Blu Ray Review: "The Last Airbender"

The world of "The Last Airbender" is divided into clans that represent the elements: fire, water, earth, and air. Each clan has members who can manipulate one of the elements but since everyone knows fire is the dominant element and is symbolic of evil, the Fire Clan gets to be the bad guys. The only person who can maintain a balance between the clans is known as the Avatar who can use all four elements. Unfortunately, the Avatar has been gone for 100 years and so the Fire Clan rules the world and maintains an oppressive control over the other clans. When the Avatar suddenly reappears as a young boy with an understanding of only the Air element, he must master the others before the Fire Clan subjects his people to slavery.

Look, I knew that "The Last Airbender" was going to suck. I had no delusions of grandeur going in as this was definitely the type of crappy action movie I try desperately to avoid. I saw all the scathing reviews, I cringed throughout the trailer, and most importantly, I watched "The Happening" last year and confirmed that director M. Night Shyamalan has no idea what he's doing anymore. Still, though, I had to see for myself. Like Travis taking the musket to his beloved dog Ol' Yeller, I needed, on my own accord, to see that my old friend had indeed gone mad.

This was the first Shyamalan movie I didn't see in theaters. But after the abortion that was "The Happening," what other option did I really have? I love Shyamalan's first four films. "The Sixth Sense" may have ruined the suspense genre in the long run but wow, what a fantastic experience that movie was. "Unbreakable" is HIGHLY underrated in my book and I consider it to be one of the better superhero movies ever. "Signs" is one of my 25 favorite movies of all time and I still contend that if you don't like it, you're not watching it correctly. "The Village," while imperfect, is a more than reasonable thriller with a genius twist that gets a little lost in translation. Even "Lady in the Water" isn't horrible. But "The Happening" is, in fact, horrible. I'm still at a loss for words as to how that piece of crap ever saw the light of day. That movie confirmed to me, a hardened and stubborn Shyamalan fan and apologist, that the guy had lost it. When I saw the trailer for "Airbender" for the first time, I wanted to cry. There was never any question that this movie was going to kill his career once and for all. And darnit if I wasn't right.

On to the film. Terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE acting. Every time I see a movie that features child actors so prominently I'm reminded of just how good the "Harry Potter" series really is because, even in their worst early moments, none of those kids make you want to choke a puppy. Pretty much every kid in "Airbender" made me want to do just that. At times the action scenes are dynamic but more often than not, they're done just for the sake of showing the audience cool karate moves regardless of whether or not it fits into the story. And the story is a jumble of cliches and poorly developed plot points that takes the most painfully direct route to the inevitable sequel setup that you'll ever see. All in all, I would say there is about 15 minutes of a decent movie in here somewhere, surrounded by an hour and a half of truly painful moments. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen but it might have a place in the discussion.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put a figurative musket ball in M. Night Shyamalan's figurative head.

Grade: D

"Megamind"

I’ve made no bones about my disdain for the movie calendar of 2010. Week in and week out, I peruse the local show times on Moviefone and week in and week out, I come away disappointed. 2010 has been Hollywood’s dumping ground for lackluster, underperforming material that would be drowned out in a typical year but that must now be highlighted because, well, what the heck else are you going to see? One area, though, where 2010 has excelled is in the quality of its animated films. “How to Train Your Dragon” was a landmark film for Dreamworks. “Toy Story 3” will likely receive a nomination for Best Picture. Disney’s “Tangled” is currently taking the box office by storm. Even “Despicable Me,” which I didn’t love but certainly enjoyed, was a tremendous success both critically and monetarily. In short, it’s been a banner year for animated features and “Megamind” falls right in line.

When his galaxy collapses, Megamind (Will Ferrell), a blue skinned Martian baby with a giant head, is jettisoned to planet Earth at the same time as Metro Man (Brad Pitt), a Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman wannabe. Whereas Metro Man falls into the lap of luxury and is embraced by the city of Metro City, Megamind is an outcast and quickly learns that the only way to be noticed is to become Metro Man’s super villain rival. A battle wages between the two until the day that one of Megamind’s evil schemes actually works and Metro City is left without its hero. It’s a glorious but fleeting moment for Megamind who soon discovers that it’s no fun to run amok with no one to oppose you. With this thought in mind he turns a normal geek (Jonah Hill) into a would-be super hero named Titan and trains him to fight. Unfortunately his plan goes awry and Titan becomes more than he can handle, leading to a change of heart for Megamind and an epic fight that puts everyone in jeopardy, including his new love, Roxanne (Tina Fey).

