The Counselor

I have long maintained that Ghost Rider is the worst movie, if not ever (I haven't seen every movie after all) then at least in recent history. I'm sure many people would argue that there are tons of worse films, and in terms of basic ineptitude they are no doubt right (straight to DVD anyone?). But I feel that in order to rank as actual WORST, you have to go beyond bad dialogue and plot and special effects (if relevant) and acting. You also have to factor in the talent of the people involved. Sure, Joe Suburbs who just graduated film school is going to crank out some fine schlock with his moms camcorder. But what did you expect? It is only when you have a truly acceptable roster of talent involved- and say what you will about his many horrible films, Nicholas Cage does actually have talent, if poor financial management and discretion in choosing roles- only then can you really manage to make a place holding worst film.

And I think we have a new champion.

Enter, The Counselor. 

Brad Pitt. Michael Fassbender. Penelope Cruz. Javier Bardem. Ridley Scott. Cormac  McFreakinCarthy. Seriously. Not people you typically expect drivel from (you'll notice I didn't mention Cameron Diaz, who is also in this movie but maybe doesn't inspire quite as lofty expectations. Sorry, Cameron).  Honestly, after ending that sentence I just sat staring at the cursor blinking for five minutes because I don't even know what to say about this film.  It's not that it is bad (which it is), it's that it is so incomprehensibly bad I almost can't find words to explain it. 

The basic plot is fine: lawyer gets tangled up in illicit business and dragged down when everything goes wrong. Various duplicitous characters abound. At least, I think that's what it was about. Because literally not one word of dialogue explains what is happening in this movie. Half of the expansive monologues don't even seem to be related to the scene they are in. It is actually quite remarkable I have made such a disconnect between exposition and plot propulsion and actual reality and coherence. I think I would have followed the movie better if it had been in German. Or on mute. 

The closest thing I can think to relate it to is when Joey tried to write a recommendation letter for Monica and Chandler to adopt (on Friends, which I hope I didn't really need to tell you). His letter originally said "they are warm caring people with big hearts" but he used a thesaurus on every word and so ended up with "they are humid prepossessing homo sapiens with full size aortic pumps."  And yes, I did that from memory. 

The dialogue in this movie is similar, except with an element of self absorbed pretension thrown in. Multiple characters wax poetic on various "deep" topics in oblique and entirely nonsensical speeches. I would love to give you some examples, but the words were so insanely thrown together I couldn't remember a sentence I just heard well enough to recreate it, even as it was happening. I'm actually impressed Mr. McCarthy (in his very first original screenplay) managed to write 2 hours worth of dialogue and never once even hint at what was going on, much less offer a coherent thought. It's an accomplishment for sure, just not one I'd recommend paying to witness. 

The movie also features the most ridiculous, far fetched, unerotic sex scene probably ever (which, to be fair might have been the point), as well as an incredibly inventive, if gruesome death.  But boiled down the primary issue rests solely on the writer. If you could redub all the dialogue with relevant, coherent subject matter, you'd be left with only a sub par movie. As it stands it is a triumph of mind boggling confundity.  I would definitely recommend you see this film, if only to have a new bar against which to measure all future terrible movies. But don't pay for it in the theater, wait for it to come out on DVD. 

It won't be long.


The Counselor  R  2hr 57 minutes

Argo Fete Yourself

Ah, the Oscars.  So long, so boring, so pointless because I hardly ever see the movies people consider award worthy.  And still I watch.

This year I had seen four of the best picture contenders: Argo, Les Miserables, Silver Linings Playbook, and Django Unchained, which is by far the highest percentage of nominees I've seen in recent years.  I liked them all, so I would have been happy to see any of them win, and a couple of months ago I would have been most aggressively rooting for Les Mis because I love it so.  But I have to confess that by last night I was crossing my fingers for Argo - everyone loves thumbing their nose at the establishment, and after the Academy totally snubbed Ben Affleck by not even nominating him for best director (and then he went on to win basically every other directing award, HA!) I was definitely puling for him to shove a win down their throats and get his Oscar anyway.

Argo fuck yourself, Oscar.

So I was very glad to see it win, but of course, if you think about it, there really was no surprise.  Argo basically has everything Academy voters want: period piece, historically relevant, true story, unlfattering costumes and/or facial hair, and Hollywood itself plays a hero's role in saving the day.  how could they NOT vote for it?

As far as the broadcast went, I won't say it was the worst I've ever seen.  Last year's hosts were so clearly uncomfortable and awkward the entire night that it was much more painful to watch in my opinion.  And I felt there were less lengthy, boring speeches and random interludes of dancing or bizarre tributes than usual.  Which was good because we caught up on DVR halfwya through and were watching live, so I appreciate not having to suffer through as much of the crap I usually fast forward.  That said, it was still 4 hours long, and I didn't think Seth MacFarlane was terrific - and his opening was SUPER long.  So I give it maybe a B-

I wasn't swept away by anyone's dress or beauty last night - but I missed the red carpet thanks to a sick baby and there didn't seem to be as many audience cutaways as usual so hopefully I'll see something fabulous in the magazines when they come out.  I also didn't think anyone looked horrific, so once again this year walked right along the middle.  And was it the year of the hairy man or what?  Seemed like half the male audience had beards, but I can actually only remember Ben Affleck and George Clooney, so maybe there weren't as many beards as it seemed.  And what was with all the winners (in behind the scenes categories like editing and sound) with long, flowing man locks?  Not a good look guys.  I personally hate long hair on guys anyway, but if you are dressed in a tuxedo, your hair really shouldn't be lying loose halfway down your back.  So.  Gross.

So that's my take.  Congrats Argo, and Ang Lee, and Anne Hathaway, Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Lawrence (who actually disappointed me in her speech because she is usually so funny but she was too shell shocked last night), and Daniel Day-Lewis (who surprised me with his speech because he WAS funny, and since when is he funny?).  It was a pretty good year for movies.

Les Miserables

I literally don't even know what to say about Les Miserables.

Go see it.

Seriously.

Actually, there is something I will say about it - the actors are all singing LIVE.  As in, not in a studio with sound equipment and auto-tune and no distractions, then just lip syncing during filming. They are singing right there in the scene - so that ballad whipped out with full emotion and actual tears (in extreme close-up most likely), and that duet sung while fighting with swords are both real.  Unbelievable.

I saw this show as a child in London, and I grew up singing along to the soundtrack on road trips.  So I have been dying to see it ever since I first saw the trailer (and cried like a baby), and I have been building up quite a set of expectations, to say the least.  It was everything I hoped it would be.  I was absolutely blown away by the performances in this movie, to say nothing of the gorgeous set pieces and costumes.  Anne Hathaway is brilliant.  You are doing yourself a serious disservice if you don't go see this movie.  Immediately.

ps: bring hankies.  I'm not sure if you are more likely to bawl if you know what happens or if you have no clue what is coming, but you will cry.  Trust me.  I think I went through 8 tissues, and the girl behind me was openly sobbing.  You will also be singing the music for days afterwards, but that's hardly a bad thing.




Les Miserables  PG-13 2hr 37 min

Brave

I have been looking forward to this movie for MONTHS - pretty much like I do every year for the new Pixar.  And I can't say I was disappointed, although it didn't sweep me away as the best they've ever done.  The story of a free spirited princess and her struggles against convention, Brave tends more towards the sentimental (although it's not a weepfest like the end of Toy Story 3 or the beginning of UP) rather than the comical.  I don't want to say much about the plot, but I will say that they perfectly captured the emotions of a tumultuous mother daughter relationship.  it even had my 6yo daughter crying at the end worried about losing me!  There are a couple of scenes with a bear that might scare a younger or more sensitive child, but other than that I would absolutely recommend Brave to any and all viewers.  For the fabulous Scottish accents and the heroine's mesmerizing hair if nothing else, lol


Brave PG 1hr 40min

Snow White And The Huntsman

Previews for this movie had me A) very excited to see how visually stunning it was, and B) wondering how in the hell they thought Kristen Stewart could ever be considered fairest of all over Charlize Theron.  But upon seeing it I was pleased that the film was indeed as beautiful as the previews suggested, and that they did somehow manage to make Charlize's Queen Ravenna hideous and evil so that you rooted against her whole heartedly.

In general, the movie doesn't really follow the classic fairytale as we know it, but there are enough little touches of the original story to show that they didn't just write an entirely original tale and call it Snow White.  Theron is wonderful as the evil Queen, slipping in and out of pride, conceit, rage and psychosis as easily as she displays her beauty.  Chris Hemsworth is very good as the hunstman, finding his humanity again after he had thought he had nothing left to live for.  Kristen Stewart is really the only weak link, she has a great look for film, but I'm not sure she can actually act at all.  She certainly never seems to do anything on screen that I've seen.

The dialogue was also kind of odd - the big inspirational speech Snow White gives to rally her army against the queen didn't really make a lick of sense to me, and there were numerous scenes where we paused on a close shot of Stewart as though she was going to say something important, and she owuld just sort of look awkward and shy and say nothing.  It was sort of bizarre.  But that said, I really enjoyed the movie (since when don't I enjoy a movie? ha!), and I would recommend it.

Snow White And The Hunstman  PG-13 2hr 7min

Madagscar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

Because we love the movies, and because we love to spoil our kids by feeding them popcorn and candy at mealtimes, we took the kids to see Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted.  I liked the first two ok, but I can't say I had very high expectations for this movie.  But boy was I wrong.  This movie is hysterical!  All of the original voice cast is back, as the animal characters continue their attempts to get home to New York and the Central Park Zoo.  This time they end up being chased by a rabid French animal control officer and hiding out with a traveling circus.  The plot is hardly thought provoking, but the jokes come fast and furious.  I guarantee kids and adults alike will enjoy themselves at this movie - and you will be singing "polka dot polka dot polka dot afro!" for weeks to come.


Madagascar 3  PG  1hr 25min

Drive

I actually saw this movie a few weeks ago, but I have been putting of writing my review because I have no idea what to say.  This is a movie that completely defies description - no matter what you think it will be about, you are wrong.  Yes, it is about a Hollywood stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) who also works as a wheel man for the criminal element.  Yes, there is a hit put on him after a job gone wrong, and yes, he has a relationship with his married neighbor (Carey Mulligan).  But none of that is the movie.

The movie itself is almost like being in a trance.  Imagine driving along the highway with your favorite song on the radio and the perfect breeze blowing through the window; when you just lose yourself in the rhythm of the road, and your mind goes blank as if you were flying, no worries, no thoughts of your destination.  That is how this movie captivates you.  There is very little dialogue, especially by the main character, and while you never get to know him, you are still drawn to his magnetism and confidence.  The love story features no witty banter, or sizzling sex scenes, and yet with only a few bittersweet glances and a single kiss manages to be more about love and romance than most movies.

Now imagine your perfect Sunday drive interrupted by a tractor trailer plowing into a guardrail in front of you.  the violence in this film is sudden, shocking, and incredibly realistic (read: graphic).  It is not overtly gory for the sake of titillation, but the raw intensity coming after such silence is incredibly powerful.

