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+

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