"Source Code"

I came by my love for science fiction honestly. My dad was a part-time sci-fi writer for the first few years of my life and took me to his writer’s club meetings once a week. My parents spent weekends playing Dungeons and Dragons with their group of friends and I was running my own adventures by age 7. In the month prior to my birth, “Star Wars” made its cable debut and my mom, laid up on bed rest, claims to have watched it two dozen times. I didn’t stand a chance; I was born to love sci-fi. I will be the first to admit, however, that good sci-fi has proven hard to come by. For every “Star Wars” there are three “Starship Troopers” (seriously, there are at least three of them); for every “Firefly”, there’s the Friday night movie on the SyFy channel. There is some cheesy, absurd fun to be had with this type of offerings, sure, but no one will argue they’re good movies. It can be hard to defend sci-fi as a whole when non-fans have so much ammunition from which to choose. So when a visionary, smart sci-fi director jumps onto the scene the way Duncan Jones did with 2009’s “Moon,” you can bet I’m touting the guy’s genius as long as he keeps putting out smart sci-fi, which is exactly what “Source Code” is.

When Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) awakens, he finds himself aboard a commuter train in the company of a beautiful woman named Christina (Michelle Moynahan) whom he doesn’t know but seems to know him. His disorientation is cut short, though, when a bomb goes off, eviscerating everything around him. He wakes up again, however, this time strapped into an odd seat inside of a metal capsule surrounded by electronic equipment. His confusion is only deepened when Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) appears on a monitor and informs him that he is in the Source Code. Through a complicated equation of quantum physics (or mechanics or something that I didn’t really understand because I dropped out of high school) and in-depth neurology, Source Code allows someone else (namely, Captain Stevens) to inhabit the mind and body of a person in his last eight minutes of life. In this case, that person is Sean Fentress, a teacher who died in the train explosion which turned out to be only the lead up to a much bigger terrorist attack on Chicago. It isn’t exactly time travel that he’s been gifted with but rather a glance into the past that could allow him to pinpoint the bomber and therefore prevent future attacks. Bewildered and certain that he isn’t being given all the information about his situation, Stevens undertakes the task at hand with tenacity but takes it upon himself to change not only the future but also the past.

From a sci-fi perspective, “Source Code” isn’t quite to the level of “Moon” which is, for my money, the best true sci-fi film of the last decade (if not more). On the flip side, however, it’s much more across-the-board accessible than its predecessor. Whereas my wife would attempt to destroy our TV if I forced her to watch “Moon”, Sci-fi fans and haters alike should be able to find a great deal worth celebrating here. From the casting choices on down to the very layout of the narrative, every aspect of “Source Code” is expertly crafted. Gyllenhaal (whom I’ve never been a fan of) was a stumbling block for me in the beginning but as the film progresses, Stevens proves to be tougher, smarter, and more determined than either his superiors or the audience would have imagined at the outset. His on-screen presence grows as the tension rushes toward its peak which leaves the viewer with a feeling of authenticity. It is a fine performance that could be put up against any of his other roles (though again, I’ve never been much of a fan). The other actors, namely Moynahan, Farmiga, and Jeffrey Wright, aren’t given much opportunity to develop into anything more than Gyllenhaal’s backup band, but each fills their respective role admirably.

Meanwhile, Jones and screenwriter Ben Ripley don’t waste a single scene, the starting point for any potentially great film. Each minute, each scene, does nothing but add fuel to the fire of the film’s momentum. Likewise, virtually no time at all is spent on explaining the science of Source Code, nor its origins. We are told what Stevens is experiencing but not how. That’s a brilliant stroke, in my opinion, because it keeps the film from bogging down in convoluted and hypothetical (read: “bull crap”) science that the average Friday night moviegoer isn’t going to understand, anyway (read: “me”). Instead, we are presented with the concept and simply asked to buy in while simultaneously providing such a lively film as to make it almost impossible to remain un-invested.

The sheer length of my summary paragraph should give you a hint into just how complicated the concepts behind “Source Code” truly are. But like Christopher Nolan, Jones treats his audience with respect. In that I mean, he accepts that those who sit down to watch his movies are, in fact, capable of following a complex, intelligent plot line and used special effects and explosions as a side dish, not the main course. That is a refreshing attitude in the action movie/sci-fi industry that is overrun by the Michael Bays and Jerry Bruckheimers of the world. Mindless explosions and stereotypical alien invasions can be fun and entertaining but I’m not an idiot and it’s nice to have a filmmaker treat me accordingly without stepping into an art house theater. It also doesn’t hurt Jones’ love for significant science fiction is clearly evident in just about every scene. The combination of traditional sci-fi sentimentalities along with an adult-approved atmosphere, some classic action film elements, and a hint of romance creates an intense and highly enjoyable thrill ride.

Grade: A-

Curse you SyFy channel,
Brian

Care for a second opinion? Check out A Life in Equinox's take, which highlights a small flaw I didn't have room for.

Blu Ray Review: "Unstoppable"

"Unstoppable" begins innocently enough when a bumbling railroad employee (Ethan Suplee) jumps out of a half-mile long train to throw a rail switch, only to discover that he hadn't properly applied the brake. Soon this train, with cars packed with a highly explosive chemical, is roaring unmanned down the tracks at speeds approaching 70 miles per hour. When all attempts to derail what one railway employee (Rosario Dawson) describes as "a missile the size of the Chrysler building" come up short, the job is left two a young conductor (Chris Pine) and his veteran engineer (Denzel Washington) to pull off a desperate gambit to save a lot of lives and money.

Loosely based on real life events from a 2001 incident, "Unstoppable" is almost exactly what we've all come to expect from director Tony Scott. His special effects, settings, grainy imagery, and action sequences are awesome; the rest of the movie...well, it's kind of up to you as to whether or not you're going to get on board. Sometimes the concept draws me in ("Deja Vu"), sometimes not so much ("Pelham 123"). He's nowhere near the all-style-no-substance level of Michael Bay but "Unstoppable" brings him a step closer.

Considering that my recent review for "Battle: Los Angeles" I made a case for allowing an action movie to be nothing more than entertainment, I'm not going to turn around and cast stones here for the same thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with "Unstoppable." It is what it is. But that doesn't mean there's just a whole lot that's right, either. Quite frankly, I was bored throughout much of the run time. With no real villain (an unmanned train doesn't really count, does it?) you need compelling heroes or at least hard-hitting, continuous action to keep you from thinking about the fact that there are no compelling heroes. Washington and Pine are both excellent actors but they are both put into limited, supporting roles opposite The Train as the leading man. This simply didn't work for me. Pine, in particular, could have been anyone which leads me to ask, why cast Chris Pine (or any Hollywood rising star) if you're going to give him a marginal back story and minimal screen time with which to work with? The rest of the movie is straight out of the Jerry Bruckheimer handbook which is fine, I guess, but uninspiring. In an effort to find a villain, Scott resorts to beating you across the head with corporate executive Oscar Galvin (Kevin Dunn), whose "all I care about is money!!!" mantra is so threadbare as to become painful. All of this I could have handled, I think, if not for the constant reliance on TV news reports to further the story and, I guess, add "real drama" to the action. It is incessant, over-the-top, and irritating. I swear that if I had to sit through one more "how will these brave men make it out of this terrible situation?!" moment, I would have put my foot through the TV. An AWFUL finishing touch that, for me, tainted the entire production. "Unstoppable" plays out with great predictability and very little to get excited about.

Grade: C+

As a quick side note, I'd like to take a moment to talk directly to Denzel Washington because I know he's reading. Denzel, you're awesome. Seriously, one of the best actors to ever grace the screen. But your movie choices of late have been lackluster. Not bad, just safe and boring. Please, I beg you, take some chances. Go after roles that will actually allow you to showcase your incredible abilities, to stretch yourself. Look at what's happened to Robert De Niro and learn from his mistakes! No more Tony Scott movies. I'm just looking out for you.