The acting in the movie is really good - Bryant Cranston and Albert Brooks round out the cast as a washed up driver trying to get back in the game and a criminal kingpin respectively, but in truth the emotional center of the movie lies with Gosling and Mulligan.  I can't think of another actor that can as effectively manifest internal emotions without externally revealing a thing.  These two are true talents, and without them this exceptional, indescribable film just wouldn't have been the same.

I don't know if you'll like it, but without a doubt you should go see Drive.  I loved it.  (and the music is great)

Drive 1hr 40 min R

Reel Steel

Reel Steel is pretty much everything you'd expect from the previews:  absentee father reluctantly connecting with his smartass, but sweet kid.  Uplifting underdog story a la the little engine that could.  Giant robots smashing each other to bits.  But formulaic or predictable as it might be, that isn't to say it isn't highly enjoyable fun.  After all, these are formulas Hollywood is pretty good at.  You may have your doubts, but I guarantee that you'll find yourself verklempt a time or two, and damn if you won't be on the edge of your seat hoping for the little guy to win the big fight.

Hugh Jackman is pitch perfect as always - although his character is such a jerk and it's kind of hard to see him as a total ass because come on, we all know the guy has a heart of gold.  Dakota Goyo is great as the son, bonding with a father he's never met as well as a 10 foot tall metal robot.  Over all, highly enjoyable film that will hit your soft spots and leave you cheering.

here's a little clip:




Reel Steel 2hr 7min PG-13*

*The movie is rated PG-13, but I think it could have easily been a PG, and younger kids shouldn't have any problem seeing it.  Except for one short scene where a few punches are thrown, there is no violence (other than the boxing robots of course), and no bad language that I remember.  My theater had tons of little kids, and none of them left emotionally scarred.  I'd probably let my kids see it on DVD when it comes out.

The Ides Of March

There are a lot of directions this movie could have taken as a political drama.  It could have explored the climate of modern day politics and how even the most sincere, straightforward candidate is forced to continually make compromises until they no longer recognize themselves.  It could have focused on the campaign managers, for whom the candidate and the platform hardly even matter as anything other than leverage to win votes.  Or it could have followed the disillusionment of a seasoned campaign manager, who has finally found a candidate he believes in, only to discover he is as black hearted as the rest of them.  Any of these story lines could have pulled us in to The Ides of March, and delivered us an emotional, thoughtful film.  Instead we get all three.

Unfortunately, in some ways this spreads the focus of the film too thin.  We have a young political up and comer (Ryan Gosling), who thinks he can finally leave the usual dirty dealing behind because he has found a truly deserving candidate to lift into office, only to find himself caught in a maelstrom of double crosses and cover ups.  We have a candidate (George Clooney who also directed) learning that the compromises required to win are slowly chipping away at every principle he promised to stand on.  We have two campaign managers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti) who care nothing for the truth, or ethics, or the people trampled underfoot on the race for the win.  Each and every character arc is riveting, and unfortunately under explored.  There is so much drama just ripe for the picking here in each man's personal struggle with morality (or lack there of) and the eternal question of the ends justifying the means - if you do whatever it takes just to win, can you ever regain your sense of right and wrong?


This movie could have easily plumbed these depths and been twice as long, and just as riveting.  Unfortunately, the story line itself was entirely predictable, and severely undercut the skill of the cast (seriously - phenomenal cast) as well as the richness of the characters.  I wish the script had served the people involved (both real and fictional) a little better, because this would have been an exceptional vehicle for discussion on power, ambition, loyalty and black vs white.  Instead we are shown no surprises, taught no lessons, and everyone is painted the same shade of gray.


Worth seeing for the tremendous cast and fine acting, this is a case of a fine movie that nonetheless disappoints because it could have been great.

The Ides Of March 1hr 41 min R

The Debt

The Debt tells the story of three Mossad agents, and their mission to bring a Nazi war criminal out of East Berlin and to Israel for justice. Taking place both in 1965 and 1997, we see the events of the mission, as well as the fallout for the agents 30 years later as result of those events.  The cast is impressive, Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson play the agents in 1997, and they do an fine job of looking world weary and beaten down by the pressure of the secrets they keep.  But it is the scenes set in 1965 that truly bring the film alive.  The agents in their youth are played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, and their scenes practically vibrate with all the tension and anxiety of inexperienced field officers in over their heads.  The man they are sent to capture is played by Jesper Christensen with a casual malice and lack of fear, and we watch as the agents become captives of a situation spiraling out of control.  They grow moe and more brittle, haunted by unspoken personal demons as well as the man they have been hunting, and the final fracture is the secret they spend the next 30 years trying to forget.

I loved the movie that took place in 1965.  As can be expected, the mission naturally lends itself to more excitement and tension, propelling the story along because we can't wait to figure out what really happened.  But the scenes set in 1997 should have been riveting as well.  Three people, who have suffered their regrets differently for all these years, struggling with heavy secrets and the question of justice and redemption as they grow older, are characters ripe for exploration and drama.  And yet I felt the modern portion of the movie fell flat, not enough ambivalence, or regret was communicated, and the ending itself bordered on preposterous.  I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do, but I wish they had simply made a movie about the mission itself and given the three newcomers even more time to shine.

The Debt 1hr 53 min  R

Warrior

A lot of people probably aren't going to be interested in seeing Warrior because of the basic premise - two brothers training and fighting in a mixed martial arts tournament.  One is an ex-marine war hero, the other a physics teacher father of two.  Both are desperate, angry, damaged men with painful pasts and family history.  And while the focus is on the tournament, and the fighting, the movie is neither glorifying nor glossing over the brutality of the sport.