“Megamind” is a smart comedy that is part-spoof, part-original concept but wholly entertaining from start to finish. The assembled voice talent is strong and for the most part the actors mesh well together. While Pitt is the biggest name on the bill, Metro Man is on screen for only a small portion of the run time, leaving the film in the capable hands of “Saturday Night Live” buddies Ferrell and Fey. I’m a huge fan of Ferrell and have always been quick to his defense. Like him or not, you cannot deny that the man understands comedy and what makes people laugh. He’s not perfect but his range as a comedian is much larger than he’s often given credit for. “Megamind” allows for the display of that range as he must rely on his voice talent and comedic timing instead of falling back on the physical humor he is known for. Fey, meanwhile, follows Ferrell’s lead and delivers a quality if unspectacular character whose chemistry with Megamind is undeniable. And when the two leads need a hand it is usually given them by David Cross (“Arrested Development”), one of the very best supporting men in the comedy game today.

“Megamind” strikes a similar tone to the standard Dreamworks animated production: fun premise, moments of adult humor, and a bit lacking in the heart department as compared to Pixar/Disney. It is playful and endearing but its more meaningful scenes come across as somewhat hollow. It does bring a solid chunk of wit to the table, however, and some devious moments of dark comedy that are sold beautifully by Ferrell and Cross. In the end, “Megamind” doesn’t match up to the near-impossibly high standard set by the Pixar Universe or “How to Train Your Dragon” but it is an overwhelmingly enjoyable, fun, and fast paced superhero romp that carries on the legacy of 2010 animation.

I don’t really get Jonah Hill,

Brian

HBO Special - "Adam"

Adam Raki (Hugh Dancy) is a 30 year old man with Asberger's Syndrome. Having recently lost his father and his job, Adam's life is thrown into the kind of flux anyone would struggle with. Things begin to change for Adam, however, when Beth (Rose Byrne), a socialite from a wealthy background, moves into his apartment building. The unlikely pair strike up a friendship that quickly evolves into a romance that neither of them (or Beth's family) are quite prepared for.

My life outside of The Soap Box, my real life if you will, has almost always involved working with kids in some capacity. Often times those kids fell somewhere on the Autism spectrum and I've taken a special interest in those kiddos. Some of them have been insanely difficult and frustrating to manage but many of the most memorable kids I've had ever the chance to work with. I have a special place in my heart for those with Autism, Asperger's, and the like. Very rarely, however, do you see the reality of these afflictions properly displayed in a movie. More often than not an autistic character just leaves me shaking my head.

Thankfully, "Adam" is one of those rare films. Dancy captures the essence of what it means to have high functioning Asperger's in his speech, mannerisms, and behaviors and gives the syndrome a likable if tortured face. Most importantly, Adam never crosses the line between Asperger's and retardation. Perhaps that's an indistinguishable difference for some people but anyone who's ever known an Aspy can tell you what a distinct difference it really is. Adam's affliction is more of a learning disability (really, more of a different way of learning for many) combined with severe social anxiety and an inability to read social cues. Dancy combines these traits wonderfully and his performance truly carries the film.

If the other characters surrounding Adam or the story in which he finds himself were half as well crafted as the title character, this movie would have soared into my "Favorites" list. But while Adam is a near perfect picture of a very complicated sect of the population, the rest of the characters are extremely two dimensional. Byrne and the rest of the cast all do a serviceable job of bringing life to the screen but unfortunately there just isn't a great deal to work with. The story starts out strong but as the film progresses, it begins to falter and finally finds itself trudging through the Land of Generic, resting on the obligatory "disapproving parent" plot line that's been done a million times. It's unfortunate that the surrounding parts of the movie can't match up to Dancy's brilliance but that said, it's still an outstanding look at an often misunderstood disability and more than worth a viewing.

Grade: B+

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I"

As with each of the previous “Harry Potter” films, I find myself having difficulty finding the proper words for my review. Oh, how I love the Harry Potter universe, both in book and film form. In fact, I would go so far as to say I love it more than any other realm (real or fictitious) that doesn’t involve wookiees or a galaxy far, far away. That fact combined with my propensity for hyperbole makes it nearly impossible to deliver to you, dear readers, a fair and unbiased review. Allow me my moment of wizard-oriented nerdiness and I promise to return to my standard formula next time around.

“Deathly Hallows” drops us rather firmly back into the Harry Potter world, a world that is at war. Having struck a critical blow to their enemies at the end of the preceding film, uber-baddie Voldemort’s (Ralph Fiennes) force of dark wizards grows ever stronger. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his friends, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson), soon find themselves on the run, half hiding, half searching for horcruxs, magical items that allow Voldemort to remain virtually invincible. Meanwhile, Voldemort himself is searching for a set of magical items called the Deathly Hallows which would slant the balance of power even further toward him in his inevitable and final battle with Harry. There is no conclusion to the drama, however, as this is mostly a set up for the ultimate fight that is to come in part two of this film.

I have thought long and hard about this film since taking it in at midnight on opening day. (Nerd, I know.) I have tried to find holes in the finished product and to temper my enthusiasm but truthfully I think any issue a fan of these stories might have would be nitpicking at best. “Deathly Hallows” is, for my money, the best yet in a series of films that has brought me an enormous amount of enjoyment. Every aspect of this film is refined, as if producer David Heyman, director David Yates, and the rest have taken what is great about the first six installments and improved what was lacking.

In no area is this better highlighted than in the display of legitimate skill of the three lead actors. Even in the 2001 debut of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” you could tell Daniel Radcliffe had “it.” Allowing for the fact that he was, after all, an inexperienced child actor, I always felt he would end up being a capable actor if not more. Rupert Grint was somewhere below Radcliffe on the “bankable skill” chart but still, I felt fairly confident in his ability to act when it was all said and done. I had no such confidence, however, in Watson. While far from a bad child actor (see: Jake Lloyd), Watson was easily the leader in wince inducing moments among the trio. As the films progressed, so, too, the maturity and range of these three young stars but Watson still lagged behind the others. Well, no more. Much of the material and subject matter of “Deathly Hallows” requires strong, hardened performances from these actors and all three deliver time and time again. Watson holds her own in a way she never has before, truly illustrating the time and effort that has been put into this series from the very beginning. Though, if you spend 10 years hanging out with a cast that includes Gary Oldman, Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, David Thewlis, and the rest of these outstanding actors, you’re bound to up your game.

“Deathly Hallows” also excels in bringing some of the, well, magic of the books back to the screen. As the films have gotten longer and more involved in the maturation and development of the characters (and their relationships), I’ve felt that some of the wonderment of the first few films has been lost. As a tremendous fan of J.K. Rowling’s books, part of the joy of these movies has been the personification of so many wonderful and inventive pieces of fantasy brought to life. That magic is somewhat buried beneath layers of story and drama (and rightly so) in the last two chapters of this series but is wholly recaptured here. Telling the story of the “Deathly Hallows” (a well-known fairytale in this world) through the use of animated shadow theater was an especially nice touch. The spirit of the book, both the ups and the tremendous downs, is gloriously encapsulated in this film and reminded me of why I fell in love with this story in the first place.

The end result is an engrossing, brilliant adaptation that does nothing if not whet the appetite of the viewer for the next and final installment. Breaking up the book into two parts is clearly the right way to go as it allows for a pace that the last few films just weren’t allowed to find. In fact, I was left to wonder how much better these already-strong films could have been if they’d been given the Peter Jackson treatment with an extended cut for DVD/blu-ray. Regardless, it’s a magnificent ride and leaves me hopeful that the last chapter will be the best one of the bunch.

Grade: A

I will now resume my traditional cynical and sarcastic nature,
Brian

DVD Review - "Winter's Bone"

At age 17, Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is the de facto head of her backwoods, Ozark mountains household. She hunts, cooks, and cares for her two younger siblings and her drugged out mother. Hard times get worse when Sheriff Baskin (Garrett Dillahunt) informs her that her meth head father has skipped bail for which he put up the family's house and property as collateral. If he doesn't show up for court, Ree and her family will be thrown out on the street. Being the provider that she is, Ree sets out across the county in search for her father, leading her down a dark, dangerous path.

"Winter's Bone" tore up the festival circuit earlier this year, garnering several award nominations and a few wins. It is hauntingly authentic and captures the desperate and sad reality of the the meth trade. Writer-director Debra Granik knows her subject matter and uses the harsh landscape to set her main character up beautifully. As Ree searches for her father, she uncovers layer after layer of secrecy and gets wrapped up in the unwritten rules of a drug society. Lawrence brings perfect balance to Ree. She is strengthened and prematurely hardened by her time as the bread winner and her determination is mixed with the hint of naivety that even the most world weary 17 year old would still exhibit. It is, for my money, the best female performance of the year. Her supporting actors all take on the attitudes, behaviors, and speech of an Ozark meth community with brilliance. Particular attention should be paid to John Hawkes ("Deadwood") whose turn as local enforcer Teardrop is magnificent. Hawkes (along with Dillahunt) is one of my very favorite character actors; a man who takes his craft extremely seriously and deeply invests himself in his character no matter how small the role. Teardrop would undoubtedly steal the show from Ree were Lawrence's performance not so strong. All in all this is a seriously depressing, dark film that is hard to watch. Still, however, it is exceedingly worthwhile and significant and should play a big part in Award Season this year.

Grade: A

HBO Special - "Ronin"

As the opening credits of this film reveal, a rogue or disgraced samurai in Japan is known as a "ronin" which is a polite term for "mercenary." That knowledge sort of sets the tone for "Ronin" and in a way tells you everything you need to know. Sam (Robert De Niro) is part of a team of mercenaries that works to track down a mysterious package that seems to be almost more trouble than it's worth. When the deal goes bad (over and over again), he forms a sort of partnership with Vincent (Jean Reno) and together the pair pursue agents from both Russia and Ireland on a mission that becomes more than just a job and begins to embody their respective efforts for redemption.

I've caught bits and pieces of "Ronin" a few times over the years but it never gripped me enough to track it down and finish the thing out. This is a well respected film among people that I generally trust when it comes to this sort of thing. For me, however, "Ronin" is more frustrating than anything else. Somewhere in here is a great movie. Not a good movie, a GREAT movie. I don't know that De Niro has given a better performance since this debuted in 1998 and watching him on screen when he's really invested is such a treat. Reno, meanwhile, provides an outstanding partner for De Niro and the two display excellent chemistry. Some of the action sequences, particularly those involving car chases (of which there are many), are reminiscent of vintage Hollywood action, a throwback to the days of Steve McQueen but with a touch of modern splash. And the story, while possibly excessively twisted, is entertaining and engrossing.

On the flip side, however...good gracious, what a horrific directorial effort by the late John Frankenheimer. While some of the action is powerful and exhilarating, other elements are horribly outdated and cheesy. The violence and fighting is often comical and plays out like a bad 80s action movie mixed with a touch of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." There are plot jumps left and right which seriously hinders the momentum of the storyline which could have been used to build tension but instead just left me wanting so, so much more. More bothersome to me is the complete lack of common sense by some of these so-called black ops mercenaries and their adversaries. Over and over again these hardened soldiers make dumb move after dumb move. They do things that I, having no military or counter intelligence knowledge other than the viewing of eight seasons of "24," would NEVER do! It's embarrassing, really, to the characters that deserve better and should be a bit offensive to the intelligence of the viewer. I've got no problem with these types of stupid plot holes show up in, say, "The A-Team" which is obviously intended to be entertainment and entertainment only. But when you're making a hardcore, serious action film with hardcore, serious characters (which is what "Ronin" is supposed to be), these issues are darn near inexcusable. And it's a real shame that this junk gets in the way of an incredible movie.

Grade: B

Blu-Ray Review: "Jonah Hex"

Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) is a Civil War veteran turned bounty hunter with a link to the afterlife that allows him to speak with the dead. When the safety of the newly reunited United States is threatened by a former Confederate general (John Malkovich) who happens to be the same man who killed Hex's family, President Grant (Aidan Quinn) calls on Hex to stop the attack and exact some revenge for good measure. A lot of stuff blows up.

First and foremost, "Jonah Hex" is by no means what I would call a good movie. There are too many plot holes, wasted moments, and editing screw ups to ever confuse this with good. The pitifully short 81 minute run time jumps from place to place with no foundation to hold it together. Screenwriters Neveldine and Taylor (that's what they go by, sadly) reportedly feuded with director Jimmy Hayward and ended up distancing from the finished product before it even hit theaters. And then there's the much maligned Megan Fox who's complete lack of acting ability could single-handedly sink just about any movie. I almost feel bad for Ms. Fox. Because of her extreme level of attractiveness she will never be asked to learn her craft in order to get roles and yet at the same time will always be cast in the same one dimension roles. She's got absolutely nowhere to go in this business and I think "Hex" is the starting point for her rapid decline.

With all that said, however, this movie is not nearly as bad as the scathing reviews it received would make it out to be. "Hex" has been painted as the worst movie of the year and may very well win the infamous Razzie Award for Worst Picture at year's end. Maybe it's because my expectations were completely nonexistent going in but I darn near enjoyed about half of this thing. That enjoyment is due in large part to the work of Josh Brolin who seems to bring his A game no matter what's going on around him. This movie reeks of "give up," as if everyone realized midway through production that this thing was headed South in a hurry and mailed in their performances. But not Brolin. He seems hell bent on making Jonah Hex a viable franchise super hero and makes the most out of every limited opportunity his surrounding cast and crew give him to work with. As a result of Brolin's work (with a little help from Michael Fassbender who does an admirable job in his short screen time as a maniacal sidekick-baddie) you get about 35 minutes of a decent-enough comic book movie distributed through and overshadowed by the crap the rest of the film has to offer.

Grade: C+

Netflix Review - "Wonderful World"

Ben Singer (Matthew Broderick) is a cynical, depressed copywriter who used to be a famous children's musician. He hates his job and most of the people in his life, save for his daughter, Sandra (Jodelle Ferland), and his roommate, Ibu (Michael K. Williams), whom he plays chess with. When Ibu falls into a diabetic coma, his sister, Khadi (Sanaa Lathan), comes from Senegal and ends up crashing with Ben. As the world around him begins to grow darker, Ben finds himself reawakening and rediscovering his life and finds that the world isn't quite as bad as he thought it was.

I am pleasantly surprised by the quality of "Wonderful World." A lot of these "the world sucks but our hero prevails" indie movies wallow in despair, making them almost unwatchable. "Wonderful" more than touches on the harsh parts of life but paints with a broad brush rather than a fine point, which I personally appreciated. It's a well-told story and writer-director Joshua Golden keeps the movie moving without drowning me in the sorrow. That's not to say this is an easy movie to watch. It's 70 percent sadness and that makes for a tough viewing but one that I found worthwhile. Broderick works hard to craft a sympathetic curmudgeon, a different role than his usual cheery if understated hero. The supporting cast compliments him well though Williams, one of the very best character actors the business has to offer, was severely underutilized. "Wonderful World" is far from a great movie; it's a bit bumpy and at times the emotion feels forced. Still, it's a strong-enough indie offering and it's always good to see Broderick on the screen.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "The Karate Kid"

When his mother is transferred to China, Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) finds himself in a strange place with no friends and no sense of belonging. When he befriends a girl at his school (Wenwen Han), he draws the ire of a group of bullies who train at a disreputable kung fu studio. Things begin to change, however, when he meets and begins to train with Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the building's maintenance man. Soon he enrolls in a kung fu tournament, setting up the inevitable confrontation between himself and his tormentors.

First, the very brief positives. "Karate Kid" has solid action and some pretty cool fight scenes. Jackie Chan gives an admirable and quite believable performance as the pseudo Mr. Miyagi. In some ways this might be the perfect role for Chan as it combines his likability in an element he is comfortable in without exposing and/or exasperating his numerous flaws as an actor. And there are a few humorous lines (emphasis on the "few").

Now, the negative. I've got a lot of problems with this thing but I'm going to keep it to three short points.

1. "The Karate Kid" is not about karate; it's about kung fu. On numerous occasions the characters make references to Dre learning kung fu and yet it never seemed to dawn on anyone involved in the filmmaking process that maybe a movie called "The Karate Kid" should be about karate. Call me crazy but doesn't that kind-of-sort-of make sense?

2. Jaden Smith and the rest of the kiddie cast are WAY too young for this film. Dre is a 12 year old played by a kid who looks like an 8 year old but operating in situations that are suited for a 14 or 15 year old. News flash, Hollywood: no one wants to see 12 year olds kissing. It's weird and creepy and terribly off-putting. And it's not just the awkward romance. There's extensive training that no pre-adolescent could handle, some "witty" repartee that doesn't land, and at one point Jackie Chan puts a beat down on a group of 11 year olds. There's something wrong with that, isn't there? All told, it comes across as if Will Smith (whom I love, but still...) bought a script and cast his son regardless of whether it was a good fit or not.

3. This is just BARELY a remake. Remakes are always a risky proposition because if you get too close to the original thing it feels unnecessary and if you stray too far away from a beloved inspiration, people feel it's an insult to the original. "Karate Kid" takes a bit from the original and adds some new elements but the mix just isn't right. Ultimately it comes off as a cheesy parody of a classic film that is treasured by most Americans born between 1975 and 1990. "Jacket on, jacket off" is embarrassingly feeble compared to "Wax on, wax off" and Dre Parker would crumble at the hands of Daniel Son. What I mean to say is, this feels like someone wrote a script and someone else thought, "If we titled this "The Karate Kid" and made some vague references to the original, we could make a ton of cash off this thing!" And that's exactly what happened.

When you put all of that together, you get a below average film that fails to inspire. Not a terrible experience but certainly not the enjoyable trip down memory lane I was hoping for.

Grade: C

HBO Special - "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian"

Things have changed in the years since Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) left the New York museum where he was once the night guard. Daley himself has flourished, founding a successful business that sells made-for-TV products while the museum is struggling. When he finally visits his old stomping ground, he finds that many of the exhibits are being packed up and sent to Smithsonian storage without the ancient Egyptian tablet that allows them to come to life at night (in case you haven't seen the first "Night at the Museum" that's pretty much the entire plot). Soon, however, he gets an urgent call from his friend/miniature Cowboy exhibition item Jedediah (Owen Wilson), who informs him that the tablet has come with them into storage and that they are under attack from all the various items packed away in the nation's capital.

That is a lot of summarizing for such a simple kid's movie. As far as these movies go, "Museum 2" isn't all bad. There are a few laughs, Stiller is invested in his character (no matter how shallow it may be), and it all comes together fairly concisely. So it's not bad, it's just not necessary. This is the kind of movie that SCREAMS, "We know we can make a ton of money on this no matter what kind of crap we throw on screen." The first "Museum" was a surprising success and a movie that really had some fun, valuable moments. I actually quite enjoyed the first film, though I admit my expectations were virtually nil going in. The sequel, however, is clearly stretched for quality content and is hampered by a plot that doesn't really leave much room for growth or development. Even supporting actors like the multi-talented Hank Azaria and Soap Box Office-favorite Amy Adams can't find much of a groove to work in as the whole movie just seems to be spinning its wheels. I know, I know, it's a kid's movie, it's not supposed to be inherently complex or layered. But we live in a world in which movies like "How to Train Your Dragon" and everything Pixar has ever done have set a standard for making smart, dynamic children's movies. By contrast, "Night at the Museum 2" fails to produce much of anything you could expect me to recommend.

Grade: C+

"The Social Network"

Mark Zuckerberg is a douche bag. I was pretty well solidified in this opinion before seeing “The Social Network” and the viewing did nothing to sway that thought. Like so many “Creatives”, whether actor, musician, artist, or inventor as the case may be, Zuckerberg doesn’t understand or perhaps doesn’t have time for people he considers to be less significant than him. You probably know or have known one of these guys. The type of person who can’t conform to social conventions, doesn’t seem to value your portion of the conversation, and simply can’t figure out a way to bridge the gap between himself and the “regular” people. This guy is usually extremely talented but more often than not, he’s almost unbearable. It’s why bands break up and wide receivers get traded. At some point, the “Creative” turns from “misunderstood genius” to just plain “jerk” and either breaks off on his own or gets left behind by people who can’t deal with him anymore. In Zuckerberg’s case, what transpired is the former and that’s where “The Social Network” comes in.

Set in 2003, Harvard sophomore Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), both angry and drunk, hacks the school’s system and creates a crude website that compares the year book photos of two girls on campus, allowing viewers to choose who is hotter. Within a few hours the website crashes the network and makes Zuckerberg a legend. Soon after, he is approached by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer), the school’s star crew rowers and the definition of a legacy, who hire him to program a site which ultimately amounts to a Harvard-only dating site. Zuckerberg accepts the offer but performs no work on the project (setting up the first of two lawsuits). Instead, he begins working on a new adaptation of his previous website, an effort that requires some capital investment. With this in mind, he turns to his best (and perhaps only) friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) gives him the $1000 he needs to make the site operational in exchange for a thirty percent stake in the company (setting the stage for the second lawsuit). When “The Facebook” becomes an overnight success, Zuckerberg embarks on a whirlwind 18 month journey that involves the previously mentioned lawsuits, the betrayal of his best friend, and the development of his dorm room creation into a multi-billion dollar business that reaches over 500 million people worldwide.

From top to bottom, I can’t remember a recent drama, let alone a biopic, that is better than “The Social Network.” I confess I find myself a little bit obsessed with this film so please bear with me as I try to compartmentalize its merits. It is so well put together that you almost overlook the acting which is quite strong across the board. Eisenberg truly encapsulates all of the facets that make a guy like Zuckerberg both successful in his field and an utter failure in most everything else. He is egotistic, narcissistic, and brash while at the same time completely insecure and low on self-esteem. Insecurity is the key to this role. Insecurity is what drives a guy like Zuckerberg (at least as portrayed in this film) and it taints every other aspect of his being. If Eisenberg misses the mark on this “quality” then the entire movie falls flat. He doesn’t miss, however; rather, he nails this vital portion of the Zuckerberg mentality.

Garfield delivers a similarly deep performance. At his core, Saverin is a good person and that is ultimately what dooms him. There’s a hint of suspicion in every move he makes along the Zuckerberg Path but he still chooses to take the walk. Garfield uses facial expressions, body language, and the briefest of hesitations to convey the understanding that, deep down, Saverin knows that eventually his best friend will stab him in the back. Hammer also performs admirably as the scene-stealing Winklevoss twins. The dual vision of Hammer is a commanding presence and he uses that perfectly to convey both a slight sense of intimidation and a touch of helplessness that plays sympathetically to the audience. And then there’s Justin Timberlake, who’s Sean Parker (the creator of Napster) provides the intrepid spirit of adventure and recklessness that Zuckerberg needs to push himself beyond small-time notoriety and into the realm of world renowned (and full-on jackass mode). It’ll be a surprise if Timberlake doesn’t pull a Best Supporting Actor nod when Oscar nominations are released.

But the excellence of “The Social Network” goes far beyond the strength of its actors. Literally every aspect of this film is perfect or darn close to it. Director David Fincher assembled a tremendous group of talented individuals to add to his own enormous level of skill. The casting is magnificent and Fincher masterfully uses that, putting each actor in a position to succeed and pulling the very best effort out of every one of them. Aaron Sorkin (probably best known for “The West Wing”) wrote a brilliantly worded, wonderfully paced script that pretty much falls right in line with his other works. His style is unmistakable to the degree that, without any knowledge of his involvement in the film, I could peg the dialogue as Sorkin’s about one minute into the opening scene. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails delivers a powerful, edgy score that drives the film and subtly builds the drama. It is without question the best score in recent memory and one that is SURE to garner a few awards. Even the sound mix, a facet of filmmaking that you almost never notice, is perfectly balanced in a way that makes you feel as if you are in the movie. Every tiny detail of “The Social Network” is painstakingly thought out and exquisitely put together.

Being the fan of hyperbole that I am, it would be easy for me to call “The Social Network” the best movie of the year. I’m going to avoid that statement but I have no doubt that it will absolutely clean up when award season rolls around. The real stroke of genius, and what sets it apart from so many other biopics, is its treatment of its muse. Zuckerberg is not painted in a favorable light and there’s no sugarcoating of his actions despite his considerable brilliance. By going that route, Fincher shows the four billion dollar man to be quite a sad character, a symbol of what the combination of greed and insecurity can get you in the extreme.

This has to be the first Fincher film in which no one dies,
Brian

"The Town"

Like every other regular, straight, American male, I hate Ben Affleck. It’s like a genetic mutation we all went through sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s. Maybe that’s what the real Y2K bug was: a fervent hatred of all things Affleck. Simply muttering his name at a party is likely to bring about reactions ranging somewhere between facial expressions similar to the ones you might see if a wet dog entered the room and loud cursing in a tone usually reserved for Tarantino flicks. He brought it upon himself with retched film choices and a complete disregard for the craft in which he worked but still, it’s uncanny how unanimously hated this guy really is. Well, friends, after taking in “The Town,” I’m about ready to throw my hat into the “Let’s Stop Hating on Poor Ol’ Ben” ring. I never thought this day would come but I’m willing to defend my position. Please hold your questions until after the review.

“The Town” centers around a section of Boston called Charlestown, an area that sees more bank robberies per year than any other place in the world. We open on a well-planned, well-executed bank heist as four heavily armed bandits, disguised in freakish orc-like Halloween masks, methodically grab a bag full of cash and take bank manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage. Once safely away, the crew releases Claire with the promise of repercussions if she talks to the cops. Crew leader Doug McRay (Ben Affleck) takes on the task of keeping an eye on Claire, in part because he’s afraid the wild card of the group, James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), might murder her as a precaution. Before long, Doug and Claire become romantically involved, a pairing that leads to some tense moments given the fact that Doug put Claire through the worst experience of her life. Soon an FBI special operations team, led by Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm,) gets on the case and drives hard toward bringing in the thieves who’ve made quite a name for themselves. As his relationship with Claire deepens, McRay and his crew continue to take scores while the FBI gets ever closer to putting them away, setting the stage for a head-on collision between the three parties.

Going into this movie I had seen a lot of comparisons between “The Town” and “Heat”, the 1995 cops-and-robbers drama that pitted Al Pacino and Robert De Niro against each other. The problem with that comparison is that it sets an almost impossible expectation that can’t possibly be met. “Heat” is a masterpiece which manages to hit a home run in virtually every aspect of filmmaking. Casting, writing, acting, directing, sound mix, conclusion, cinematography, and on down the list, every single part of the movie is perfect. It’s completely unfair to put that kind of pressure on any film. It’s the Michael Jordan of gritty cop dramas. But in all truth, “The Town” might be the closest thing to “Heat” that I have yet to see. It’s not Michael Jordan but it might be Dominique Wilkins.

The cast of “The Town” provides some outstanding support for the main character. Hall plays the vulnerable yet resilient Claire sufficiently and gives depth to what could have been a one-dimensional character. John Hamm continues to prove his strength and versatility as Frawley provides a worthy opponent for McRay highlighted by a few powerful, headlining moments. Titus Welliver, Chris Cooper, and the great Pete Postlethwaite all deliver in limited roles. Even Blake Lively, best known for the awfulness that is “Gossip Girl”, gives a quality performance as a junkie whom McCray has been involved with in the past. And then there’s Jeremy Renner, whose Oscar-nominated turn as Sergeant First Class William James in “The Hurt Locker” catapulted him to stardom. What an absolute talent that guy is. Coughlin is a troubled cat who’s bordering on becoming an all-out sociopath and yet he is a fiercely loyal friend who would (and does) drop anything to stand by his friends. Renner hits the mark perfectly, bringing the proper amount of edge and dark humor to the role which allows Coughlin to be both the driving force of recklessness that eventually destroys the crew and a sympathetic figure at the same time. Renner is quickly turning into one of my favorite actors in the business.

And so we come to Mr. Affleck. The resume this guy put together between “Good Will Hunting” and today is atrocious. Jump over to IMDB, have a look at that list, and try to defend his work, especially the collection of crap between “Armageddon” and “Hollywoodland.” I’ll give you “The Sum of All Fears” as a defensible choice because no one turns down that role at the time. But “Gigli”, “Surviving Christmas”, “Reindeer Games”, “Changing Lanes”, “Jersey Girls”, and the aptly named “Paycheck”…that’s a vile list of films that John Travolta himself would be ashamed of. Affleck took a promising career and buried it in a pile of ill-gotten cash, creating a particularly nasty reputation in the process. What kept Affleck from following in the footsteps of the once great Val Kilmer and the like is a simple yet rare characteristic: humility. Affleck took his medicine so to speak and listened to the criticism. I’ve read numerous interviews with Affleck over the last few weeks in which he basically admitted to taking horrible film roles and expressing a lack of respect for his craft. Instead of continuing on that path, he first got behind the camera, turning himself into a very good director (“Gone Baby Gone”) and then got serious about acting again. The results are on display in “The Town” and as a card carrying member of the Ben Affleck Haters Association (see: straight American male), I feel the need to commend his performance. Affleck nails McCray from start to finish, combining that classic Boston swagger with a bit of fear and a pinch of regret. He delivers his lines with poised power, drawing more than one audible “wow” from this writer. Altogether, I feel it’s safe to say this is the best performance of the man’s career and should serve as his re-introduction to the industry.

“Gone Baby Gone” taught me that Affleck could direct but I wasn’t sure he ever had much talent as an actor. I’m sure now. All told, “The Town” easily jumps into my top ten list for the year and ranks as one of the better cop dramas of the recent past. The ending is a bail-out, a cookie-cutter conclusion to a movie that deserves better, and I think Hamm’s Frawley is underused. So while it isn’t “Heat”, nothing really is. “The Town” is a well-made, strongly written, brilliantly acted film that should find a place to belong during award season.

Grade: A

Jon Hamm is “Superman”, Brian

"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-