"Paul"

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but at some point in the last few years, Fanboys have taken over the world. It used to be (or it seemed like it, at least) that nerd-friendly movies and TV shows were being made by suits just looking for an audience to cash in on. That’s different now. An entire generation of nerds grew up to be Head Nerds or Nerds with Power and they’ve created a catalog of films made by nerds, for nerds. Because of this, Fanboys have gone from the target audience to the focus of several films themselves. Whether it’s a character sporting a “Star Wars” t-shirt or an entire TV episode revolving around the music of Rush, nerd culture has become a viable market in and of itself. With that in mind, let us turn our attention to “Paul,” a movie written by and starring two well-known nerds (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) and directed by an even bigger nerd (Greg Mottola).

At the open, we find Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost), a sci-fi writer-illustrator team, making the rounds at Comic Con. After meeting their hero, Adam Shadowchild (Jeffrey Tambor), the pair sets out on an RV road trip to visit the UFO hotspots across the southwestern United States. Things get a bit too real, however, when a car crash brings them into contact with Paul (Seth Rogen), a crass alien who asks for their help in avoiding recapture. Paul has been on Earth since a crash landing 60 years ago and has stayed willingly, providing technological insight for the government and advice for sci-fi loving filmmakers (including Spielberg himself). He broke out of his prison, however, when he discovers that “The Big Guy” (no spoiler) planned to have him killed so that his alien skills, including the ability to heal, could be further examined. With a ship on its way to rescue him, Paul persuades Graeme and Clive to escort him to the rendezvous point, all the while remaining one small step ahead of an FBI agent (Jason Bateman) intent on bringing Paul back in.

The first half of “Paul” is nerdy genius at its best. What you can expect in Fanboy-made movies are inside jokes, a litany of movie references, and a genuine connection to the subject matter with which they work within. “Paul” is ripe with each of these characteristics, at times to the point of overkill. It starts strong, bringing us into the world of two extremely likeable characters. Graeme and Clive are everynerds, so to speak, the type of guy that any nerd would want to hang out with. They are endearing and the chemistry between Pegg and Frost, which has been illustrated so well in their other joint ventures (“Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”), shines through yet again here. Paul himself is quite funny, if crude and immature, and in the beginning the pieces of pop culture he is attached to, from the traditional look of extra-terrestrials to the use of his ideas in movies, are smart and easily accepted. Some of the sci-fi references are brilliant, peaking when the crew enters a Wyoming bar in which the band is playing the theme from the Mos Eisley Cantina.

After a while, though, the allure wears off. The rest of the characters are less enjoyable and more one dimensional than I would have liked. Each supporting actor, including Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, and Blythe Danner in addition to the aforementioned Bateman, have their moments and certainly provide a laugh (or three) but none are as well refined as Graeme, Clive, or Paul (to a lesser extent). I found this to be a detriment to the movie as a whole, as if these characters held the protagonists back. The writing as a whole isn’t as solid as the Pegg/Frost scripts for “Shaun” or “Fuzz.” And while the references seem fresh and fun in the beginning, after a while they become heavy-handed. Not everything needs to be a tribute to another film and the sheer number of pop culture items that are attributed to Paul is astounding. “Paul” starts to feel like a nerd version of “Forrest Gump” and I don’t mean that as a compliment. It’s all a bit tiresome, really. Mottola has a problem with ending his films, in my opinion, as I found myself once again ready for the conclusion about 20 minutes before it rolled around. All of this takes away from the overall strength of the movie and dampers the fun. I still enjoyed the majority of my time spent with “Paul” and if you’re a sci-fi/comic book nerd, there is no questioning this film’s appeal. But a tweak here and there, a shorter runtime, and fewer forced references could have made it a Fanboy smash.

Grade: B-

Quick side note: In the row in front of my viewing party and I, there sat a single twenty-something co-ed. After approximately 50 minutes of the movie, during which she almost never stopped looking at her smart phone, one of my buddies leaned over, I assumed, to ask her to kindly stop blinding us. He pulled up short, however, and the phone use continued. After the movie ended and the girl left, my friend told us that when he had leaned over to ask her to knock it off, he noticed that she was surfing eHarmony. So here sat a reasonably attractive young female, alone, on a Friday night, at a showing of a nerdy movie, rolling through eHarmony on her phone. At this moment I was griped with both a genuine sense of “ah, sad” for the girl and an IMMEDIATE need to bust my friend’s chops for not seizing the moment and hitting on said girl. He will never live this moment down. Ever.

I could not make that story up,
Brian

Care for another opinion? Check out Film Girl Interrupted's less-annoyed take on the fun that is "Paul."

"Battle: Los Angeles"

Every once in a while I feel like the mainstream critics get caught up in mob mentality regarding a given movie. While most popcorn flicks come and go with little more than a “meh” from the average critic, occasionally said movie receives such a vehemently vicious as to become the proverbial ginger stepchild. One critic voices a strong disdain and is soon joined by another and another until you get the feeling that a blood thirsty band of Roger Eberts might be roving around theater parking lots, bullying anyone who would dare to enjoy this movie. 2011’s early leader to become the unassuming wimp to the critic’s ‘roided up jock is “Battle: Los Angeles.”

There’s very little build up in “BLA.” We are introduced to Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), a career Marine whose last tour of duty resulted in some casualties. Nantz has filed his discharge paperwork and is essentially on his way out the door when the invasion begins. Landing offshore all around the world, what were at first thought to be meteorites turn out to be alien spacecraft and soon our shores are swarming with hostiles. Assigned to a new squadron, Nantz is forced to rally his young troops when it becomes clear that they are America’s last line of defense.

I won’t sit here and tell you that “BLA” is a great action movie. It isn’t. There’s almost no storyline, most of the characters often come across as caricatures of other war/action movie characters, and the aliens themselves are fairly mundane. You won’t find a well-developed backstory or any social commentary here and if you’re expecting that, just go rent “District 9” again. Some reviews I’ve ready would have you believe this entire movie is a metaphor for the United States’ attitude toward immigration. To those people I say, either stop watching CNN or stop watching cheesy action flicks; you’re giving the makers of “BLA” way too much credit. There’s no depth to “BLA” and there doesn’t need to be. There’s no identity crisis, no bloated sense of importance, and no ambition to become anything more than it is. And I, for one, appreciate that.

“BLA” knows its place in the world and it is better for that. It’s all action, all the time and for my money, there’s some merit in that. The Marines are under constant attack and director Jonathan Liebesman does an excellent job of creating an atmosphere of tension. These Marines are faced with an unknown enemy and the confusion and chaos that causes comes screaming through as they scramble to develop a strategy. The dialogue, though cliché, isn’t bad and the inevitable moments of artificial emotion/sentimentality work relatively well. There’s something about a group of soldiers marching stoically into the face of certain death for the betterment of the masses that gets me even when it’s done in such an obvious and over-the-top manner as it is in “BLA.” There is definitely a video game feel to “BLA.” In fact, as we walked out, my viewing partner and I both expressed a desire to play a game based on what we’d just seen. I completely understand if that turns some viewers off. More often than not I use “video game feel” as a criticism. This time around, however, it worked for me. It might be mindless entertainment but it’s still fun and at the end of the day, that’s all I wanted it to be.

All that brings me back around to the critical backlash that “BLA” has taken over the last couple of weeks and has been met with a slew of “D” and “F” grades. It has been described as “noisy and violent” to which my response is, uh, DUUUUHHH. Have you ever seen an action/war movie before? Even Roger Ebert himself, usually less harsh in his criticism than most, essentially called any fan of this movie an idiot and encouraged all friends and family members to disassociate from said idiot. It’s odd to me, with all the terrible action movies that have opened in the last couple of years, that Ebert (and everyone else) picked this one to get all hot and bothered about. It’s not great by any means and I’m not running out to see “BLA” again but I’m certainly not complaining, either. There’s something to be said for an action flick that sticks to its guns and doesn’t stray from the identity it creates for itself and you could do a heck of a lot worse with your movie dollar.

Grade: B-

I should have worked “lambasted” into this review somewhere,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out John Likes Movies.

The Documentary Project: Volume 5 - "The Fab Five"

Note: Most of the documentaries I will be watching for this project revolve around subject matter that I don't know just a whole lot about. Because of my love for sports (and basketball in particular) and my knowledge of these events, however, I cannot write a review that sticks exclusively to the content of the film without dipping a toe into the sports side of this movie-sports equation. My apologies in advance. I'm also a Duke fan, so...

In 1991, the University of Michigan changed the face of college basketball. A program with a proud tradition, Michigan at the time was in a down period despite having recently won a national title. In an effort to rejuvenate his squad, head coach Steve Fischer hit the recruiting trails harder than ever before and managed to secure commitments from 5 highly touted players from across the country. Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson all made their way to Ann Arbor in the fall of 1991, nicknaming themselves "The Fab Five." While Webber was the prize recruit, it was Rose who galvanized the young group, bringing with him the brash swagger that he picked up playing in the projects of Detroit. As a group, the Fab Five was a shock to the sensibilities of the average college basketball fan. They wore baggy shorts and black shoes, talked trash the entire game, and finished off dramatic plays with screams and taunts. They also experienced an incredible amount of success for such a young squad and this factor, combined with their appearance, made them a cultural sensation. "The Fab Five," an ESPN documentary produced by Rose, explores the impact of the group, both on and off the court, and the eventual letdown that this era was to the university.

There's no questioning the entertainment value of "The Fab Five." The follow up to ESPN's acclaimed 30 for 30 series from last year (HIGHLY recommended for any sports fan, by the way), very few full length sports documentaries can hold your attention the way this one does. Shots and recaps of those two "magical" years are interspersed with interviews with the members of the squad (minus Webber). From a personal standpoint, it was great fun to relive the moments of those seasons because these were the formative years for my love of basketball and particularly for the hated Duke Blue Devils (a Michigan rival of sorts).

That said, this isn't in any way, shape, or form what you'd call a "fair and balanced" documentary. There's no questioning the impact of the Fab Five; they were a cultural phenomenon. But Jalen Rose would have you believe they were THE cultural phenomenon in sports, THE group that changed everything from fashion to style of play. That's simply untrue. In many ways the Fab Five were the little brothers of the University of Miami's football team in the 80s, a squad that polarized a nation of sports fans. Even more current to the rise of the Fab Five, the UNLV Runnin' Rebels had won a title only the year before this crew took to the floor and had garnered extensive attention while playing with the same style and swagger that the Fab Five "invented." Even the baggy shorts look (a style I'm extremely grateful for as a skinny white kid with a less than formidable lower body that would look terrible in the short-shorts of the 70s and 80s), which Rose takes credit for, had already been brought to the forefront by none other than Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player ever. College basketball may have been lagging behind the playground but the insinuation that the Fab Five started the baggy shorts trend is absurd.

In addition, the on court success of the Fab Five was, quite frankly, a bit of a disappointment considering the end result. They reached two Championship games in their first two seasons together but got crushed by Duke in 92 and watched Chris Webber call a timeout his team did not have in 93, costing his team a shot at the win. The next year, after Webber left for the NBA, Rose and Howard led them back to the Elite 8 but again they lost to the eventual champion, Arkansas. Not a bad run by any means but when you consider the attention the group brought upon themselves as they entered college, you have to feel that anything short of a title is a letdown. And at the end of the day, Chris Webber's involvement with a less than reputable "business man" during this time ultimately led to Michigan vacating the wins accumulated during the Fab Five run and cost coach Fisher his job. "The Fab Five" touches on these subjects but, as you might imagine, paints the events in a much more favorable light that they appear to outsiders. The result is the feeling that this group of guys, while significant, is much more important in their own minds than they are to the rest of the world.

We are also treated to what amounts to jealousy and name calling, as Rose and King call out their Duke counterparts, referring to vaunted Duke hero Grant Hill as an "uncle Tom." Coming from a tough background, Rose tells the camera that he felt any black man who went to Duke was selling out his race. Looking past the extremely offensive and unfair terminology, I found it more than slightly ironic that Rose and King attacked Duke though they went to Michigan, which is essentially the Duke of the Big 10, an upper class school full of upper class kids. Rose has since attempted to clarify his statement by saying this was how he felt as a teenager but wouldn't go so far as to say he didn't feel that way now. I would take great umbrage with this statement but I feel Grant Hill settled the matter much more eloquently than I ever could.

The documentary fails to touch on the most important part of the Fab Five's impact on college basketball. Their real significance was the way in which their success changed recruiting. Up until that point, very few freshmen were expected to do much in their first year on campus. Freshmen, no matter how highly recruited, generally rode the bench along with the walk-ons and were expected to wait their turn. The Fab Five forced college basketball coaches across the country to change their tactics. The ante was raised, essentially, and coaches soon found themselves working harder to bring in not one or two player but an entire class of highly touted recruits and doing anything they could to see that through. Already a dirty game in college football, recruiting became a big, nasty business in basketball and that is due in large part to the Fab Five. This part of the equation was bypassed in the film in favor of the sexy, flashy half-truths that dominate the narrative. The absence of Webber, too, takes some punch out of "The Fab Five." He comes across as petty and false, a middle class kid who preened and posed and played a thug on TV but was really much more spoiled than he'd ever have you believe. His side of the events displayed in this movie could have brought some real substance. But then again, his refusal to participate is a microcosm of his entire basketball career: disappointing. Very few players did less with more than Webber and in a way, that sums up the era of the Fab Five and the documentary about them: lots of style, very little true substance.

Grade: B

Blu Ray Review: "Buried"

When Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) awakens, he finds himself in total darkness. Frantic, he locates a Zippo and, lighting it, discovers that he is trapped inside a coffin. An American truck driver in Iraq, Conroy realizes that his convoy was attacked and that he has been imprisoned by insurgents. Shortly thereafter, a phone rings and a dark voice on the other end informs him that he has only a few hours to secure a $10 million ransom or he will be left to die. What follows is an intense race to determine his own whereabouts and those of his captors before his grave becomes permanent.

"Buried" is an outstanding concept that depends half on the atmosphere of the coffin and half on the performance of the man trapped within it. Shot entirely in one location (a coffin) with essentially only one actor on screen (Reynolds), it's easy to understand why the film's production budget ($3 million) was so low. The shots are tight, giving the viewer the appropriate feel for the claustrophobic conditions. Reynolds fulfills his part of the bargain admirably. Conroy fluctuates between moments of panic and those of decided action, making every call he can think of to try to bring aid. Reynolds excels in this role, displaying a brilliant mix of frustration, fear, and determination. As usual, he brings a certain charisma to his character and that is what makes the difference for "Buried." The situation in and of itself, while tragic, is not necessarily enough to keep an audience invested for the 95 minute run time; you need a compelling and sympathetic character to root for and Reynolds provides it.

Some films, though, don't translate as well from the big screen to a living room TV set and "Buried" is one of them. I think some of the power of "Buried" was probably stripped away because I didn't see it in a theater and the drama of the film's environment was watered down a bit for me. That said, the back and forth between hope and failure (not to mention a twist that works well) creates palpable tension and a movie that is well worth a viewing.

Grade: B+

DVD Review - "It's Kind of a Funny Story"

When his depression deepens and casual suicidal thoughts turn to near-action, teen-aged Craig (Keir Gilcrest) decides to take the situation out of his own hands and checks himself into a mental institute. Hoping for a quick fix to his problems, he soon finds himself locked away for a week inside the adult wing of the hospital while the teen side is remodeled. While undergoing the therapy he hoped to avoid, Craig begins to make new friends, including Bobby (Zach Galifianakis), a gentle soul who can't seem to adjust to the realities of the outside world, and Noelle (Emma Roberts), another teen whose suicidal thoughts have taken on more drastic measures than his own. Through these new bonds, Craig seems to bloom, to become a real person instead of the obligatory well behaved, overachieving adolescent he's always felt he had to be. Confronting the expectations that have been innocently placed upon him by his parents, his friends, and his own mind, Craig fights to discover his real identity.

I cannot recommend "It's Kind of a Funny Story" highly enough. Writer, director, and cast all come together for a near seamless coming-of-age comedy that dwells in the quirky but never heavy handedly. It is a pleasant mix of "Garden State" and "500 Days of Summer" centered around a slightly younger crowd. Writer/director team Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck penned a brilliant script that puts each of the cast in a position to shine. The film moves well, never lingering excessively but also without passing anything over. Each issue is handled with grace, which prevents "Funny Story" from becoming bitter or sad. Craig's parents (Lauren Graham and Jim Gaffigan) are shown to be caring, loving people who share in the blame for their son's current situation only through accident, instead laying the blame at the feet of a society that expects too much of its children. Gilcrist, meanwhile, is exceedingly likable, an actor/character you immediately and genuinely gravitate toward. And while each of the supporting cast have their moments, Galifianakis shines the brightest, delivering an honest portrayal that gives the story an added layer of depth. Though perhaps a bit shallow at times, "Funny Story" is a huge success, a warm, heartfelt, and even fun movie that holds its own with the very best quirky comedies.

Grade: A

Blu Ray Review - "127 Hours"

Note: I usually do my very best to avoid any sort of spoiler in my reviews, even, at times, softening or weakening my statements to steer clear of anything that might ruin the suspense of a film. In this circumstance, however, I find it impossible to write a proper review without alluding to the conclusion. As this is based on real events that many people followed when they happened, I feel like I'm in the clear in terms of "to spoil or not to spoil." With that said, if you've never heard of Aron Ralston or his story, I'd advise you to move on to something else.

At the outset of "127 Hours," Aron Ralston (James Franco), an adventurous young mountaineer, sets out for a weekend climb through a well known canyon in Utah. Ralston is what you would call an amateur-expert, a weekender who knows a lot more than the average thrill seeker. This knowledge and his comfort level with the task at hand probably works against him, however, as it makes him a bit cocky and allows him to break the number one rule of wilderness adventure: always tell someone where you're going and when you'll be back. Skipping this important step becomes a serious issue when Ralston takes a bad step and finds himself trapped in a crevice with his arm pinned between the rough rock wall and a boulder. Based on real life events, "127 Hours" focuses on the days that follow as Ralston's will is pushed to the limits, leading him to make a gut wrenching decision.

I avoided "Hours" for some time for two reasons: 1.) having followed these events when they were brought to life in 2003, I knew the eventual outcome. I'm fine with biographical films or the "based on a true story" tag line but at times events that are as fresh as these make it tough for me to enjoy the movie. 2.) more importantly, I was not sure I could take the visualization of the gruesome choices Ralston was forced to make. I'm not overly squeamish; I can handle battle scenes, even graphic ones, without pause but anything surgical gets to me. For example: I'm fine with the opening 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan" but when the squad tries to fix up Giovanni Ribisi after he takes a bullet storming the machine gun turret...I nearly pass out every time. Inevitably, however, the power of Danny Boyle won me over.

Boyle's pulsating, frenetic style runs through the very heart of "Hours." The splashes of color and quick cuts bring flash to a narrative that quite frankly could have become boring without it. Flashbacks and hallucinations allow for a break from the potential monotony of a guy hanging alone in a desert cave and add depth to the Ralston character. Still, though, "Hours" rests almost entirely on the shoulders of Franco. The "solitary man" role is extremely risky for even the best actors in the world. Tom Hanks himself, perhaps the most likable actor of his generation, had a hard time conquering this role in "Cast Away." (Yes, that film made a ton of money but no, it was not nearly as universally appealing as most of Hanks' work was.) Franco, though, handles the pressure wonderfully, giving the performance of his life (naturally, given his Oscar nomination) and displaying an immense range that I personally wasn't sure he had. A scene in which he films himself essentially saying goodbye to his parents is sobering, heartbreaking, and perfectly genuine. Rumor has it that Franco got hold of the actual tape Ralston filmed while stuck and this scene in particular speaks to that idea. It's a palpable portrayal that carries the film.

And that brings us to the cringe-worthy finale, as Ralston is forced to choose between cutting his own arm off with a dull stocking stuffer utility knife or dying alone and dehydrated. If you have knowledge of the events, you know the choice he makes. And let me say, this is one of the most painful moments in film history. Boyle pulls no punches and in fact calls attention to Ralston's actions through the score and aforementioned shot selections. It is gruesome and bloody and I confess I had to turn away from the screen on multiple occasions. But by the same token, I didn't find it to be gratuitous. I mean, the dude is forced to cut his own arm off. It would be an injustice to Ralston and his story to shy away from the gory details. And because of the tension that Boyle and Franco build throughout the minutes that lead up to this event, the final cut feels less like a horrific loss and more like the attainment of freedom, as you would imagine it did in real life. It isn't easy to watch and I wouldn't recommend "127 Hours" to everyone but it is unquestionably an excellent film that showcases the ability of its lead beautifully.

Grade: A

"The Adjustment Bureau"

I have a theory that Matt Damon and I would be friends. Like if I was hanging out in Boston one day and I bumped into the guy, we’d hit it off and before long you’d see me sitting with him courtside at a basketball game and the paparazzi would be wondering, “Who is the mystery man who’s always hanging out with Damon?” I base this theory on several factors. First, you always get the impression that Damon is a cool dude. Maybe more than any other A-lister, Damon gives off an air of genuine coolness. Second, in keeping with the cool factor, Damon doesn’t take himself too seriously. He takes his craft seriously, of course, but you have to love a guy who’s willing to show up as Tina Fey’s boyfriend on “30 Rock” or a punk rocker in “Eurotrip.” Third, his sense of humor comes out through his characters and it falls in line with my own. Just trust me, Matt and I would be tight if he knew me. I tell you all of this because I lost my notes on “The Adjustment Bureau” and I had some space to fill. Sue me.

Based on a short story by the esteemed Philip K. Dick, “The Adjustment Bureau” drops us into the life of David Norris (Damon), a brash, young politician running for the New York senate. When a late-breaking tabloid report ruins his chances, his disappointment is quickly squashed when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt), a charming dancer who inspires him to make a charismatic and honest concession speech. (I swear I would vote for this guy.) A month later he bumps into Elise again and is immediately reminded of the oddly strong attraction he felt toward her. He soon discovers, however, that this budding relationship isn’t the in the cards as he is made aware of the Adjustment Bureau, a group of beings (perhaps angels) who are tasked with the job of keeping everyone on the right path. He is told that in order for his political ambitions to come to fruition, he can never see Elise again. Saddened, he moves on with his life but never stops a quiet search for the girl who so impressed him. When he finally does find her, the Adjustment Bureau jumps into action in an effort to push the pair apart, causing a city wide cat-and-mouse game that pits love against reason.

Given my love for smart science fiction and Matt Damon, I’m sure no one will be shocked to hear that I highly enjoyed “Bureau.” It plays out as one part “Serendipity,” one part “It’s a Wonderful Life,” and one part “The Matrix” and the final combination works well. That may seem a bit complicated but the presentation is simple and to the point. This is a love story and all the surrounding complexity is used solely to drive our two stars together. It is antiquated in a way and at times hokey but I found this combination to be quite charming. There’s a certain nostalgic value to “Bureau,” a throwback to the cinematic endeavors of the 50s and 60s.

As it is a romance, the film’s success rests squarely on the chemistry between Damon and Blunt, neither of whom shy away from the pressure. The pair works wonderfully together, exhibiting a natural, enjoyable relationship that doesn’t take itself too seriously but at the same time proves to be worth fighting for. I can’t say this is Damon’s best work ever but then again, Damon’s B+ game is better than most people’s A+. I always find Blunt to be magnificent and her work here is no exception. Much like her role in “Sunshine Cleaning,” she demonstrates a certain indescribable quality that draws your attention and glues your eyes to every scene. It takes a supreme talent to match up with Damon and Blunt holds her own. The supporting actors, notably John Slattery and Anthony Mackie, all have their moments but as I said, “Bureau” depends entirely on Damon and Blunt.

For all the endearing charm of the first 97 minutes of “Bureau,” the final two minutes are a let-down. It’s a safe, moralistic ending that drops in on you much quicker than expected. It is, quite frankly, a cop-out. I will say, however, that while my distaste for this was palpable, I can’t for the life of me think of a stronger conclusion that isn’t overly dark. “Bureau” is at no time dark or gritty. In fact, the contrast between the harsh landscape and the light, vulnerable relationship the leads display is a point of strength for the film. To end on a dark note would have been a betrayal of the rest of the movie. Still, though, it’s a weak finale that could have used a reworking. This flaw, though, doesn’t keep “Bureau” from being very good. I would venture to call this my favorite romance since "500 Days of Summer," an excellent date movie with a smart concept and old school sentimentalities.

Grade: A-

If anyone knows Matt Damon, have him email me,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out John Likes Movies review, which includes some excellent points that I had forgotten due to the cursed loss of my notes. I'm getting old.

"Rango"

I’m not very easily offended. When it comes to content in film, there are things I don’t like, things I don’t approve of, things I won’t watch but there’s not just a whole lot that literally offends me. I have strong moral sensibilities but I don’t expect filmmakers and more importantly, film characters, to fall in line with my beliefs or preferences. One of the things that does grind my gears, however, are children’s movies, cartoons, that load up on adult content and innuendo. It bugs me. An adult-oriented joke here and there is fine; you have to give the grown-ups in the audience something to hold on to. But a steady stream of inappropriate statements, curse words, and the like in a PG cartoon is unacceptable to me. Maybe that’s because of my background or the fact that I work with kids but regardless, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes it difficult for me to be unbiased in my review. So keep that in mind as we delve into “Rango.”

“Rango” opens on our title character (Johnny Depp), a pet lizard with visions of grandeur whose existence is thrown out of whack when he is unceremoniously dropped into the Mohave Desert. Wondering through the desolate landscape, he stumbles upon Beans (Isla Fisher), a fellow reptile who takes him to an Old West-style town inhabited by turtles, rabbits, moles, and the like. Like any good college freshman, Rango realizes that this is a chance for a new identity and a fresh start; he can be anyone he wants to be in a town where no one knows him. He quickly develops for himself a rough and tumble background story and paints himself to be quite the gunslinger. His reputation in town only grows when he kills a menacing hawk through a series of fortunate events similar to those that helped Buzz Lightyear demonstrate his ability to fly. He is quickly made sheriff and even quicker, his mettle is put to the test when he stumbles into a conspiracy that threatens to rid the land of its water and force the townspeople to leave.

The animated debut of director Gore Verbinski (“Pirates of the Caribbean”), “Rango” is visually STUNNING. The depth to the detail of each character is magnificent and use of color is exquisite. Verbinski had his cast act out the scenes from the movie and used their movements to map out the characters. The result is an incredibly lifelike, realistic feel. You almost forget, in some ways, that you’re watching a collection of desert creatures because of how human the characters seem. The animation is to the quality of Pixar which is unquestionably the best compliment one could possibly give. I also quite enjoyed the Western elements of “Rango.” You won’t find many Westerns in my personal DVD collection but I greatly appreciate the western influence. It is richly represented here which makes the film’s shortcomings all the more frustrating.

To be short, “Rango” is inappropriate for children. Far too much of the content is aimed at the adults in the audience and so many of these lines of dialogue and actions are too thinly veiled as to go over the head of most seven year olds. The argument could be (and has been) made that “Rango”s target audience is, in fact, the adults it so keenly panders to throughout. If this was indeed Verbinski’s goal (which would be perfectly acceptable), then in my opinion he should have gone full bore and taken aim at the PG-13 rating. Some parents will have no problem with the content and that’s fine; I cast no judgment in their direction. But those who will (and I think these parents will be greater in number) are being put into a bad position. If they don’t read a review going in, they’re likely to believe “Rango” is family friendly, kid’s fare and why shouldn’t they given its rating and marketing campaign aimed at children? And while I know so many of the family movies from my youth were packed with content I didn’t understand until later in life, animated features should be held to a different standard in my book. . While none of the content was anywhere near as rough or potentially objectionable as, say, the average episode of “Family Guy,” the difference is the little box at the top of the screen that says, “TV14.” Parents can choose whether or not to put any stock into that warning but at least the warning has been laid out.

“Rango” also suffers from an overall lack of humor. The dialogue is well written and fairly quick witted but to be honest, I very rarely laughed. The jokes seemed heavy handed at times while at other times they simply weren’t funny. So while much of the content is overly adult-themed, the humor didn't really work for this adult. This leaves “Rango” with an identity crisis that it struggles with throughout. There are some truly fun moments and as I said the visuals are unmatched in quality. But the lack of flow or identity left me feeling as if my time had been wasted, something I very rarely experience in a theater.

Grade: C+

I fear I sound super conservative today,
Brian

Care for another take? Check out Cinema Slant's slightly more glowing review.

Blu Ray Review - "Predators"

"Predators" opens up on Royce (Adrien Brody), a soldier of fortune who awakens to find himself falling from the sky and only just manages to pull a parachute. His fellow refugees, including a death row inmate (Walton Goggins), a KGB agent (Oleg Taktarov), and a Colombian guerrilla (Alice Braga) seem to be just as dangerous as he is. Banding together out of necessity, the group soon discovers they are on an alien planet, a game preserve of sorts, and that they are not alone. The famed aliens that once pushed Arnold Schwarzenegger to the limit are now tracking them down and picking them off one by one, pushing each of the human killers to their limits.

"Predators" is about 2/3rds of a really solid sci-fi action flick. It has an excellent premise and a fun concept, even if it has been done about 100 billion times. It's good to see the Predator universe returned to normalcy, too, after the disastrous "Alien Versus Predator" series. For anyone my age, there's something cool about the reappearance of the Predator on screen, a bit of nostalgia that allows you to forget that "Predator" really doesn't hold up very well these days because dude, was it AWESOME in its day. The action is well-paced and exciting and the 107 minute runtime is just about right for a movie like this. Sure, the scenes play out like a check list of Action Movie Musts (a traitor: check; someone who knows more than they should: check; someone who sacrifices himself for the group: check; an anti-hero who changes his stripes: check) but what did you really expect from "Predators," anyway?

My only real problem with this movie is casting and the use of said cast. Goggins is a magnificent actor who plays a villain beautifully. He, along with Braga and a few others, are relegated to one-dimensional supporting roles that don't have an ounce of depth. And then there's Adrien Brody, who I just don't buy as a tough guy. When you consider that the Predator took Arnie to his limit at the height of his power, the dude from "The Pianist" doesn't seem to stand much of a chance. Perhaps that's an idiotic way to look at things but that thought kept running through my mind throughout this movie. Likewise, another actor/character (who shall remain nameless to avoid a spoiler) seems so out of place that you KNOW a twist is bound to come. Yet when it does, you're left wondering what there was for this character to gain at that point. A few tweaks and some better casting choices could have made "Predators" a sci-fi flick to remember but these issues don't stop it from being a perfectly acceptable piece of entertainment that should work for any fan of this franchise.

Grade: B-

Blu Ray Review: "The Princess and the Frog"

During the Jazz Age, a young New Orleans waitress Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) finds herself caught up in a battle between a voodoo witch doctor, Facilier (Keith David), and a foreign prince, Naveen (Bruno Campos). When both Tiana and Naveen are turned into frogs, they must fight through the dangers of the bayou and reclaim their true forms before the clock runs out and they are stuck in their amphibian bodies.

Once such a proud American tradition, Disney movies had completely lost their appeal to me over the last decade. As I've said before, that has very little to do with my age. I love animated films and am unashamed to sit in on a kid's movie on opening day if it interests me enough. My disinterest in Disney has everything to do with quality. Between 2000's "Emperor's New Groove" and last year's "Tangled", not a single Disney cartoon held any sort of appeal to me, with the minor exception of "Lilo and Stitch" which I only mildly enjoyed. For all intents and purposes, the studio completely lost its way and stopped living up to the standard it set for itself over the previous 60 years. Disney animation regained my attention with the aforementioned "Tangled." Put simply, I loved it. it was one of the more fun experiences of 2010 and resembled some of the magic Disney used to be so famous for. With that in mind, I decided to give "Princess and the Frog" a try.

Let's just say I'm hoping this is less a sign of things to come and more an example of just how far the studio had fallen before "Tangled." A decent-enough story and great music aren't nearly enough to save "Princess" from a host of problems. The script is weak and the voice actors don't do much to flesh it out. You don't have to have big names to make an animated feature work but you do need talent and while this group may be able to sing, the delivery of the non-musical lines is almost unanimously bland. Likewise, the animation itself seemed sloppy to me. Some of the characters looked like something from the Disney knockoffs that were so popular when I was a kid. But worst of all, "Princess" is just plain boring, a cardinal sin in a children's movie. Within 20 minutes of the opening credits, I found myself messing around on my laptop and later sorted my laundry and if not for those activities, I probably could have fallen asleep. There are some fun moments but overall "Princess" is a forgettable film that just feels like a waste of time.

Grade: C+

DVD Review: "Paper Man"

On the verge of separation from his wife and crippled by harrowing writer's block, Richard Dunn (Jeff Daniels) settles himself into a friend's summer cottage to work on his second novel. His only companion is Captain Excellent (Ryan Reynolds), a Superman-like superhero who exists only in Richard's mind. Solitude doesn't seem to do the trick, however, and he soon finds himself looking for ways to procrastinate. On a trip into town, he meets and befriends Abby (Emma Stone), a local teenager with a haunted past and only one real friend, a strange boy named Christopher (Kieran Culkin). The two become an unlikely pair and begin to spend more time with each other against the advice of both Captain Excellent and Christopher. Soon Richard is forced to question his life, his relationships, and his profession.

This is a difficult movie to sum up. In essence, "Paper Man" is all about relationships and human interaction, though that may seem difficult to comprehend given that one of the characters is a figment of another's imagination. And yet the interconnecting relationships of Richard and Excellent, Abby and Christopher, and Richard and Abby serve as an illustration of human needs and co-dependence. None of the main characters are complete persons and as such, each needs the other. Directors Kieran and Michele Mulroney give us carefully crafted, well-honed characters that rarely stray from their tendencies as they grow together and therefore, apart. Likewise, all of the leads give outstanding performances and fit their roles perfectly. Daniels and Stone display a natural chemistry that embraces the oddness of their relationship. For perhaps the first time ever, Richard and Abby are allowed to be themselves in each other's company and that comes through beautifully. Stone, in particular, is perhaps more vulnerable and authentic here than in any other movie she's been a part of. Only Lisa Kudrow feels out of place as Richard's overachieving wife, a one-dimensional character who at times fits a tired cliché than she does embrace real humanity. That's more than a bit of a disappointment given than none of the other characters or their interactions stray into the cliché abyss. "Paper Man" is quirky and original with dark overtones that give it depth and edge and a tremendous collection of talent that doesn't go to waste. Quite frankly, I loved this movie and found myself drawn to it with more intensity than just about any film I've seen recently.

Grade: A

The Documentary Project - Volume 4: "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work"

Whatever your opinion of her may be, you cannot deny the universal fame of Joan Rivers. One of, if not the, most recognizable female comedian the world has to offer, Rivers had been thrusting herself into the spotlight for the better part of the 50 years. And whether a rabid fan, an adamant hater, or somewhere in between, everyone knows Joan. Her sharp wit and wickedly crass material have been overshadowed by her commitment to plastic surgery and unfortunate career choices but at the same time, you have to credit her for still having a career at all this far into the game. On the verge of turning 75, "Piece of Work" details the life and times of Rivers from the highs to the lows and her rise to budding superstar and fall to Indian casino bookings.

First of all it should be noted that I really wasn't interested in this movie. Obviously I love a good documentary but the thought of sitting through an hour and a half of Joan Rivers sounded only slightly less ominous than wearing Lady Gaga's famed meat suit into shark infested waters. My introduction to Joan Rivers came as a child when she appeared as an over-the-top makeup saleswoman in "The Muppets Take Manhattan," an appearance that left me shell-shocked for the last 25 years. That was enough for me. But when this doc popped up on my bi-weekly search for anything new worth watching on Netflix Instant, I figured it wouldn't hurt to add it to the queue even if I never watched it. (Note to movie studios: this is not the first time this has happened. Netflix Instant is a serious boon to your industry. Embrace it.) And then the weather and AT&T became allies and launched a dual-front attack against my house a couple of weeks ago, knocking out my cable while simultaneously making it impossible for me to leave my house. So when the Lady of the Box Office refused to be party to any of the movies I suggested (who doesn't want to have a "Star Wars" marathon on a snow day?!), we turned to "Piece of Work."

Secondly, I was completely taken aback by how compelling I found this documentary to be. It provides not only a look at a comedian's creative process but also an insight into crippling insecurity. The preparation that this woman puts into her craft (comedy) and the seriousness with which she approaches it are remarkable. A wall full of card catalogues house a record of every joke Rivers has ever told and I found her editing methods to be fascinating. At the same time, the need for approval, for fame, for love (essentially) is the overwhelming message of the film. In many ways, Rivers has carved out for herself a remarkable legacy and yet all she can focus on are the rejections and the fragile state of her acting career. It's heart breaking, really, to listen to Rivers as she delves into the depths of her lack of overall confidence, something you'd never pick up for her act. "Piece of Work" also displays a strong if understated caring side to Rivers, particularly in scenes describing her kindness toward past and present employees and the continual badgering of her daughter, Melissa, concerning her smoking. Of course, being the rough-around-the-edges person that she is, her concern comes across as condescending but for me, that made these moments all the more genuine. "Piece of Work" allows the audience to view Joan Rivers as a human when most in my generation have only known her as a caricature-like presence. That humanism is where the movie makes its mark, really, and what sets it apart from other celebrity bio-docs I've seen in the past.

Grade: B+

"Just Go With It"

Last year, in my review of “Dinner for Schmucks,” I wrote about that rare occasion when I find myself nervously voicing my approval for a hated film. It really doesn’t happen often. I mean, sure, perhaps I give a film a “B+” when the general consensus is more in the “B” range or something similar. But rarely do the opinions of other smart movies goers differ significantly from my own. That’s kind of my bit, really. I write reviews for regular people who like movies. At least when it comes to mainstream releases, generally speaking, if I hate a movie, you will, too, and if I love it, chances are you’ll enjoy yourself as well. So it is with great trepidation that I step into the shark infested, chum-filled waters of a positive review for “Just Go With It.”

Adam Sandler plays Danny, a womanizing plastic surgeon who had his heart broken in the 80s and has never allowed himself to be put in that situation again. As a result, he uses a fake wedding ring as his prop for picking up women that are far out of his league. His assistant, Katherine (Jennifer Aniston), scoffs at his lifestyle but that doesn’t keep her from being his confidant. Danny’s walls are put to the test, however, when he meets Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), a young teacher (yeah, right) for whom he creates a fake ex-wife and kids. For the right price, Katherine and her children pose as the fake family. The shenanigans get even zanier when the whole troop, along with Danny’s cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), heads out on a twisted family vacation to Hawaii, where a series of events cause Danny to question his life and his attachments to both Palmer and Katherine.

Going into “Just Go With It”, I was 99 percent ready to hate my life. If I hadn’t picked up complimentary screening passes, I wouldn’t have ventured into this movie in the first place. While I’ve been a lifelong fan of Sandler, last year’s “Grown Ups” made me actually want to die and forced me to consider the possibility that I’ve outgrown Sandler’s hijinks. Yet, as the opening moments of “Just Go” unfolded, I found myself legitimately laughing out loud more often than not. I was literally shocked. I laughed more and more as the film went along and actually had a moment where I turned to my wife to say, “This is funny, right?” The jokes are easy but plentiful and Sandler seems to actually work with the material rather than against it like he has in the recent past. Director Dennis Dugan, the Adam McKay to Sandler’s Will Ferrell, has punched me in the gut numerous times over the last decade but for once he seems to have learned from his failures. One of the things that made “Grown Ups” so incredibly painful were the overly-long scenes that crushed any form of momentum the movie might have had. Instead, what you get with “Just Go” are quick cuts that don’t allow you to focus on the ludicrousness of what you’ve just been presented with. As much as I usually hate a movie that jumps from scene to scene, it works well in this situation.

Now that isn’t to say this movie is without flaws. In fact, it’s riddled with them the way Jack Bauer’s SUV is almost always filled with bullet holes by the end of an episode of “24.” No one would ever make the decisions that these characters do, for one thing. For another, Brooklyn Decker, for all our physical attributes, is by no means an actor. She’s one of the worst fake-actors ever. Swardson also doesn’t add much to the equation. And the usual host of cameos that plague a Sandler/Dugan production fall short again here, most notably that of Nicole Kidman who seems completely lost and rigidly one dimensional. But the element that allowed me to overlook these extreme issues is the chemistry between Sandler and Aniston. Given how rarely these actors have delivered in the recent past, it was more than a bit surprising to see how well they complemented each other here and how relatively naturally their characters blend. I wouldn’t necessarily call it an organic pairing but it certainly isn’t forced which is exactly what I expected.

By no means do I feel that any of the life choices made in this film are reasonable, realistic, or even remotely possible. Any number of “plot twists” could have been avoided entirely by a single character simply saying, “Wait a minute, there is no way we’re doing that.” BAM! Movie over. But where’s the fun in that? And for that matter, how many of the great movies we’ve come to know and love could have been DOA if a character would have simply made the logical choice? Comedies, as a whole, are almost always predicated on an absurd action or behavior. So I chose to embrace the ridiculousness and my evening was much more fun than I could have ever predicted. Maybe the theater pumped weapons-grade laughing gas into the room (it was a screening, after all) and maybe any future viewings will make me race to my computer to change my review, but whatever the case may be, I laughed a lot. And that is, after all, the point of a comedy. So my apologies if this review leads any of you astray down a dark and dangerous path.

Grade: B

You may now begin lambasting me,
Brian

Care for another (possibly more sane) take on "Just Go With It?" Head on over to Cinema Slants.

DVD Review - "Cyrus"

John (John C. Reilly) hasn't ever completely recovered from his divorce. A nice guy without any confidence, his life takes an interesting turn when he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) at his ex-wife's engagement party. John and Molly hit it off but after a few dates, John begins to feel like Molly is keeping something from him. He follows her home one night (stalker much?) and discovers that her adult son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), still lives at home. At first Cyrus seems to embrace his mother's new relationship but John soon finds that things aren't what they seem to be. Molly and Cyrus have an unnaturally close relationship and despite his objections to the contrary, Cyrus wants nothing to get in the way with that. Cyrus comically undermines everything John does, causing John to stoop to his level and force a showdown between the two.

"Cyrus" is an interesting little film. Directing brothers Jay and Mark Duplass provide a well written screenplay and a bit of fresh life for a concept that's been used more than once. The characters in "Cyrus" are much more human than one might expect. John, in particular, is a very authentic "divorce broke my soul" kind of guy and Reilly gives depth to the character. Even Cyrus, who's more over-the-top than John, still has moments of realness when it would have been very easy to allow him to become a robotic generalization. "Cyrus" is labeled as a comedy and at times revels in the (slightly) absurd but at its core it's a blended family drama with real heart. As weird as it sounds, you kind-of understand why Cyrus would steal John's shoes and that's saying something. My only real criticism of the film is the final 10 minutes, in which John and Cyrus attempt to work through their differences. While the majority of the film is fresh and vibrant, the finale is much more cliche, a cookie-cutter comedy ending. It doesn't fall apart so much as it just comes across as a cop out. Still, the Duplasses have crafted a heartfelt, organically funny movie that should provide them with a ticket to the mainstream.

Grade: B+

The Documentary Project - Volume 3: "Assault in the Ring"

On a summer night in 1983, two welterweight boxers met at center ring in front of a large Madison Square Garden crowd. The boxers were on different levels, with Billy Collins having been pegged for stardom and Luis Resto considered by most to be a tune-up fighter, though one with a solid reputation. The battle lasted ten rounds before Resto was named the winner. What should have been a career-making victory for Resto turned out to be short lived as almost immediately it was discovered that Resto's gloves had been tampered with. The padding had been removed from the gloves, essentially allowing Resto to pummel Collins with bare knuckles (see the photo below). For Resto, this meant the end of his boxing career, a stint in jail, and a haunted past. The fight was even more harmful for Collins, who never fully recovered from the beating which, combined with his already dark disposition, led him down a rough path toward a tragic death. 25 years later director Eric Drath follows Resto as he attempts to come to grips with the results of the fight.

Considering the damage he inflicted on Collins (and his family), Resto is an exceedingly sympathetic figure. A poor immigrant from Puerto Rico, Resto found not only a livelihood but also significance when he showed some talent in the ring. He had a chance to better his life and the lives of his family members and he worked extremely hard to make that happen. He learned early on, however, that you never question the men in your corner and that would ultimately lead to his undoing. He didn't remove the padding from the gloves himself but as he reluctantly admits about halfway through the film, he knew something wasn't right. Resto buried himself under a mountain of guilt not only because of the impact the fight had on Collins but because of the way he had disrespected his sport. His grief is written all over his face. By all accounts, this fight ended two lives with Resto holding on as a shell of a man, estranged from friends and family and unable to find redemption.

Drath offers just that, redemption, with a whirl-wind tour to the homes of all those affected by the fight. Resto is given the opportunity to confront his former trainer, Mario Costa, the man ultimately responsible for the customized gloves. While Resto spent two years in prison, Costa was simply stripped of his trainer's license due to a chain of custody issue that resulted in his court case being thrown out. Upon their first on-screen meeting, I was immediately struck by how much power Costa still held over Resto. Here stood the man responsible for Resto's troubles and yet he could not even look him in the eye. When questioned about the events of that night, Costa denies and feigns offense but in later footage he makes it abundantly clear that he would never admit his wrongdoing. It is abundantly clear that while Resto may have known something wasn't right when he stepped into the ring, Costa knew exactly what the game plan was. Drath also sheds a little light on the New York Athletic Commission, leading one to wonder what kind of shady business was conducted behind closed doors and under grimy tables on the way to that night's infamous events. In this sense, Drath allows "Assault" to illustrate what a shady business professional boxing truly is.

If Resto's confrontation with Costa is somewhat unsatisfying, his other meetings pick up the slack. He finally confesses his (limited) knowledge of the tampered gloves with his ex-wife and grown sons and you can see the relief wash over him. He weeps quietly when receiving forgiveness from Collins' widow and is even reunited with his mother and sister. It isn't a picture perfect ending, of course. Collins' father refused Resto's apologies and Costa provides no comfort for his former protege. Still, Drath's simple and understated film finds a poignant groove and stays within in, capturing the essence of a man who has paid for his mistakes a thousand times over without hope of reprieve, almost as much a victim as the man he sparred with on that fateful night.

Grade: A-

DVD Review - "Animal Kingdom"

When Joshua "J" Cody's (James Frecheville) mother dies of a drug overdose, you would think that his life couldn't get much worse. And you would be wrong. J goes to live with Janine (Jacki Weaver), the grandmother his mom had sought to keep him away from, and his uncles, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), and Darren (Luke Ford). Just before J came to stay with them, the Cody boys and their partner Barry Brown (Joel Edgerton) committed a string of high-profile armed robberies that caused Pope to go into hiding and brought a lot of attention from the crooked cops running the city's Armed Robbery Division. Too soon, however, the powder keg that is this battle between cops and robbers is set off with the murder of one of the boys and their subsequent retaliation against the police. While J attempts to keep some distance between himself and his uncle's war, detective Leckie (Guy Pearce) senses J to be the weak link in the family tree and puts pressure on him to turn against his uncles. With Pope on a rampage and the cops closing in, J is forced to fend for himself, employing a plan that puts him in danger from both sides.

"Animal Kingdom" is an Australian movie featuring an all-Australian cast of primarily unknown actors (with the exception of Pearce). When you add the "unknown factor" to the sheer strength of the well-defined characters, you almost feel like "Animal Kingdom" is a documentary, with the film's director getting the most in-depth look at illicit activities that anyone has ever been granted. That is to say, this is a character driven drama that you can almost confuse with real life. Pope is a complete sociopath who only just manages to keep his murderous impulses hidden under a thin veil of laughter which dies away as his desperation grows. J, on the other hand, is stoic and conflicted; a kid who just wants to have a normal life but always seems to find himself in jacked up situations into which he brings everyone around him (see: girlfriend). An entirely sympathetic figure, I found myself torn between wanting to see J rise above the stench of his family while at the same time hoping he'd be able to exact his revenge for the harm that is inflicted on him over the course of the film.

And then there's Janine, the sugary-sweet grandmother on the surface who controls her boy's criminal enterprise in the vein of Laura Linney's character in "Mystic River." She's a dark, twisted character who will stop at nothing to protect her children, even if it means sacrificing her grandson. Weaver earned a Best Supporting Actress nod for her role here and the merits of her nomination fully come to light. The acting is tremendous across the board, with Frechville earning a "Keep An Eye On This Kid" mark in my mind. "Animal Kingdom's" shortcomings are minimal and almost exclusively revolve around accent confusion (please excuse my American incompetence) and a few overly complex plot points that were difficult to follow. Regardless, it is an intense, hard film that doesn't pull any punches and absolutely glues the viewer to the screen.

Grade: A

Want a second opinion? See Marshall and the Movies take here: "Animal Kingdom"

Blu Ray Review: "Monsters"

Opening in Central America six years in the future, "Monsters" drops us into a reality in which most of Mexico has been overrun by alien monsters, the result of NASA probe that crashed while carrying martian samples. Mexico is termed the "Infected Zone" and each year, the aliens, which look like giant octopuses (octopi?), undergo a migration, causing some of the border towns in both Central America and the U.S. to be abandoned for a season. In the middle of all this is Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a cynical photo journalist looking for a shot of a live alien, who is forced to escort his bosses' daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), back to safety. Things go awry when Andrew fails to get Samantha onto a ferry and the pair is forced to travel over land and through the Infected Zone which results in a fight for survival and challenges Andrew's overall outlook on life.

"District 9" and "Moon", both part of the vaunted class of 2009, set the standard for low budget, high quality sci-fi and reignited Hollywood's interest in the genre as a whole. "Monsters" takes the "low budget" to a new level. Whereas "District 9" was made for around $30 million and "Moon" was done for $5 million, "Monsters" came in at a shockingly low $800,000. The entire cast consists of McNairy and Able and locals who were paid $20 to appear in a movie. Gareth Edwards, now regarded as a hot up-and-coming filmmaker, wrote, directed, edited, and shot this film himself. When you consider all of that, "Monsters" is an absurd achievement.

"Monsters" has an excellent story to tell and some very cool concepts that will undoubtedly lend themselves to a big-budgeted sequel in the near future. The special effects are a bit lacking but only in that the aliens don't appear on screen as much as I would have liked. Then again, given the money spent on this film, it seems to me that Edwards made the very responsible decision to limit the CGI shots and make them good rather than load the film with schlocky, B movie aliens. Kudos for that. The suspense is well built, too, and I got the feeling that if I'd seen this in a dark theater instead of my living room I would have been on edge. "Monsters" is perhaps over-ambitious at times: the inevitable twist is somewhat convoluted and forced me to go back and review some of the early shots. (That could be on me, though, as I was ADDing all over the place last week.) The final reveal of the aliens is cool but not quite as impactful as I would have hoped. And the actors, particularly Able, are only adequate though about what you would expect for what they were paid. All that said, however, doesn't erase the fact that Edwards crafted a quality sci-fi flick for the cost of catering on a blockbuster set. A good movie and a worthwhile viewing.

Grade: B+

The Documentary Project - Volume 2: "Made in America: Crips and Blood"

"Made in America" centers around the inception and subsequent development of the Los Angeles gang culture. Director Stacy Peralta immersed himself in the gang neighborhoods of L.A. and spent months getting to know the members themselves before even turning the camera on his subjects. Peralta begins with interviewing the founders of both the Bloods and the Crips (the most notorious of American gangs) to provide a background for how the gangs came about. As the documentary progresses, Peralta and narrator Forrest Whitaker push further into the current gang scene and allow the viewer a glimpse into what it's like in the highly volatile and bloody war.

I'm not completely sure when the war between the Bloods and the Crips took hold of America but pretty much everyone my age (27) was inundated with news on this phenomenon as children. Other gangs may have been just as prevalent in terms of membership and overall damage to society, but none of them had the impact of these two groups and that reach of influence spread across the country by the time I was in grade school. When I was in the third grade I knew more about the Bloods and the Crips than I did about the American system of government. We had school programs about the dangers not just of gangs but of the Bloods and the Crips specifically on what seemed like a weekly basis. By high school that influence seemed to have waned a bit but the lasting impression of the gang lifestyle was left in my psyche so you can imagine my interest in "Made in America."

Unfortunately, "Made in America" is a flawed documentary. As opposed to "Bigger Stronger Faster" which gave time to both sides of the argument, "MIA" works entirely from the perspective of the gang members without any regard to what other opinions might be. That is to say, if you watch "MIA", prepare for a steady stream of blame directed at the White Man and the government. Right or wrong, the opinion of the founders of the Bloods and Crips would have you believe that the formation of their gangs was the result of extreme prejudice and the only solution they had at the time. The other side of that argument is never presented. In addition, we get no delving into the money side of the gang war, the drugs and guns, which would have been an extremely interesting segment.

Still, "MIA" does provide a valuable insight that we rarely get and the fact that Peralta was able to get this amount of access is incredible. More often than not, real life looks at gang members feature covered faces and auto-tuned voices whereas "MIA" gets you up close and personal with the gang leaders. The increased level of violence and brutality that gangs have seen over the decades was of particular interest. When originally founded, the L.A. gangs served as a sort of social club for black youths who had nowhere else to turn. The fights between the gangs usually involved pugilism and rarely resulted in a serious injury or fatality. The introduction of guns into this battle, however, forever changed the face of the rivalry and pushed the gang war into the American consciousness. It is a sobering and cautionary piece of storytelling. Peralta puts the finishing touches on "MIA" by giving the mothers of gang violence victims some face time and allowing the impact of such a senseless and futile battle to sink in. "Made in America" is not a great documentary and could have given us more, but it is nonetheless, it illustrates a compelling and significant history.

Grade: B