And the beauty of the movie is that all of the training, and fighting are the only way these two men know how to survive.  Tom Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, the ex-marine younger brother who is carrying around so much anger and resentment that you can see getting in the ring is the only thing keeping him from burning to a cinder on his rage.  Hardy barely speaks during the movie, and yet we understand completely the fury and guilt driving his every punch.  Joel Edgerton plays the older brother Brendan Conlon, a retired UFC fighter drawn back in to the ring in a desperate attempt to hold on to his house and the quiet family life he first left it for.  He has the thick facial structure of someone capable of taking any hit thrown his way, but his eyes betray pain and feelings of inadequacy he carries from a childhood playing second fiddle to his brother.  Both brothers (and their father, played by Nick Nolte) are estranged, caught up in a fractured family dynamic with edges still too sharp to smooth over.  The details of the past are rarely mentioned, and yet body language and facial expressions communicate exactly what happened in a way no words could.

Despite previews revealing that the final match is between the brothers, each victory in the tournament is as nail biting and triumphant as if we were unaware of the outcome, and the final bout takes such an emotional toll that the audience feels almost as battered as the fighters.  I expected this movie to be exhilarating and exciting; I didn't expect it to be heartbreaking as well.  If you can stand the violence (there is no overt blood or shattering of bones, but it is still men beating each other senseless) then this is a definite must see.  An expertly crafted story enhanced by acting from two men we will no doubt be seeing a lot in the future.


Warrior 2hrs PG-13

Contagion

The first minutes of Contagion are truly harrowing; we see sick people, out in public, interacting and moving through the population before being found dead. The illness spreads quickly, and as the audience we are given that special advantage of knowing more than the characters in the movie.  We know that the sickness in London and Chicago and Hong Kong and Tokyo are all related, and we know that it is going to spread.  We are treated to numerous shots of hands touching subway railings, and drinking glasses and other innocuous items, knowing that a killer lurks on these surfaces unseen.  And when Gwyneth Paltrow's character dies (not a spoiler - this fact is in the previews) we are caught between sympathizing with Matt Damon's disbelief and shock and the frustration of wanting to shout "your son is sick too!" and the screen.

It is incredibly interesting and tense watching the characters in the movie trying to figure out this disease and fighting against the clock of the rapid spread and the dying.  I've always loved that peculiar sensation of knowing more than the people on screen - it is a sort of delicious anxiety as they travel towards their doom and you, the viewer, can warn them.  But after the initial break out and discovery of the virus, the movie loses a little of it's emotional heft.  The movie focuses on the CDC scientists fighting for containment and to find a vaccination (Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne), a blogger with typical anti-governmental conspiracy who may be using his immense reach to help his audience or for his own personal gain (Jude Law), A WHO worker trying to trace the origin of the disease (Marillon Cotillard), and the husband of the index patient (Matt Damon) who has proven immune, but who is left fighting to keep his daughter from exposure. 

And yet the second half of the film lacks emotional connection.  There are a few scenes depicting the fear and panic of the general population: rioting over limited food supplies and available medicine, but a kidnapping for vaccine subplot goes nowhere, and the scope of the global devastation is offered with numbers and brief shots of deserted city streets littered with garbage.  I'm certainly not suggesting that the filmmakers should have chosen to focus on the gore of mass graves and rampant death, but simply mentioning 25 million dead doesn't even begin to fully represent the actual horror of that type of situation.  There are moments when the hopelessness of fighting an enemy we cannot see and barely understand come through, but all too often the movie seems more like it is in shock itself, with all the attendant muting of emotional resonance.  Everyone seems to be dealing with the situation a little too calmly. Where is the terror?  Where is the grief?

All that said, this movie is enjoyable, provided you aren't already a germaphobe, and it has a cast to die for.  Definitely recommended viewing, although you may want to watch it at home with a year's worth of canned goods and hand sanitizer.

Contagion 1hr 45 min PG-13

fun fact: Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow's house in the movie is not in suburban Minneapolis, but actually suburban Chicago, a block away from my parents'.  You better believe that I was totally jealous that my mom was that close to all the action instead of me.  She didn't even hide in the bushes and try and get any photos!

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

What can I say?  Honestly, if you are AT ALL interested in this movie, you are already planning to go see it (or maybe already have).  And unless you live under a rock or are so uninterested that you haven't read even one book (in which case why are you reading this review?) you know the story.  So there is not much point in recaps or plot summaries.  Which just leaves us with one question:  Did they do it justice?  And the answer is a resounding Y. E. S!

This movie ends an unprecedented series of films, which have broken all box office records, and entertained millions of people, and yet stayed faithful to a series of books that have shattered publishing records and literally changed fiction forever.  And it does it honestly, loyally, and epically.  The movie is heartbreaking, exciting, joyful and exhilarating all at once, and it concludes the beloved story with the respect and faithfulness it deserves.  I guarantee that (if you are a fan) you will leave the theater feeling happy about the resolution, satisfied with the adaptation, and maybe a little bit sad about our glimpse into the world of Harry Potter coming to an end.

However...

that is not to say that this movie is a tour de force of film making.  The director/writer/editor/whoever may have done a great job winnowing the incredibly packed final half of the book into a concise storyline, but they did NOT make a particularly adept stand alone film.

The movie starts as though we are coming into the very middle of an existing conversation, rather than simply beginning a new chapter in a much longer story, which even for a "part 2" sets a strange tone.  Yes, we all know what happened in part 1, and yes, we are probably familiar enough with what will happen in part 2 to keep up with what is happening and why, but that doesn't mean it isn't jarring to just sort of start right in the middle of all the action rather than taking the time to set the stage and reintroduce us to the current mood and situation.  The filmmakers have said that they wanted to do away with exposition and explanation and kind of reward fans for their loyalty (not to mention save time no doubt) by just jumping in to the story and assuming we will know what is going on.  And while I applaud that approach, there is something to be said for at least attempting cohesive storytelling.  Just because we know that an epic battle is about to begin when Harry and his friends return to Hogwarts doesn't mean it isn't still abrupt to have the fighting just begin.  When a character says "he knows we're here" to me that implies 'he knows we're here and he will be here soon' not, 'he knows we're here and so is he with a whole giant army.'  Everyone (characters and audience) may be well aware that the war to end all wars is on the brink doesn't mean we can forgo all the dread and tension of the buildup to that final moment when the first shots are fired.  Without the pressure of increased suspense, the eventual explosion of violence loses its urgency and emotional impact.

And there was time to include it.  At 2 hours 10 min the movie could easily have handled another 10 or even 20 minutes without feeling bloated or leaving viewers squirming in their seats, and those precious minutes could have gone a long way towards smoothing the pacing and knitting together crucial scenes into a meaningful whole.  And they could have done even more towards heightening the emotional impact.  I was glad to see that the pivotal moment involving Harry's long time nemesis Snape was given just attention, but seeing other beloved characters fight and die loses resonance when they have little or no screen time before hand.  The final showdown between Harry and Voldemort was also changed from the book, most likely to make it more action-y for film (and 3D), but in actuality all it did was sacrifice some of the triumph.  All in all, this movie was an excellent last chapter in a remarkable series, but failed at the one thing any film should hope to achieve which is to stand alone on its own merits.


Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2: 2 hrs 10 min PG-13

ps: just in case you read this entire review while also being somewhat on the fence about seeing the movie, let me add this: this movie contains the greatest, most realistic dragon I have ever seen.  That alone is worth the price of admission.  Seeing one of the world's most beloved characters grow up and kick some ass is just icing

Super 8

I think all you probably need to know about this film is right up there above the title: Abrams and Spielberg.  That's a pretty good movie pedigree, and Super 8 does not fail to live up to its creators names.  This movie really has a little bit of everything: father son tension, forbidden (young) love/friendship, precocious kids, vast government conspiracy, monsters and retro nostalgia.  And it all hangs together beautifully.

Super 8 is the story of a group of friends making a zombie movie on their super 8 camera (in the 70s), who happen to witness a train crash that may or may not be an accident.  It is also the story of the strained relationship between a young boy and his father after the mother's death, and the growing friendship between that same boy and a girl with an equally troubled paternal relationship.  Strange things start to happen after the crash, including an invasion by tight lipped Air Force soldiers, and while we are given bits and pieces into the mystery, our viewpoint of the events is distinctly that of the kids - who are intrigued but also more consumed by their own personal dramas and utilizing the town excitement for their film.

The monster-movie portion of the film is a little under served - spooky, unseen tentacles grab people occasionally, but the tone remains firmly in the sweet/sour personal story vein until the final climax.  The invading soldiers aren't even that big of a part of the movie for all of their omnipresence in the town, and I was pleased that the resulting eruption into all out war was given a plausible explanation rather than just being the typical Hollywood depiction of the military as total jagoffs looking for any excuse to blow shit up.

The kids, led by Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning (who is SO much better than her sister Dakota who I admit is talented but I just always kind of want to punch), were fantastic, as of course were the adults - most notably Kyle Chandler as the beleaguered town deputy/ unprepared single father.  The writing was good, the cinematography beautiful, and if the ending was a little too perfect, well, who doesn't like their endings wrapped up in a bow?  This was one "event" film that has so much going for it beyond the explosions and mystery and hype - it has a heart.  And yes, sappy cinematic music that totally made me cry.  When you see it (and you should see it) make sure you watch the credits too - the finished "film" the kids made is included, and it is pretty amusing.

Super 8 1 hr 52 min  PG-13

X-Men First Class

Can I just say first off that I wrote a fabulous review of this movie in my head on the way home from the theater, but stops at Target and the grocery store have completely erased it from my mind so this will no doubt be a far more mediocre summary of the things I wanted to say.

X-Men First Class is an origin story of how Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) first met and became friends, and then enemies.  Both actors are superb, although Fassbender manages to steal the show due to a meatier character dealing with his growing powers and tragic back story of abuse at the hands of the Nazis in World War II Germany.  McAvoy plays Xavier equally well, except he is given less to do besides touch his temple to demonstrate his telepathy and expound with wisdom and superiority towards all of the other characters.  Apparently professor X was always a straitlaced know-it-all, despite an early, pointless scene trying to show him as a bit of a skirt chasing cad.  Jennifer Lawrence gives a decent performance as Mystique, and while her eventual decision to join forces with Magneto as opposed to her pseudo-brother Xavier feels natural and right for the character, it might have benefited from a few additional scenes demonstrating her inner struggle to accept her outward appearance. 

The action of the movie takes place against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 60's, which turns out to have actually been the work of a manipulative mutant with the power to absorb all kinds of energy, played by Kevin Bacon.  In the introductory scenes Bacon exhibits a kind of uber-villain glee (and really good german), but in the rest of the film his bad guy kind of loses his sparkle as well as any sense of actual evil.  Even when he is absorbing the explosion of a grenade or gunfire and then sending it back in all its destructive glory he kind of just seems to be going through the motions. 

The whole "let's get the regular humans to kill themselves so mutants can rule the world" focus seems like an after thought as well - merely a vehicle to explore the friendship between the two protagonists and eventually set them at odds.  Which is where the movie fails.  There are too few arguments between the two friends where they hash out their different ideologies: Professor X wants to show the normal humans that mutants are people too so we can all live together happily - Magneto fully believes in mutant superiority and intends to hold mutants above and apart all the lesser gifted.  These differences of opinion form the basis of all the previous X-men movies, and the backbone of the X-Men universe - is there anyway mutants can live alongside humans peacefully, or are they destined to always fight for acceptance and survival?- and as such I would think they would play a larger role in the friendship of these two men both as it develops and as it dissolves.  Instead, we get chummy pals and then one angry moment when everything changes abruptly.  it's not entirely out of the blue or unrealistic, I just think it could have benefited from a little bit more exploration throughout the film instead of relying on hints and the fact that we are already familiar with who these characters become.

There is also a weird montage section with a very retro split screen thing going on - which I'm assuming is meant to sort of reference the fact that the movie takes place in the 60's, but instead just comes across as random and not at all in concert with the general mood of the movie.  And to clarify - its only the split screen effect that is offputting - the scenes in the montage itself are just fine.  But by far the worst thing in the movie is the character of Emma Frost.  First off, she is a telepath, which is kind of redundant since we already have a telepath, but she can also turn herself into diamond, which doesn't really seem to offer any advantage except that no one else can read her mind while she is in diamond form, and she can use her sharo diamond fingers to cut ice and glass.  Great?  It is kind of a stupid power, and the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys have a telepath is completely under utilized, so that basically makes her a totally unnecessary character.  Also, she is played by January Jones, who is the stiffest, worst actress I can currently think of.  I have no clue why she is so popular, except that I guess her character on Mad Men is kind of an ice princess and so her natural disability to act with even the slightest inflection or emotion probably plays into that nicely.  And she certainly is pretty.  But seriously Hollywood, stop casting her in other things because the girl is about as lively (and likeable) as a petrified tree trunk.  She shows more depth and emotion when she is CGI'd into sparkly diamond.

All in all, I think X-men First Class is a decent effort at the origin of these characters.  Certainly most of the acting is top notch, and the areas where the movie suffers seem to primarily be writing - or possibly editing.  The types of explanations that would have given the extra needed depth could certainly have been in the original script and tossed in favor of time or flashier action scenes.  But aside from Miss Jones, there wasn't anything remarkably bad - and overall it was a highly enjoyable combination of action and acting (with two wink wink cameos).

X-Men First Class 2hr 12 min PG-13

The Hangover Part II

What to say about this movie?  Was it as good as the original?  Probably not.  Did it live up to expectations?  Pretty well.  Was it damn funny?  Hell yes!

Obviously this movie had all kinds of pressure on it to deliver on the surprise success of the original.  And while you could argue they played it safe by sticking to the same formula as the first movie, they certainly raised the bar.  The set up may remain the same, but the stakes are higher, the exploits gorier and the disbelief that this is happening AGAIN manages to be plausible. The first movie found the guys searching for a lost groom in Las Vegas, and while they may have been desperate to get home without getting caught, the only thing in danger was their relationships to the women at home.  Here they are lost in Bangkok, and the damage moves way beyond a possible canceled wedding and a missing tooth; we've got severed fingers, gunshot wounds, and the ever looming threat of being lost to the city, which I'm assuming means getting sucked into the delights of the sex trade and human trafficking.  Not to mention any chances of being thrown into a Thai prison, which given the drugs, dead bodies and destruction the characters leave in their wake must be an all too real possibility as well. Fun stuff.

Aside from increasing the horror in the details of the main characters' forgotten evening, the filmmakers have left all the other details the same, which is where the biggest stumbles happen.  There is still a wedding in two days (the lucky groom is dentist Stu, played by Ed Helms), and they still have to find their lost companion (this time the bride's 16 year old brother) in time to get back for the wedding.  Only instead of being righteously pissed off like the bride in the original, Jamie Chung plays the bride all smiles and cheer, like it's really no big deal her groom lost her brother and vanished for two entire days right before the wedding and returned rocking a facial tattoo.  Methinks that highly unlikely.  The 'aw shucks' exclamations made by Zach Galifianakis' Alan also rang a little forced to me most of the time, which is a shame because that character is really the best part of the first movie.

Basically it comes down to this: there is pretty much no way any movie can ever live up to the expectations everyone had going into this movie.  The FIRST one wouldn't have done so well if we all expected it to be the funniest thing we'd ever seen, so how can the sequel?  But that doesn't mean it isn't still incredibly funny - I laughed pretty much the entire time with varying degrees of hilarity, and that's probably all any comedy can aim for.  There is drug use, death and dismemberment, f-bombs galore, stolen monks, a drug dealing monkey, and plentiful full-frontal nudity (unfortunately not by Bradley Cooper), so maybe don't take your grandma, but by all means, if you liked the first one, go see the second.

The Hangover Part II  1hr 42 min R

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 3D

Let me just say that I did not intend to see this in 3D, nor do I particularly suggest you do so.  I try to avoid 3D whenever possible, but because of technical difficulties at the theater that resulted in all of us lowly 2D seekers getting to see the movie in 3D for free I really had no choice.  Now, since I don't really ever go to 3D movies because I think it's just stupid and distracting and I never feel like I can properly focus on the screen, I'm just going to comment on the movie itself and not the 3D effects because I don't know how they compare to others and if they were really good or not.  I do know there were some pretty cool shots that the 3D captured beautifully (a neat stone arch, a view up through the rigging of a ship), but I certainly wouldn't pay extra money for those shots.
Anyway, after the first couple of minutes when the movie got going and the screen stopped looking all squiggly through the 3D glasses (without making me either nauseated or giving me a headache) I could finally relax and enjoy myself.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (to be called just Pirates 4 from now on, because jeez that's a long title) starts out with Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) up to his usual tricks to save an old friend from a trial, in which he is accused of being... Captain Jack Sparrow.  And there is apparently another Captain Jack Sparrow out there trying to find a crew.  None of this is really addressed or explained, but it also doesn't really matter too much as it is basically only a conceit to reintroduce all of the characters and set them upon the main adventure.  There is action right from the start, accompanied by the fabulous Pirates theme music which serves to make every stunt seem that much more daring, and Depp's Sparrow swaggers with such floppy confidence that he somehow manages to turn his exceedingly poncy gait into something to be admired.

The movie takes place an unknown number of years after the previous 3 movies, and while we see a few familiar faces (most prominently Geoffrey Rush as Jack's nemesis Barbossa), most of the main characters from the earlier films are nowhere to be found.  And that's not all that's different.  Pirates 4 has also trimmed the fat from the plot lines, leaving the main story of the various characters' search for the Fountain of Youth.  Gone are any random subplots and the twisty turning abandonment of all logic or coherence or explanation that drowned Pirates 2 and 3.  Seriously - I've seen both of those movies several times (they're always showing up on cable somewhere) and I don't think I could tell you what happens in them if my life depended on it.  I'm not even sure, if you put one of them on right now, if I could tell whether it was #2 or #3.  So the streamlining of storytelling in #4 was more than welcome.

The other big difference from the first three movies, is that Jack Sparrow falls squarely into the side of the good guy.  Whereas before he wasn't necessarily evil, if always only looking towards his own desires, in this movie he is definitely less selfish.  I mean, in the very first scene he is rescuing an old shipmate which is not something we would have seen before, unless perhaps that shipmate owed him money.  I find the loss of the ambivalence in Sparrow's character (will he or won't he betray them?) a perfectly fine development, because honestly we always knew he'd never do anything truly terrible to anyone else.  And although the writers did try to hold on to it, showing him playing all sides against each other, there is less a feeling that he is doing it for amusement as opposed as strictly a way to survive.

And that could be because the bad guy in this movie is truly bad - Ian McShane plays Blackbeard with zero sense of humor and less patience.  Personally, I think a little bit more fun can be had in playing a villain, but he gets the point across that joking around with Blackbeard will only lead to a quick and even more quickly forgotten, death.  The final player in this outing is Blackbeard's daughter (Penelope Cruz), who is the least developed character.  She was supposedly about to become a nun when Sparrow seduced and fell in love with her.  This all makes sense then that her basic trust in faith would lead her to try and redeem her father with the fountain of youth - except I'm not really sure I would have known this back story if I hadn't read about it in advance reviews.  It was only referred to ever so subtly in the movie, and as such her insistence on saving her father rang a little hollow.  Plus, it seems such a shame to cast such a bombshell in a movie and not use her sex appeal even once (although understandable because I believe Cruz was pregnant during filming).

All in all this was a fun trip back into the fantastical world of Pirates of the Caribbean, and one I'd recommend.  And as usual, there is a little tidbit post credits if you feel like staying for it.  I will warn you that it is literally after the ENTIRE credits, so you'll be waiting for several minutes for about 30 seconds of scene which isn't really anything more than a wink.  No big secrets revealed or sequels hinted at, so decide on your own whether staying is worth it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 2 hrs 17 min  PG-13

Bridesmaids

Let me just say, that with a title like "Bridesmaids," and a poster like that ^, this movie should have had a lot more wedding mania related hijinks.  Not that I would have necessarily preferred that - thw whole bridezilla thing has been done - badly by Hollywood (Bride Wars), and even worse by reality tv.  So it's cool that this wasn't your typical chick flick catfight type movie, but still - expectations people.

Instead this movie is more about the implosion of one woman's life as her best friend is preparing to get married.  Which is fine and all, except that most of the implosions come as the result of her own pathetic, self sabotaging, woe is me behavior.  Not that Annie (played by Kristin Wiig with all kind of SNL character traits peeking through her body language) is a completely unlikeable character, it's just that because we are left never knowing why she has totally given up on trying at life we are left sort of thinking she should stop feeling so sorry for herself.

The relationship between Annie and Lillian (Maya Rudolph) is joy to watch, because the actresses are real life best friends, and their scenes pop with the chemistry of people who truly enjoy each others company.  But the true stars of the movie are Melissa McCarthy, who is by far the funniest thing in the movie, and Chris O'Dowd, who manages to be a truly dreamy romantic lead despite looking basically like a basset hound (I attribute this to his Irish accent).  Rose Byrne was well cast as the gorgeous, perfect wanna be maid of honor, trying to usurp Annie's spot as BFF, and Jill Clayburgh is ideal to play Kristin Wiig's mom; but Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey were sorely underutilized as a stereotypical naive newlywed and foul mouthed suburban mom.

This movie wasn't as funny as I had hoped, which isn't really saying much because my expectations were pretty unrealistically high.  To be completely honest, the movie was really funny- there were many times when I (and everyone else in the theater) laughed out loud.  This movie has been hailed as the female version of The Hangover, and while I don't know if it is going to have the shelf of life (or spawn the catchphrases) of that film, I do know that it is a really funny, and fun way to spend a couple of hours.


Bridesmaids 2hrs 5 min  R

Priest

 This movie was a real disappointment.  Not because it was particularly awful, but because it could have been so much better.  It had a cool premise - some dystopian future/otherworld where history has been filled with an endless war between man and vampire (NOT regular, Dracula/Twilight vampires, but a whole different species of animal).  The church has become the safeguard of humankind, partially in thanks to super warriors called priests who were strong enough and fast enough to fight the vampires.  At the time of the movie, the vampires have been locked away on "reservations" and the priests have been left on the outskirts of society, unable to be accepted because of the powers they are no longer able to use.

Unrequited love, corrupt government/religious figures denying the truth in favor of blind faith and self interest in power, the purpose and existence of warriors in a culture once there is no more war; these are all themes that were introduced and summarily ignored by this movie.  They also had the unique premise of a sci-fi horror western mashup, which was basically used for costuming only and not explored further.  Oh, and the eyeless vampires (which look exactly like something from another movie - but I totally can't think of what) made for some pretty badass creepies - too bad they didn't get much screen time either.

Instead we were treated to numerous shots of high tech, high speed motorcycles racing across the barren wastelands (a great image, but seriously, once or twice paints the picture just fine, thanks), and a climactic battle where never once did we question the good guys' ability to win, and that was over almost before it started.  if anything, the big climactic battle of this movie played out like the initial fight scene in a normal action movie.  You know the formula: movie intro, set up, fight scene where the good guy prevails, twist where the good guy gets his ass kicked or learns it goings to be way harder than he thought, climax where he wins by the skin of his teeth, most likely after being severely wounded.  This movie threw out that formula, but not in favor of originality- instead it was more like someone said "okay, this is great, but let's edit out anything that seems like it might cause hardship for our hero."  So we're just left with a battle that is entirely too easy to win, and a victory that seems that much more hollow for it.

The cast (lead by Paul Bettany and Karl Urban) was good, even with the sparse dialogue and limitations they were given - look serious and tough and world weary seem to be the main acting directions- and the special effects were fine, if a little derivative - super high, slow motion jumping are great to demonstrate super fight skills, but feel a little thin in the absence of real tension.  This movie is based on a comic, and I'm wondering if the director was a little ambitious when adapting this movie, because it has a real serial feel to it.  To be honest, the lack of emotional depth and serious drama wouldn't have felt as gaping if this were the pilot to a tv show or something.  The ending clearly sets up future action as the world of the movie seems to be headed back into war - and if the closing credits had rolled over a "to be continued...." I would feel invigorated and excited about the next installment.  As it is, the movie may have been hoping for a sequel, but they seem to have misunderstood that to leave 'em wanting more you have to give them something to want first.  Nobody likes a story if they only hear the first chapter, and nobody is going to greenlight a sequel to a movie no one liked.

And seriously, what is the point of having a whole army of vampires if we never see them in action?

Final verdict: if the previews have tempted you in anyway, it is worth a rental.  But not really worthy the cash for feature film, and definitely not worth 3D (I'm assuming, I never see 3D).  And somebody should really get on the idea of using this as the launch for a tv series or miniseries at least.  Four or five little segments like this and we could have a pretty satisfying story.  Which of course, is the problem.


Priest 1hr 27min PG-13


ps: if you like the whole combo of western and graphic novel type sci-fi (this time with ninjas!), check out: The Warrior's Way 

pps: the best line in the whole movie - after one character has let loose with his shotgun at a horde of vampires "you'd have made a good priest."  Heh.

Fast Five

Let's face it: if this movie appeals to you, you are probably already planning to see it, and if it doesn't, then nothing I say is going to sway you.  And that's cool- obviously, this is not really a franchise that is seeking to expand it's audience across all demographics.  So I'll just tell you what I thought about the film (oh let's face it - this ain't no film, it's a MOVIE).

I have seen every installment of the Fast and Furious franchise (although I can't remember the last installment at all), so I feel confident saying that this is, if not the best one, at least a return to the glory days on the first movie.  Is it high art? Of course, not.  But it is super fun, and what it lacks in depth it sure makes up for in flash.  The plot is thin, but also a little more coherent than some of the other movies - seriously, what the hell was going on in the first sequel?- and slightly more than just an excuse to have the characters drive around in wicked cool cars.  In essence this is actually a heist movie, with a cast of characters from all of the other sequels popping up to fill the various roles of gadget guy, master of disguise, bickering brothers, etc. as dictated by the new modern heist.  Never mind that why these people fit into these various roles is unclear - they are never really asked to do anything to fill them anyway.  I mean, the chick that is supposed to be a weapons expert never does anything with any weapons except for clean them in one scene.  Basically, the writers tried a little something to echo the cool cast of characters intro in movies such as Ocean's Eleven, and it didn't quite work.  They would have been better off just being like "hey, let's call some people we know who can drive super well and know random stuff about safe cracking and whatnot, and that will be our team."  But none of that really matters, because once the team gets together it is clear they work well as a cohesive unit, so stereotypical movie characterizations be damned.

The biggest draw for this movie is the long awaited match up between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson (forever The Rock).  And while it is a great fight scene, let me just say that it is only in the movies!  The real life toughness of Dwayne Johnson shines through so strongly against the false actory bravado of Vin Diesel, that the fact that the fight is a fairly even match kind of comes across as a joke.  If there is any way The Rock wouldn't completely wipe the floor with Vin, then I fill out a bikini like one of the girls in this movie.  I also found it a wee bit difficult to root against The Rock - after all, Vin and Paul Walker are the heroes of this film, so we don't want the big bad Fed on their tail to catch up; but it's kind of hard not to want Dwayne to get his guy.  Of course, as is typical of this kind of movie, everything works out in the end, so no real worries there.

Despite the draw of two big screen macho men duking it out, the real highlight of this movie is of course the driving stunts.  The climactic chase involves two identical black cars (yes, that is as detailed as you are going to get out of me, a total car dunce), speeding in unison through the streets of Rio, trailing a giant bank vault.  The sight of that thing swinging through turns like an enormous wrecking ball was great fun, especially since the characters apparently are such skilled drivers that, with no practice whatsoever, they are able to accurately swerve to crash it into police cars at will. Ridiculous?  Yes.  But still thrilling as hell.

Basically,  this movie is everything you would expect, or hope it to be.  It may not be your cup of tea, but it is one hell of a ride.  Oh, and heads up - if you do go see it, stay through at least the first few minutes of the end credits.


Fast Five 2hr 10min  PG-13