The End of the Page

Inception: Dream A Little Dream In Me

I’m going to win this Dreidel game if it’s the last thing I ever do.

Rating: 9 out of 10

Everyone fears the sophomore curse, when you break out of the gate in any type of popular media with something so unique, so gripping and so monumentally accepted by the ravenous public that you set the bar high into the stratosphere, making it impossible for your second creative effort to even bask in the reflection of that initial glory. It frightens each and every person stepping out of the shadows and into the spotlight, but there is a misconception lingering making people feel safe after they are past their second credit. The cold, hard fact is each and every time you release something out to the public it is another audition to the world. If your newest effort becomes known as the best of your career, congratulations my friend, welcome back to the curse. It’s been right here waiting for you. Christopher Nolan felt the sting of the curse after his breakout indie darling, Memento, which he followed with a poorly timed remake of the chilly psychological thriller, Insomnia. Yet Nolan fought onward and grabbed hold of the frayed cape of the Batman franchise and resurfaced with a much more dark and gritty take on the legendary crusader in Batman Begins. This inevitably led to his crowning achievement in the comic book sequel, The Dark Knight, where the world witnessed the true beauty of a director and actor, in Heath Ledger, creating something that will be remembered and talked about for generations. As the accolades for The Dark Knight poured in, Nolan found himself right back in the lap of the curse, plotting his escape, scanning the horizons for a safe way out. Turns out, he found his escape not by looking outside, but by turning in.

Inception is the name given to a procedure where a person with incredibly specific skills and equipment can enter someone else’s dreams and gently plant the seed of an idea, which would then flourish and grow in that person naturally, culminating in the subject doing exactly what you wanted them to. Most believe it can’t be done, but one man, Cobb, says it is not just possible, but he’s done it before. Hired for one last job, Cobb builds a team of people to help him complete his mission and try to win his ticket home to his children.

The out and out winner here is the writing. While the directing and acting, which will be mentioned later, are both up to par, the writing of such an intricate, delicate and verbose script is an achievement worth high recognition. People are already talking Oscar race for this film, and while I might be on the fence right now in the Best Picture category (we still have quite a few months to go people), in the arena of Best Original Screenplay, this should be a shoe-in. Nolan is truly at his best when dealing with fragmented and fractured realities, achieving a tender balance between intrigue and confusion that makes the audience think, but not feel stupid if they all come up with different answers at the end. As for the ending, I’ll leave that for later, loudly hidden behind the spoiler warnings.

Moving onto the acting, Leonardo DiCaprio, who played our anti-hero Cobb, once again brims with sheer determination and builds layer upon layer into the role. The only fraction of a flaw in his performance in my eyes is it bordered on being too controlled. At times there felt perfect opportunities to let him fly off the handle or just peel back one more layer, showing his humanity, but the importance of the job and the need for sharp and complete focus kept him tightly wrapped up. Tom Hardy, playing Eames, the wise-cracking master thief of the group, steals many of the scenes not only due to his skill as an actor, but because he provides the only comic relief in the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, as Aurthur, brings back a little bit of his steam-train determination and tunnel-vision drive that he perfected in Brick. Overall all the performances were on point, but in the minority there were two people that I felt were under used and under developed, