the Pacific was a more difficult battle, yet for some reason it always seems to be the forgotten war. When we studied WWII in school, almost all the focus seemed to drift toward D-Day, the Battle of Normandy, etc. and very little time was put into the Pacific beyond Iwo Jima. To this day, when I think of WWII, I think of the European front.

Unfortunately, "The Pacific," didn't do much to help the disparity. It's really not its fault. How do you follow up one, let alone two, of the best productions of the last quarter century? The answer in this case is you really don't. Don't misunderstand. As far as war movies/shows go, "The Pacific" is still very good and completely worth seeing. It just doesn't measure up to its big brothers. It doesn't transcend the way "Ryan" and "Brothers" did. The stories are still just as real, the cinematography and shot selection are astounding, and the dialogue is great.

Two things hold "Pacific" back. One, for the first time in this franchise, the realism went a step too far. Despite all of the horrible events and details depicted in "Ryan" and "Brothers," never once did I feel like they were anything but authentic. "Pacific" at times almost seems gratuitous, like it wants to be shocking, which is the opposite of what I've come to expect from this collaborative group. Two, there is a distinct lack of brotherhood among this group of soldiers. For me, the predecessors of "Pacific" are what they are because of the bond shared and exquisitely displayed by the cast and the characters they portray. The emotional connection of the audience to the characters is rooted in the fact that there is an even stronger emotional connection between those on screen. The very idea behind "The Pacific," three tales of three different Marines, leads to a disconnect that lessens the impact that the series could have. It still tells a tremendous story and one that desperately needs to be told, but it just isn't as engrossing as the other installments.

Grade: B+

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"

When Prince Dustan (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his men ransack a rebelling territory, he comes into possession of a beautiful dagger. After a series of events force him to go on the run, he discovers the dagger has the power to turn back time. With the aid of Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) and the dagger, he sets about on a quest to redeem his name and get revenge on those who have wronged him.

"Prince of Persia" is one of the biggest domestic flops of the last decade. A $200+ million budget yielded a very poor opening weekend ($35 million) and a total of $90 million here in the States. It gained some real legs overseas and (as almost all movies do these days) still made a healthy profit. Which is quite disappointing. Not because it's a terrible movie; it isn't. As far as video game movies go, it's not so bad. The action sequences are pretty good, it moves at a quick pace, and the story is decent enough to keep from inducing groans. What's disappointing about the total haul of "Persia" is that it only propagates the sort of moviemaking and more importantly, movie marketing, that this movie represents. This entire movie and the corresponding advertising campaign are built around style over substance, flash over content. In true Jerry Bruckhiemer fashion, very little attention was paid to development or even to some elements of the casting while more and more was spent on adding a pointless special effect here or another "that'll look great in the trailer" shot there. You can almost hear Bruckheimer planning out the Disney World roller coaster that would be based on his movie instead of working on the movie itself. I'm not saying "Prince of Persia" could have been an award caliber film but it could have definitely hit a stronger note if a little more attention was paid to the actual movie and a little less to the marketing drive.

Grade: B-

"The American"

A couple of weeks ago I had an appointment with my orthopedist for a reevaluation of my accursed broken arm. I meticulously laid out a plan for my Sick Day that consisted of the following activities: 1.) Sleep until the last possible moment; 2.) Go to my appointment; 3.) Celebrate or wail over my ability or inability to return to sports participation, depending on the diagnosis; 4.) Eat some tremendously greasy food court pizza; 5.) See “Get Low”, an independent comedy starring Robert Duvall and Bill Murray that inexplicably made a brief appearance at a local theater. These plans went out the window, however, when my Fort Worth, Texas suburb was attacked by one of the various hurricanes/tropical storms that have made landfall recently and the ensuing flash flood. My appointment was cancelled due (considering my doctor’s office is on the fourth floor of a large building) to what I can only assume was a tidal wave that blew through downtown Richland Hills. Dejected, I made my way toward the theater. In my haste, though, I neglected to strap my fictional canoe to the top of my truck, which was the only vehicle that would have made it possible for me to traverse the eight “Waterworld”-like miles between the theater and myself. Further dejected, I turned around and headed to a crummier, less progressive theater that apparently has the good fortune of high ground for a popcorn and candy lunch and a midday showing of “The American.” If only the movie was more interesting than the tale of how I got to it.

“The American” finds veteran hitman Jack (George Clooney) in quasi-hiding from a group of Swedes he’s wronged along the way. While in a small Italian village, he takes on the quintessential “one last job” which seems more dangerous than it worthwhile. Even as he becomes more and more engrossed with a prostitute named Clara (Violante Placido) and the prospect of a normal life, his paranoia grows. Jack hears footsteps at every turn and performs every action with painstaking, almost maniacal caution. Whether his paranoia is justified is the only question.

“The American” is a slow burn, an “action-thriller” that relies heavily on unspoken tension and the tight, focused facial expressions and body language on its star over actual action sequences. In fact, the action scenes are confined to the very beginning and very end, with the exception of one brief explosion of violence in the second act. There’s really not even much dialogue to “The American” which makes its perfectly reasonable 105 minute runtime seem to drag. It’s all about long, extended shots that more than once had me squirming a bit, dying for a scene change. There’s very little sound to this film as well which, when used correctly (“No Country For Old Men” for example), can work brilliantly to heighten the tension of the story. Here, though, it’s somewhat off-putting, keeping the audience at bay. All combined, these choices make it difficult to invest in the film and puts a hefty amount of pressure on the star to carry the film to the audience rather than bringing the audience into the film. Clooney’s performance is solid but not engrossing enough to elicit much of a connection from me or the rest of the crowd. That’s not a knock on Clooney, whose I am always quick to compliment. This just isn’t one of his absolute best performances and I think that’s what it would have taken to make this film resonate with me.

By no means do I mean to suggest that “The American” is a bad film. It contains some great shots and a good story that just isn’t fleshed out the way you’d hope. Even the worst Clooney character (which this isn’t) is better than a lot of actor’s best and there’s something to be said for the dramatic form of action movies in an age dominated by Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer. (Plus, what the heck else was I going to do while my neighborhood was swept away in a flood of Biblical proportions?) Quite simply, this movie is just extremely European, which should probably have been expected considering its director, writer, cast (excluding Clooney), and setting are all European. Duh. But you can see why “The American” is having a hard time finding an, ahem, American audience.

Grade: B

How is “hitman” not a Microsoft approved Word?

Brian

"Going the Distance"

(Note: I have never once intentionally harmed a dog. I just thought that needed to be said.)

Remember when the romantic comedy was a big staple of the movie calendar? When actresses like Julie Roberts and Meg Ryan dominated the box office on a regular basis? When a date movie could (potentially) keep both members of a dating couple from wanting to jump off a very high cliff? Anybody? No? Well, I do. Judge me if you want but I used to quite like the (good) romantic comedy and would still count at least one (“When Harry Met Sally”) among my top 25 favorite movies of all time. Sadly, though, enjoyable romantic comedies have fallen by the wayside, replaced by brainless “girls night out” fodder (see: “The Back Up Plan” and “The Bounty Hunter”) that no self-respecting male could sit through, and depressing “real” love stories that leave everyone contemplating suicide (see: “The Notebook”). With all that in mind, I had relatively high hopes for “Going the Distance” and wanted oh so badly to give a solid account of its merits. Unfortunately, however, I’m not quite able to do so.

“Going the Distance” centers around Garrett (Justin Long) and Erin (Drew Barrymore), both early thirty-somethings currently living in the Big Apple. Garrett is your typical commit-a-phobe with a hip job in the music industry while Erin is the classic late bloomer, a 31-year-old working as an intern during the summer break from grad school at Stanford. When they meet, Garrett is (literally) just coming out of another failed relationship and Erin is headed back to California in six weeks. With these facts in mind, the two decide to keep the relationship casual as neither is interested in a long distance relationship. You see where this is going, right? Sure enough, they find themselves falling for each other and when Erin does return home, she and Garrett go against their better judgment and embark on that most dreaded of romantic journeys. What follows is a series of cross country trips, melancholy phone conversations, and a lot of woe-is-meing about the place, broken up by some well-placed levity at the hands of a solid supporting cast. The inevitable will-they-or-won’t-they produces a relatively satisfying conclusion that is part “The Break Up” and part “Runaway Bride.”

My wife and I have been married for a little over a year and dated for about a year before that. In that time, I can think of exactly one romantic-themed movie that both the Lady of the Box Office and I both really enjoyed; that being last year’s “500 Days of Summer.” Every other “chick flick” we’ve watched has either been unanimously hated or has caused me to strangle a puppy. (A lot of dogs have died in my neighborhood. I blame Hollywood. “Bride Wars” led to a string of incidents.) With “Summer” being the lone exception, there have been decidedly few adult-oriented romantic stories to hit theaters during our relationship and I think that’s ridiculous. “Distance” tries its hardest to fill that void but simply falls short of what it possibly could have been (or at least what I wanted it to be).

“Distance” is entertaining enough to keep the audience’s attention and definitely steers clear of the depressing territory that has marked a number of the recent romance movies that have crossed my path. Justin Long is a favorite of mine, an actor whose talent will probably never be quite appreciated because he’s been pigeon-holed into the type of too-smart-for-his-own-good underdog that he routinely plays. He takes Garrett as far as the material will let him but in all truth, this is one of the most limited leading characters in recent memory. There’s just nowhere for Garrett to go and he doesn’t seem to click with the supporting characters, which is a shame because they are each, in their own right, quite strong. Jason Sudiekis (“Saturday Night Live”), Charlie Day (“Always Sunny in Philadelphia”), and stand-up comic Jim Gaffigan all take on one dimensional characters to be sure but all shine in their one dimension while Long seems to flounder in his. Barrymore, too, feels lost in a character that doesn’t have much room for growth and doesn’t quite connect with those around her. She seems miscast, as well, coming across as desperate to be young. It’s not that Long and Barrymore don’t have chemistry; it’s that their chemistry is very shallow and they don’t mesh with the rest of the cast.

The real issue I have with “Distance” is its immaturity and lack of polish. It doesn’t play out as the “romantic comedy for adults age 25-45” that was advertised, but instead a teen movie that was hastily turned into something adults might want to see. “Distance” feels like some studio executive got ahold of a script for “90210”, aged the teenagers by 15 years, packed it with R-rated language, and marketed it to adults. And therein lies the problem. None of the characters, especially Erin, act like normal, human adults. They get thrown into adult situations but handle them like idiotic pre-teens. If you’re going to make a romantic comedy about adults and target an adult demographic, then maybe the adult audience should be able to relate to the adult characters. (That seems like sound logic to me, I’m just sayin’.) The result is a mismatched RomCom that entertains in the first act, falls apart in the second, and delivers a fitting finish that doesn’t do much to assuage the frustration of the movie as a whole.

It’s not that I disliked “Distance.” I laughed quite a lot (particularly in the first 40 minutes or so) and had no urge to inflict any harm on an animal (you’re welcome, PETA). And maybe that’s all I should have asked of this movie. But seriously, for those of us who are too old to care about “The Last Song”, too intelligent to sit through “Nights in Rodanthe”, and too young to understand “It’s Complicated”, it sure would be nice to have a decent date movie come around.

Grade: B-

I almost always misspell “intelligence”,
Brian

HBO Special - "Whiteout"

When a body pops up on the glaciers of Antarctica, U.S. Marshal Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale) suspects a murderer is hiding among the small number of scientists and researchers who man the polar station. With the winter storms closing in, Stetko and a small team must race against the clock to solve the murder before they're snowed in for six months.

Movies like "Whiteout" are the reason why HBO still exists. No amount of money could have gotten me to see this movie in theaters. And I wouldn't pay to rent it either, even in a pitiful movie year like this one that has forced me into numerous poor decisions. But if it pops up on HBO on a night when the Rangers have extended their losing streak, I've already watched Sportscenter twice, and I've got some busy work to do? Sure, I can watch it then.

And you know, in all honesty, "Whiteout" isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It's far from what I would call a "good" film but completely undeserving of the critical BEATING it took when it was released this time last year. It's very paint-by-numbers and the special effects are laughable, sure, but as far as Tuesday night time wasters go? Not all that bad. The plot is (obviously) quite easy to follow, the action moves along at a brisk pace, and most importantly, "Whiteout" doesn't try to be anything it isn't. Most movies like this either attempt to force themselves into the realm of the "significant" or they dredge themselves in gore. This sucker does neither and for that, I commend its makers. "Whiteout" did, however, reawaken my desire for Kate Beckinsale to matter. She's an incredibly beautiful woman, sure, but I really think she's a talented actress who has gotten herself stuck in a bad rut. She's been pigeon holed into this type of future SyFy channel filler and her career is now on the brink of becoming irredeemable. Regardless, "Whiteout" isn't as bad as you think it is and serves as a half way decent time killer on a rainy weeknight.

Grade: C+

DVD Review - "Harry Brown"

Michael Caine plays an ex-Military man who finds himself fearing for his safety in his longtime London neighborhood. Drug dealers, gun runners, and all around thugs are taking over the town and before long, Caine learns that his best friend has been murdered. When the police can't make a case, Harry Brown takes matters into his own hands and wages a war of vengeance and justice on the hooligans who roam his streets.

Movies like this come around at least a dozen times a year. Something tragic happens to dude, dude isn't satisfied with the law, and the law takes a backseat to dude's wrath. These can be good movies if done correctly but unfortunately it's a formula that seems to lend itself to mediocrity. "Harry Brown" is certainly mediocre (at best). The plot is poorly developed and yet moves at a snail's pace, a feat that is remarkably difficult to accomplish. We get 45 minutes into the film before Harry starts his reign of destruction and while I was certainly ready for the vigilanteism (new word for the day) to get going, all of the characters and the story line in general feel rushed. The plot twist(s) are half hearted and don't provide enough lead up to give the audience the proper perspective for what exactly is happening. Harry himself is a dull hero and one who doesn't seem to really care about the justice he's handing out. He gives off a sense of detachment and not the cold, cruel detachment that can chill your bones when done correctly. No, the detachment that Harry displays comes across as disinterest from the actor himself. It's not that Caine's performance is bad; it just doesn't set the tone the way I think it was expected to. In all honesty, the movie is just pointless. From the opening scene that doesn't really have anything to do with the movie itself to the bloody end, it's just a collection of drivel thrown together in a rather indecisive manner that ultimately left me pining for such "classics" as "Get Carter" and "Collateral Damage." Just didn't hit the mark for me.

Grade: C-

"The Other Guys"

Going into “The Other Guys” I felt like Will Ferrell owed me something. I’m a huge fan of Ferrell, having held a “Ferrell = Opening Weekend” stance for many years. That policy was called into question last year, however, when “Land of the Lost” attempted to use its awfulness as a weapon with which to murder me along with the rest of the audience. Lifelong Ferrell fans everywhere began to turn on the man and while I remained loyal, I confess it was a wavering loyalty. Still, the sheer joy that this guy has brought into my life over the years could not be thrown away so easily. How could I hold “Land of the Lost” and “Semi Pro” against the man without also taking into account the absolute genius of “Anchorman” or the juvenile magnificence of “Step Brothers”? They can’t all be good, you know? All that said, though, I needed Ferrell to prove to me and the rest of the world that he is as talented as I make him out to be in my head. I needed “The Other Guys” to atone for the sins of “Land of the Lost” and while I’m not going to say this is up to par with the other (director) Adam McKay-Ferrell pairings, it goes a long way toward erasing the memory of that last atrocity.

Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) are two desk-jockey cops in a department headlined by Highsmith and Danson (Samuel L. Jackson and The Rock) who have a flare for the dramatic. Gamble wants nothing more than to do paperwork and stay off the streets while Hoitz dreams of getting back to the big time after a hilarious incident involving Derek Jeter derailed his career. When they attempt to make a meager licensing violation arrest, the pair finds themselves wrapped up in a case that is miles above their pay grades and threatens to bring their lives crumbling down around them. Oh, and also, Michael Keaton is their boss. I just felt like it needed to be said so that you would be prepared for this should you decide to see this movie. It was a huge shock to me and it took me the length of the film to adjust to Michael Keaton actually being in a movie.

One of the qualities I look for in a film, and one that is often missing, is flow. Put simply, I want the movie to establish the path it chooses to walk and move fluidly from the beginning to the end. Scene-to-scene transition, significance of every shot, and firmness of the film’s identity are usually the spots that either make or break the flow. If the scenes start and finish smoothly, if there aren’t many (or any) wasted scenes or lines, and if the director shows an understanding for what he wants the film to be, chances are the momentum will carry from beginning to end in continuous fashion. “The Other Guys” hits quite strongly on those first two points of emphasis but falls short on the third requirement, thereby keeping the film from reaching its full potential. It felt to me like McKay couldn’t decide whether he was making a faux action comedy or if he was making a full on humor filled action flick. Because of that the scenes are somewhat choppy, giving the audience the roller coaster effect. You never really settle in for the trip the movie wants to take you on.

On the plus side, Ferrell gives perhaps his best comedic performance since the fabled “Anchorman.” Gamble is a stuffy, relatively gutless accountant-type who enjoys nothing more than following the rules. In essence, he is the opposite of the typical Ferrell character. Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby would hate Allen Gamble. I feel this role displayed a bit of Ferrell’s range. I think the average movie goer believes this guy to be a one trick pony but in truth there is a lot of depth to his pool of talent. Burgundy, Bobby, and Frank the Tank may all be screaming buffoons but they’re very distinct and versatile buffoons. Gamble, though, is a horse of a different color and Ferrell nails him perfectly. He is without question the driving force behind “The Other Guys” and I personally think that anyone else in the title role would have sunk this thing. Everyone else in the cast, though, is a bit off pitch. Wahlberg does his fair share but, my Marky Mark man-crush aside, he seems a bit overstretched at times. Eva Mendes is way out of her league as Gamble’s wife, Ray Stevenson is the poster child for the roller coaster feel of the characters, and Keaton is an absolute mess. Between this and his last endeavor, “Post Grad” (second worst movie of 2009), I’m starting to have a hard time remembering that he was once perhaps the biggest movie star in Hollywood. Honestly, this group seems like they didn’t how to make an Adam McKay movie. I believe McKay is a director who relies heavily on the improvisation abilities of the cast to keep the ball rolling and whereas Ferrell thrives under this mentality, actors of lesser funniness (read: everyone else in this movie) seem to struggle.

“The Other Guys” is a solid-enough action-comedy that simply falls short of the other McKay-Ferrell collaborations. In a way it sort-of sums up the entire movie 2010 movie calendar: good entertainment but far from epic, significant, or enduring. I’d watch it again but I wouldn’t watch it a dozen times, memorize the lines, and name my fantasy sports teams after various characters like I’ve been known to do with “Anchorman”, “Talladega Nights”, and “Step Brothers.” If nothing else, however, it provides an opportunity for Ferrell to shine and serves as a heartfelt apology for the “Land of the Lost” debacle.

Grade: B

This might be the best movie ever that features The Rock,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "Cop Out"

"Cop Out" is the most recent work of writer-director-"Star Wars" nerd Kevin Smith. The movie centers around two half-idiot cops with a knack for the outrageous (Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan) who find themselves in the middle of a case that is way above their heads. As the shenanigans unfold, their personal lives begin to fall apart and the entire situation spins rapidly out of control.

(Can you tell I struggled with how to summarize this movie?)

All cards on the table, I'm not a fan of Kevin Smith. "Mallrats" is pretty funny and I appreciate a good "Star Wars" reference more than just about anyone who isn't George Lucas himself. But for the most part, Smith is the poster boy for half-conceived ideas. Most of his movies seem to be based on one funny idea or situation that is then painstakingly expounded upon for two hours. Smith is also extremely proud of himself and quick to lash out at anyone who doesn't appreciate his genius. To be fair, Kevin (in case you're reading), I know plenty of people who are big fans of your work. I'm just not one of them.

So while I haven't liked a Smith movie in 15 years, I confess that the trailer for "Cop Out" made me giggle every single time. I didn't want to laugh and more than once I crossed my arms, clinched my jaw and refused to do so until I couldn't take it anymore. I knew this movie was bound to be INCREDIBLY stupid and yet it was everything I could do to keep from blowing my money on a theater viewing. No such fighting over an in-home viewing, though.

The first half of "Cop Out" is ridiculous, stupid, immature fun. I laughed a lot. My man crush on Bruce Willis has been well stated throughout the course of my writing "career" and here he shows again how versatile he is. The delivery on some of his lines is impeccable. Tracy Morgan was long considered a nemesis of mine but his work here is very similar to the hilarious run he's had on "30 Rock." Seann William Scott also managed to not annoy me despite having made three appearances in my house in the last week ("Planet 51" and "The Rundown"). The movie moves pretty fast, there's a fair amount of wit to the dialogue, and the action sequences are decent enough. At some point, however, "Cop Out" just runs out of gas. There's no defining moment that separates good from bad but somewhere in there I realized I wasn't laughing or having much fun anymore. And it seemed like everyone involved was in the same camp. The last 45 minutes is dry and formulaic, lacking the life that the first half exhibited. It's a decent effort and maybe my second favorite Smith movie; but then again, that's not really saying much is it?

Grade: B-

Blu Ray Review - "Repo Men"

In the not so distant future, organ donors are a thing of the past, replaced by mechanical versions of our vital organs. If you have a heart attack, contract cancer, or suffer an accident, a much more durable version of your affected body part can be put in at a high price. But if you fall behind on your payments, Jude Law and Forest Whitaker will show up and cut it out of you. That is, until Law has an accident and wakes up with an artificial heart in his chest and an outrageous debt to pay. When he can't get back into the swing of repossessing (and murdering most of the clients, mind you), he ends up on the run and wages war on the company that provided his heart.

The problem with concept films is that the writers and directors of these movies focus entirely on the concept and not on the story or progression of the movie. Obviously this is an easy trap to fall into because it happens all the time. "Daybreakers" from earlier this year is a perfect example of this. "Repo Men" has an interesting idea from which to build a strong movie (and interesting enough to get me to rent this against my better judgment). But in truth this thing never really gets off the ground. The first 15 or 20 minutes does a decent job of setting the stage but everything after that is an utter mess. Weak story development, an over reliance on "shocking" bloody, gory shots, and embarrassingly one dimensional characters plague "Repo Men." A cast that includes Law, Whitaker, and Liev Schreiber should be a selling point but it's incredible how lackluster and uninspiring their characters are. "Repo Men's" final insult is a conclusive plot twist that has very little attachment to the rest of the film and lacks originality or even desirability. It is just a poorly conceived film all around the mercifully ends before too long.

Grade: C-

Note: No Movie News Today, yet again. I apologize. I just got a new, super awesome laptop and it is wildly different from my old, crotchety, unhip laptop. The transition is taking longer than I had anticipated. Who knew Windows 7 is to Windows 6 what "Star Wars: A New Hope" is to "Star Wars: Phantom Menace." Seriously a crushing defeat at this point but man, is it different. Everything should be back up and running tomorrow, however, so fear not, dear readers (all 6 of you).

"Dinner for Schmucks"

You know when a movie either bombs or has a hard time finding an audience and the studio still manages to find a positive quote to put on the poster? It’s usually something like Bloodandguts.com or Peter Travers from Rolling Stone but the point is, no matter how many people trash a given movie, there’s always some idiot out there who will say it’s good. Sometimes I feel like I might be that idiot. Not often, mind you. The entire purpose of this blog is to have an average dude (that’s me) write reviews for other average dudes and lady dudes (that’s you). My taste in movies is fairly well refined and usually falls in line with that of normal people, relatively speaking. Every once in a while, though, a movie comes around that is almost unanimously hated but somehow strikes a chord with me. And so it is with “Dinner for Schmucks.”

“Schmucks” involves generic businessman Tim (Paul Rudd) who takes a gamble that ends up paying off in the form of a big promotion. The only caveat that comes with this promotion, however, is a request to come to a dinner held each month for the higher ups, the purpose of which is to make fun of weirdos. (Seriously, Spell Check? “Weirdos” is totally a word.) Tim struggles with this assignment until he runs into Barry (Steve Carell), an IRS agent with a penchant for taxidermy. And by taxidermy I don’t mean the deer heads hunters display on their walls. No, I mean the staging of dead, stiff mice in real life and/or historical situations, such as the painting of the Last Supper. Yup. Tim invites Barry to the Dinner for Idiots which unwittingly opens a door for Barry to wander into his life and create total chaos.

“Schmucks” is unquestionably a stupid movie. It is also, at times, quite painful to watch. The situations that Barry routinely gets Tim into often make everyone in the audience squirm (with the notable exception of the man sitting in front of me in the theater who clearly had not seen a comedic movie since 1993). Director Jay Roach has a style all his own that screams out, “THIS IS A JAY ROACH MOVIE! THIS IS A JAY ROACH MOVIE!” This comes across so strongly in “Schmucks” that my wife, upon exiting the theater with no background on the movie, made the comment that it was, “a lot like “Meet the Parents” only harder to watch.” Bingo! I’m not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. When it works (like it does for much of “Meet the Parents”) it can be truly hilarious. When it doesn’t, however, the result is “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.” Retched. “Schmucks” doesn’t ever get firm footing in either camp. For extended periods of time it is funny if insulting to the intelligence but then it quickly shifts back to the near unbearable. Still, even as Barry digs in deeper and deeper, I found myself laughing, albeit nervous, “this could go wrong at any moment” laughter.

“Schmucks” is made entirely, however, by Carell. Just a few weeks ago I wrote about how great Carell is at making unlikeable characters likeable. He brings heart to subjects who you think might be completely irredeemable. This whole movie hangs on Carell’s performance. Barry is stupid, inept, and socially retarded. His lack of wit is astounding. And yet, you rout for the guy not because Roach desperately wants you to but because Carell forces you to appreciate the guy for what he is. Barry is a cross between Michael Scott (“The Office”) and Brick Tamland (“Anchorman”) but the combination comes across as original, again expounding upon the talent of Carell. He sets the example that no one else seems able to keep up with. I’m a huge fan of Rudd but for the first time I think we’ve discovered something he can’t do: physical comedy. Roach requires a fair amount of physical comedy from his stars and while Rudd is an insanely funny dude, this area appears to be a weakness. The rest of the characters feel a bit heavy handed and one dimensional but each have their moment, particularly “Flight of the Conchords” alum Jemaine Clement whose career was thankfully not ruined by the stench of last year’s “Gentleman Broncos”, my worst film of 2009.

Overall “Dinner for Schmucks” is a worthwhile comedy. It is not witty, smart, or especially inventive but it does the job and adds another entry to the growing list of “Things Steve Carell Does Good.” (I realize that’s not grammatically correct but “Steve Carell Does Well” rhymed so awkwardly that I had to avoid it.) In a year like 2010 that is so amazingly devoid of strong content, mindless, fun, entertainment is about all we can ask for and good enough to keep me from complaining.

Grade: B-

“Good enough to keep me from complaining” should go on the DVD cover,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "The Rundown"

When debt collector/pseudo bounty hunter Beck (The Rock) want out of the business, his boss, Walker (William Duckling), sends him on one last mission. Beck heads to Brazil to track down Walker's son Travis (Sean William Scott) and bring him back to the States. It seems like an easy enough task until Beck finds himself in the middle of a cultural war between the locals and slumlord Hatcher (Christopher Walken).

Apparently I didn't learn from my own Rock-related lesson with "Planet 51." Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. Either way, Netflix delivered me another craptastic action movie starring The Rock (who, again, I will not call Dwayne Johnson until he proves he can act) and I watched. I'd actually heard good things about "The Rundown" from people I trust so I'm willing to admit that my Rock prejudice may have gotten in the way here. But...

THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!

Truthfully, The Rock isn't even the worst part. He's up there, sure, but he's the secondary issue. The real problem here is the movie's identity crisis as defined by director Peter Berg. Let me be clear: I'm a big fan of Berg. The three movies he did after "The Rundown" ("Friday Night Lights", "The Kingdom", and "Hancock") are all extremely strong, especially those first two. Maybe he just hadn't found his groove yet when he made this thing or maybe he just hitched his wagon to the wrong fake movie star. Regardless, this thing can't figure out whether it's a serious action movie or an over-the-top send up. I can enjoy either one. I'm not against absurdity when it's done right and even when it's done wrong I can usually just give it a pass on the grounds of no harm, no foul. But I can't get on board for a movie that jumps back and forth across the Ridiculous Line. One minute it seems like "The Rundown" wants to be legit, the next The Rock is flying through the air like freaking Peter Pan. I feel like this movie would have fit in fine in the 80s but things have changed since then. "Die Hard" changed the game for action movies. If Berg had gone all-in and thrown together an 80s homage/throwback flick (like "The A-Team" for instance) then I think it's possible that I could get past The Rock sinking every scene like the on-screen dead weight he is. But as it is, the stupidity of the plot and the juvenile comedy (can any movie that features a monkey humping a human be considered funny?) just eaccentuate how bad The Rock is.

Grade: D

Sean William Scott is funny, though,
Brian

DVD Review - "Planet 51"

On a planet far far away, a green Martian species exist quite quietly, content to keep their sights set on their own world and nothing more. The population of this world (I guess it's called Planet 51 but I'm not really sure) is going through their version of the 1950s, complete with poodle skirts. Everything is fine until human astronaut Captain Charles Barker (The Rock) lands on Planet 51, unaware of its inhabitants. Things take off from there as must of the Martians organize a manhunt to track down Barker while Lem (Justin Long) attempts to help the alien get back to his shuttle.

The first 15 minutes or so of "51" aren't bad. It's kind of a fun "Back to the Future"/"Pleasantville" mix that comes off as a bit inventive if uninspired. And you could do worse in the voice talent category than Justin Long. Where this movie made a decisive turn for the worse was the minute, nay, the second that The Rock's Captain Barker stepped onto the screen. Some actors have the ability to move from live action to animated feature seamlessly and some don't. It's a different talent, a different skill set that some great actors can't master. Of course, this transition is probably a little easier for an actor who can, in fact, act. Unfortunately The Rock is not an actor and he seems hell bent on proving his talent deficiency at every opportunity. I have yet to see The Rock do anything in his short career that hasn't made me want to set myself on fire. And I refuse to call him Dwayne Johnson until he does something to prove he's an actor, not a wrestler masquerading as an actor. In all seriousness, his arrival in "Planet 51" is the exact moment that the movie begins a steady decline. Very rarely have I seen a single actor or character suck the life out of a movie as quickly as The Rock did here. It's so sudden that you almost want to give the guy an award if only there was a sophisticated way to say, "You sucked so bad that the entire movie crashed around you the minute your character appeared." He's awful. In all fairness, the script, which is riddled with poor attempts at adult humor and outrageously bad dialogue, does him absolutely no favors. But it wouldn't have mattered if "Planet 51" had been penned by Tarantino, Nolan, Sorkin, or any of the others who stand out among the Hollywood elite. What would have been a decent enough kid's flick is instead left broken and mangled on the side of the road, another victim of what The Rock is cooking.

Grade: D

Instant Queue Special - "The Searchers"

Former Confederate soldier Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) returns home from the Civil War with bags of money and buckets of bitterness. Just as he's settling into civilian life, a band of Comanche Indians come through, slaughtering most of his family and capturing his young niece, Debbie. Ethan and his posse, including a half Cherokee boy named Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) whom Ethan rescued years ago, set off on a journey to hunt down the Comanche and reclaim Debbie. But as the years drag on and their numbers dwindle, the reasoning behind Ethan's search become murky and it becomes clear that Martin is Debbie's only real hope of surviving.

"The Searchers" is one of those movies that seemingly every film aficionado calls a classic and some I know have even put it into the discussion of "best Western ever." Personally I'm not all that impressed. (To be fair though, I'm often less than impressed with many of the classics.) There's definitely some strong material here. It's hard to ever say anything negative about John Wayne, partly because he's awesome and partly because I'm still a little afraid of him even though he's been dead for 31 years. And the rather straight forward handling of the film's inherent racial tones is outstanding. Still, though, these qualities don't cover up the fact that "The Searchers" is a nightmare in terms of character and plot development. The story jumps rapidly and crudely from scene-to-scene and the characters are poorly written and extremely one dimensional. It's also a bit on the boring side with Ethan and Martin basically doing the exact same thing for 119 minutes. There's no question that many of the classics would be absolutely butchered if they were made today. Imagine "The French Connection" as directed by Michael Bay. Blerg. But it would be foolish to stop there and not admit that some of the classics could use a dose of modern filmmaking. With a touch of additional storytelling, some character development, and a release date during an era in which Westerns are not a dime a dozen, "The Searchers" would be an award worthy film. As it is, it's a solid "not bad" in my book.

Grade: B-

"Despicable Me"

I seem to be writing about expectations quite a bit lately. I give the old college effort to keep from going into a movie with too much excitement or anxiety and yet it’s starting to feel like a lost cause these days. Similar to the way Nicholas Cage keeps getting major film roles, the symptoms of the Expectation Virus keep popping up when I’d much prefer a more subdued, even slightly doubtful approach going in. That’s kind of the territory I like to be in for all movies: interested enough to see it but not holding out for anything more than two hours of entertainment. That way, if a movie doesn’t hit the mark, I’m not overly disappointed and if it brings the noise (and/or the funk), I’m pleasantly surprised. When I saw the first couple of trailers for “Despicable Me,” I thought it looked alright, worth seeing, but probably nothing to get my hopes up for. And then I was inundated with reviews and opinions that described this movie in such glowing terms as to cause the retched disease of Expectation to come bursting forth. So thanks a ton to all of you who set me up for failure.

“Despicable Me” centers around the semi-evil activities of world renowned super villain Gru (voice by Steve Carell). Gru, his mad scientist Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand), and his team of yellow minions (think Oompa Loompas plus Larry the Cucumber from “Veggietales”) have pulled a few big jobs but nothing compared to that of Vector (Jason Segal), Gru’s nemesis who recently stole an Egyptian pyramid. To get back on top, Gru sets out on a two part heist in which he will first attempt to steal a shrink ray gun and use it to miniaturize the Moon. Vector, however, has the same idea and jacks the shrink ray gun from Gru, locking it away in a fortress that seems to have only one weakness: Vector’s affinity for Girl Scout cookies. Hatching a plan on the go, Gru adopts three sisters from a local orphanage (you know, like any good super villain would) and uses them to break into Vector’s complex. But as he recovers the shrink ray gun and begins making preparations to steal the moon, he finds he’s becoming more and more attached to his new family members, leading his two worlds eventually collide.

I give the writers and directors behind “Despicable Me” a lot of credit for the film’s originality. The whole bad-guy-gets-his-heart-softened-by-a-kid thing has been done, sure, but “Despicable” really does bring some new material to the table. The concept may be slightly cliché but the world in which the film takes place is so odd as to seem different and fresh. Gru is an interesting character who seems from the very beginning to be less cut out for the world of evil than he’d like to think. As always, Steve Carell gives a strong performance packed with funny lines and the perfect timing I’ve come to expect from the guy. Carell is becoming the master of bringing an authentic dose of heart to otherwise unlikeable or uninspiring characters and that’s something “Despicable” would be lost without. In addition, the kids bring the requisite combination of cute and humor to keep the ball rolling. And the minions, whom I feared would grow old quickly, actually kept me chuckling along with the dozens of kids in my theater. Plus, I’m of the opinion that if you’re making an animated movie, you should be required to cast Will Arnett and his A-MAZING vocal talent so “Despicable” gets extra points for that.

In the end, though, “Despicable” doesn’t go far beyond “cute kid’s movie” territory. It’s fun, mildly humorous, entertainment but that’s where its merits end. By no means do I mean to say there’s anything wrong with it. To be honest just the fact that it kept my interest throughout and didn’t induce groaning and/or vomiting makes it better than the average children’s feature. (I promise the same could not be said for most of the movies advertised before “Despicable.” So glad I don’t have kids yet.) But in a year that has brought us “Toy Story 3” and “How to Train Your Dragon,” animated movies have a lot to measure up to if they want to stick out. There’s nothing inherently off about “Despicable Me,” it’s just not one of the best movies I’ve seen this year as that darned Expectation Virus had me thinking it might be.

All told, “Despicable Me” is a fine kid’s movie that should keep the average parent almost as entertained as their children. It reminded me a lot of “Shrek.” I didn’t love “Shrek” but I certainly didn’t mind it; fun, just not great. I’m not rushing out to buy the Blu Ray but if I run across it late at night after I’ve already watched Sportscenter once or twice, I’d be happy to watch it again. For me the enduring legacy of “Despicable Me” will always be the fact that it dethroned the latest “Twilight” crap fest at the top of the Box Office Charts, thereby sparing America of another depressing yet glittery week at the mercy of the Cullen gang. For that I will forever be grateful.

Grade: B

I’d be happy if I had no idea who Edward Cullen is,
Brian

DVD Review - "The White Stripes: Under Great White Northern Lights"

"Under Great White Northern Lights" is half concert film, half behind the scenes look at one of the great American bands of the modern era, The White Stripes. After failing to truly tour Canada throughout the majority of their 10 year existence as a band, the Stripes decided to go all out with a tour that saw them play in every single Canadian province. As part of their fun, they brought along music video director Emmett Malloy to film the experience and give the fans a glance behind the curtain.

Let me level with you by saying I'm a White Stripes disciple. What front man Jack White does with every album, every song, every line, I consider to be complete genius. He is perhaps the most talented man in the world right now, a guy who is sickeningly good at pretty much everything he puts his mind to. Anytime I see an expose on Jack, I come away thinking that whatever talent of his that he considers to be the 38th best thing that he does, would be better than my number one best skill. So I am far from unbiased when I say that "UGWNL" is an outstanding example of what a concert film/band documentary could and should be. Malloy gives us an insight into the minds of the Jack and Meg without giving them too much leeway to show the negative side of artistry. At the same time, he gives us snippets of show footage without letting the whole thing turn into a glorified recorded concert. It's a brilliant mix that keeps the audience zoned in on what's happening while showing off just how special this band really is. Malloy also chooses the songs he uses very carefully without relying on the band's more well-known hits and thereby displays the versatility and diversity of the Stripes.

Jack and Meg, meanwhile, hold up their part of the bargain by delivering in every single scene, be it concert or interview segment. The raw energy and intensity they bring to the stage is matched only in the way they (Jack especially) think and work on their sound off of it. Everything about the Stripes is a paradox of sorts. They take the stage without a set list yet put more thought into what they will play than just about any other band. Their sound is often raw and sometimes unrefined and yet at the same time it is so much more advanced than what you get from most rock artists. Everything about the band is both complex and simple all at once and that same dynamic works in the off stage dynamic between Jack and Meg, a relationship that "UGWNL" so graciously gives us a glimpse of. This is a must-see for any Stripes fan and a should-see for anyone who wants to better understand the mind of a genius.

Grade: A

"Inception"

So there’s this part of my Movie Oriented Brain that I like to call the Over Hype Mechanism. The Over Hype Mechanism (OHM) takes in everything I learn about a movie from the time I first become aware of it until the time that I actually see said movie: The multiple trailer viewings, the pre through post-production news and gossip, the IMDB nerdouts that routinely take up my Wednesday evenings when I should be in bed, and finally the experience I have when I actually take in the movie. This all goes into the OHM which processes the stimuli and issues forth a ruling within my brain that is usually something like, “HOLY CRAP, THIS IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLLLLLLLLLE!” Needless to say, I do not consider the OHM to be my friend. In fact, I often rage war against the OHM the way John Connor takes on Skynet. This is why I try to talk myself into half expecting a movie to be bad and almost always wait four to seven days to write a review. If I don’t temper my expectations going in and my enthusiasm coming out, I’m prone to proclaiming a movie the best I’ve seen all year before properly evaluating what I’ve just witnessed (case in point: “Avatar.”) With that in mind, let’s discuss “Inception.”

I’m struggling with what exactly to say concerning the summary of “Inception.” Truthfully, (as Roger Ebert said in his review) this is a spoiler-proof movie. I could tell you exactly how the movie ends and you’d have no idea what the deuce I’m talking about. To accurately describe this film would be to devote 1,000 words to the plot alone. Basically, “Inception” brings us the concept of dream thievery. Dom Cob (Leonardo DiCaprio) joins his mind with the target, brings him into his dream, makes him feel safe, and then unlocks the deepest, darkest secrets of the hidden recesses within the mind. When presented with an opportunity to get back home his children, Cob takes on a case that involves inception. Inception is the art of planting an idea within the mind of a subject and doing so in such as way as to make the subject believe the idea is his own. Cob and his team (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, and Tom Hardy) work to plant an idea in the subconscious of business tycoon Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy) while Cob’s own fragile mind attempts to sabotage them. To go any further with this explanation would be an injustice to you, the movie goer, who should be on his or her way out the door to see this right now.

The OHM was in full battle mode going into “Inception.” All of the tell-tale signs of OHM involvement were present. An insane trailer that asks three dozen questions and answers none. Actors that I deeply respect. A director that I’ve openly proclaimed as the best in the game. An oppressive, miserable, worthless movie calendar that makes anything remotely original look a Chicago deep dish surrounded by Totino’s frozen pizzas. (Worst analogy ever.) Call it a perfect storm if you will but the fact remains, the OHM won this battle in a decisive manner. I was left defenseless against its seductive ovations of promised awesomeness. There was no way this movie could live up to the ridiculous standards the OHM had set me up with.

And yet it did. I’m going to try to keep this simple. If not for “Toy Story 3”, you could make the case that “Inception” is the best movie of the last two or three years. I’m not going to say it is because this is one of those movies that you are just going to have to judge for yourself. Some people aren’t going to get it and if you don’t get it, you’re not going to appreciate this the way I did. Also I’m working on step 7 in Overrating Movies Anonymous. But if you wanted to make the case that this belongs in the upper echelon of modern films, I wouldn’t argue with you.

What you will see on screen during “Inception” are visuals that I don’t think you’ve ever seen before and may never see again. There are a few special movies, like “Star Wars”, “Jurassic Park”, and the aforementioned “Avatar” that are game changers. “Inception” joins that list. It’s just stupid how eye popping the landscape of this movie is. Because of the nature of the film, the world “Inception” has to work with is virtually unlimited. If the mind can imagine it, it can be done. Add to this some outstanding work by a group of highly talented actors and the combination alone should make for a solid movie. I’m not sure exactly when it happened but somewhere between here and “Titanic” DiCaprio went from this baby faced, annoying little punk to one of the best performers Hollywood has to offer. His now patented intensity is on full display here and it works magnificently for Cob. In turn, Levitt and Murphy are perfect for their roles, Watanabe reminds us of why he was nominated for an Oscar, and Hardy plays the witty, debonair enforcer with exquisite precision. And while at times Page feels out of place and perhaps even a bit underused, on other occasions she goes toe-to-toe with DiCaprio and carries her weight beautifully.

The real brilliance for “Inception”, however, is in the genius of writer/director Christopher Nolan. Nolan should teach a class to every aspiring movie maker on how to write and illustrate a story. No one does it better. The plot behind “Inception” is one of the more in-depth, complex stories you could possibly imagine. One scene opens up a level of elaborate content that leads directly to another level of ever increasing complication. No scene is wasted (the mark of a truly great writer/director) and while the story gets more involved and more complex, it doesn’t seem so complex when you’re in the middle of it all. Nolan paints such a detailed picture that you can’t help but follow along and grasp the content he puts before you. As weird as it may sound, this is a bit revolutionary in the mind-bending action movie genre. The average director takes a story and adds elements into it to convolute and confuse the audience, then calls it complex. Nolan, on the other hand, seems to have this entire story laid out in absurd detail and because of that, following the concepts he presents you with allows you to think for yourself and explore the vision he’s sharing. He blows your mind while still leaving it intact to enjoy and contemplate what’s happening. And yet, at its very base, “Inception” is just the story of a dad going to literally the very edge of sanity to get home to his kids. “Dark Knight” may end up being his biggest cash cow but “Inception” is Nolan’s masterpiece, a monumental achievement in filmmaking.

“Inception” is incredibly tense throughout and absolutely mesmerizing to behold. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a theater that was as quiet and still as this one was. That’s an incredible compliment to Mr. Nolan and the rest of the parties involved here. For an audience of 175 people to sit wordlessly, almost breathlessly, through a 148 minute film (in a non-air conditioned theater no less), riveted to the screen is about as good as you could ever hope for as a filmmaker. Well done, Over Hype Mechanism.

Grade: A+

HOLY CRAP THIS MOVIE IS INCREDIBLLLLLLLLLLLLLE,
Brian

Blu Ray Review - "Brooklyn's Finest"

"Brooklyn's Finest" tells the story of three (Brooklyn) cops of varying importance and the way in which their screwed up lives intersect. Think "Crash" plus "Training Day" minus "significance." Richard Gere is a washed up patrol cop on the brink of retirement who never does anything that calls for extra effort or paper work. Don Cheadle is so deep undercover that the line between cover and reality has become blurred. And Ethan Hawke is a narcotics officer whose family is quickly dipping below the poverty line. All three are close to the breaking point in their own way as the tensions of the city take them through shoot outs, crooked take downs, and kidnappings. Director Antoine Fuqua puts together a slow moving, worthlessly complex, grim plot that none of his characters seem capable of properly navigating. And then it all mercifully ends.

Generally speaking, I'm a fan of Fuqua's work. "Training Day" is one of the best cop movies I've ever seen, complete with an iconic performance by Denzel Washington. "Tears of the Sun" is far from great but I find it to be an above average war movie that tackles tough content with relative realism. And "Shooter" is one of my all time favorite "guilty pleasure" movies and one that I find myself watching more times than I'd like to admit. Fuqua displays an understanding of his subject matter that few directors do.

But...

"Brooklyn's Finest" is an extreme departure from Fuqua's recent catalog. The setup takes forever to get settled in, the characters are wholly unlikeable, and the connections between these unlikeable characters are questionable at best. Characters that are supposed to represent a gritty, authentic take on crooked cops in a corrupt city come across as cliche caricatures instead. In addition, the story is as common as they come. Gere is a burn out who spends all his money on prostitutes and booze, Cheadle can't bring himself to turn in his new bad-guy buddies, Hawke is killing and stealing to support his family and blah blah blah. The whole of "Finest" plays out like a bad episode of "NYPD Blue" only with more cursing and less Dennis Franz-related nudity (at least it has that going for it). When finding it hard to phrase how I feel about a movie, I like to pull inspiration from the great scholarly works such as "Billy Madison." In the words of Billy's principal, "At no point in your rambling...were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought." (Perhaps the classic "...sound and fury, signifying nothing" would seem more sophisticated but I just like "Billy Madison", okay?) That's how I felt about "Finest." It strives to matter but it simply doesn't, instead reveling for two hours in the Pointless Abyss, leaving the semi-resurrection of Wesley Snipes as its only legacy.

Grade: C-

Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies For the Rest of 2010

I've made no bones about how bad the 2010 movie calendar really is. Even the majority of the movies I've been excited about going in have proven to be little more than mediocre. That said, there are still a few movies worth looking forward to and this is before all the award fodder films that I've never heard of start getting mainstream releases in the fall. I give you my Top 10 Most Anticipated Films for the rest of the year.

10. "Due Date" (November 5) - Robert Downey, Jr., Zack Galifianakas
A modern day recreation of "Planes Trains and Automobiles" with Downey in the Steve Martin role, Galifianakas as John Candy. Instead of Thanksgiving, however, this story revolves around Downey trying to get home to see the birth of his child. Just saw a trailer and while it looks a little more slapstick than I was hoping, I'm still quite interested.

9. "The Expendables" (August 13) - Every conceivable action star from the 80s and 90s
OK, I admit, it is 100% foolhardy for me to even care about this thing. I'm not usually the guy who falls for the super-macho, no-plot-lots-of-explosions action movie but I mean, come on! Stallone, Willis, Statham, Rourke, Arnie, and everyone else? Together? Just the idea of the crazy steroid-laced exploits that took place on the set are enough to get me interested. I know it's likely to be terrible. I just can't help myself.

8. "The American" (September 1) - George Clooney
Clooney plays an assassin on a difficult final mission. The trailer for this was mediocre and the September release date worries me. But George Clooney is just so good it's hard to doubt him. What I love about Clooney is that he makes you feel like he is the only actor who could play his character. Almost every role is identifiably his. Last year's work in "Up in the Air" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" just renewed my zeal for Clooney's work.

7. "It's Kind of a Funny Story" (September 24) - Zach Galifianakas, Keir Gilcrist, Emma Roberts
A relatively artsy look at the life of a teenager who gets placed in the adult wing of a psychiatric facility where he learns some life lessons from a couple of nutcases. I saw a trailer for this a couple of days ago and it rapidly escalated my interest. I'm sure I won't get a chance to see it in theaters as it will probably run only in art houses but maybe it'll slip in at a big theater somewhere around here.

6. "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" (August 13) - Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
I'm just going with the IMDB plot summary on this one: "Scott Pilgrim must defeat his girlfriend's seven evil exes in order to win her heart." Michael Cera going all "Kill Bill" on us? Um...yes, please! I know that one of these days the whole Michael Cera one-trick-pony thing is going to wear me out. But I don't think that day will be today.

5. "Red" (October 15) - Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren
Sure, it's a cliche formula: a retired Special Ops guy gets the old band back together to take out an assassin that's messing with his quiet new life. I know, I know, it's been done a million times. But has it been done with Bruce Willis?! That's right! 22 years later and I will still buy into just about anything Bruce Willis does just because of "Die Hard." I might be stupid, but I'm loyal.

4. "The Other Guys" (August 6) - Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
Ferrell and Wahlberg play desk-jockey cops who finally get a chance to take a big score and find that big time detective work is harder than it looks. I love both of these guys and while it will CERTAINLY be juvenile absurdity, the trailer made me LOL quite a bit. All I want at the end of the summer is stupid laughter so I'm definitely in.

3. "True Grit" (December 25) - Jeff Bridges, Barry Pepper, Josh Brolin
Not exactly the family Christmas fodder you might expect, this Coen Brothers' remake of the John Wayne classic has been all over my radar for quite some time. Coens+Bridges+Brolin+Pepper+Matt Damon in a guest spot = HOW COULD THIS NOT BE INCREDIBLE?! So in.

2. "Inception" (July 16) - Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard
I'm hoping to be in a theater late tonight for this and I'm bursting with excitement. Really battling the overhype machine in my brain.

1. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" (November 19) - Daniel Radcliffe et al.
This was my number one most anticipated movie of 2010 at the beginning of the year and nothing has changed that. I'm a complete Potter nerd, the type that's read all the books multiple times, watches the movies religiously, and only just stops short of actually contemplating which House of Magic I'd get in were I to have the Sorting Hat placed upon my head. If not for this thing called "work" I might be inclined to get in line for this by, say, August. If nothing else it would provide some magnificent content for this blog. Man, I might need some professional help...

"Knight and Day"

Every once in a while I feel I have to start out these little reviews with a confession. Maybe this happens more than it should but that’s beside the point. Today is no different as I must confess to you, dear reader(s), my affinity for Tom Cruise movies. I really like Tom Cruise’s movies. Not Tom Cruise the person, you understand. That guy is clearly as street rat crazy as they come. No, I’ve no interest in Tom Cruise the Human. But Tom Cruise the Actor…that’s a different story. Say what you want about Cruise but his movies almost never fail to entertain me and he truly invests in his roles, something you definitely can’t say about every actor. He’s brought so much entertainment to me that I find myself rooting for the crazy dude and hoping for a comeback. Needless to say, I really wanted “Knight and Day” to be good.

“Knight and Day” centers on international superspy Roy Miller (Cruise) and his exploits involving civilian mechanic June Havens (Cameron Diaz). Miller has gone rogue from the CIA and is in possession of a super secret, super valuable piece of technology. When Miller’s attempt to use June as a mule backfires, he ends up crash landing their plane in a cornfield. June wakes up at home in her bed with instructions to deny any knowledge of Roy Miller. When she disobeys this request, however, Miller jumps back into her life to save her from the CIA spooks (led by Peter Sarsgaard) who’ve been on his trail and who will, assumedly, kill June to keep her quiet. What follows is a fast paced journey around the world as Miller and June stay one step ahead of the CIA and other would-be assassins.

Let’s start with the good, shall we? Tom Cruise is back, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve seen a few critics throw out some negative reactions to him here but I honestly can’t understand it. Perhaps the professionals are tired of Cruise’s antics or perhaps I just see the movie world through rose-tinted, “Top Gun”-esque Aviator glasses. Whatever the case may be, I thought Cruise brought his A-game to this role. He works well in the action sequences while at the same time bringing a touch of witty humor to the character. Miller is a hardened spy but he’s also somewhat naive as to the ways of the civilian world, especially concerning June. At the same time, he is extremely loyal and determined, going way out of his way to help June out of the pickles she routinely puts herself in (more on this later) and returning her to safety time and time again. Cruise breathes a bit of life into a character that could have easily fallen flat with a lesser actor manning the role. In essence, I think he did the most with what he had to work with. In addition to Cruise, the action is solid throughout and director James Mangold keeps the thing moving. Never does he allow the movie’s momentum to die down, which is important given the rockiness of the script.

Now for the bad. This script is, at best, poorly developed. Somewhere in there is a fun, entertaining story that is begging to pop out. This story, however, is often overshadowed by the clichés and general lack of originality that runs rampant throughout the film. Using a blurry blackout scene to cover up a plot hole can work once but when you routinely return to this crutch, the bit gets old fast. Peter Sarsgaard’s potential villain is as cookie-cutter as they come and the dialogue at times just feels unbalanced. It’s as if the screenwriter (newcomer Patrick O’neill) isn’t sure whether he’s writing for comedy or action and can’t make the two work together.

The biggest issue, though, is the absolute and complete worthlessness of June Havens. You know what sucks the life out of an action movie faster than anything else? A worthless, annoying, and helpless female lead. For two hours June Havens does nothing but the opposite of what a normal human with the thinking capacity of a retarded chimpanzee would do. She makes unsecured phone calls when she knows she’s being traced, she screams at inopportune times, and she even fires approximately 60 rounds from a sub-machine gun “on accident.” Basically, whatever Roy Miller (a trained CIA agent and former Army Ranger who specializes in surviving in tight situations, mind you) says she should do, June immediately does the opposite. If this is the only way you can create drama within your script then your script sucks, no if ands or buts.

Sadly this is the standard operating procedure for a lot of action movies. Something, whether it’s research or tradition, says they have to have a female lead or a damsel-in-distress and so a cardboard-thin character is drawn up and handed out to a pretty face. Whenever I see a movie like this I can only think one thing: shoot the girl. Just once I want to see Roy Miller, Jason Bourne, James Bond, or whoever else say to themselves, “Nothing is worth this ridiculousness” and just end it. Maybe that’s too dark or callous but if Hollywood can’t create a female character worth watching then what’s the point of her being on screen? Most of the best action movies involve either: a.) a solo adventurer with no baggage (Jason Bourne); b.) a pair of buddies working together as a well-oiled machine (Riggs and Murtaugh); or c.) a solo adventurer working to save his woman/family without dragging her along through all the craziness (John McClane). I’m not saying the damsel-in-distress can’t work, I’m just saying that right now Hollywood isn’t smart enough to make it work so let’s just let that ship sail, alright?

*End rant* All together, “Knight and Day” is a mildly enjoyable action flick, but one that won’t be remembered. The plot holes and shallow, poorly constructed characters take too much away for this to be considered anything beyond average. It’s the type of film that most people will completely forget about until TNT picks up the cable rights and it gets played a dozen times every weekend. If nothing else, however, it reminded me of all the great movies Tom Cruise has given me and provided an excuse to blare “Danger Zone” from my iPod as I zoomed away on my motorcycle.

Grade: B

I’m kidding about that last part,
Brian

DVD Review - "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs"

With his hometown of Swallow Falls teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, would-be super inventor Flint Lockwood unleashes his newest creation on the world and watches as it literally takes on a life of his own. After failed inventions like Ratbirds, Monkey Translators, and non-flying Flying Cars, Flint introduces a machine that instantly pops out any food that you might ask it for. In a town that almost exclusively dines upon sardines, this is potentially big business. His invention, however, somehow shoots itself off into space and, like a satellite sending TV signals back down to the population, drops giant quantities of food onto the plates of Swallow Falls. This makes Flint a hero, of course, but the popularity only leads to big problems, mainly due to the fact that the townspeople want more and more, finally taking the machine past the point of safety and smothering the town (and the world) in giant bagels, hamburgers, and the obligatory meatballs. Flint and his gang must stop the machine before the food overtakes the entire world.

"Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" is based on a beloved children's book of the same name. Visually speaking it is unquestionably one of the better non-Pixar animated films I've ever seen. Absolutely stunning visuals. The story is quite original (obviously) and it's very easy to get sucked into to the absurdity of the tale. And the voice talent is as good as you could possibly get for an animated feature. Every voice is a somebody and more importantly, all of the voices work in concert and no one voice dominates the screen. "Cloudy" isn't the funniest cartoon movie I've ever seen but there are enough laughs to go around. What is it that is so funny about a talking animal? Dug the talking dog was perhaps the best character in "Up" last year and in this case Steve the talking monkey brought about more laughs for me than anything else. Somebody needs to study this phenomenon. Anyway, the overall impact of "Cloudy" doesn't quite reach the heights of the Pixar products or Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon" but it is a quality film with a fantastic world in which to operate and a great deal of fun.

Grade: B+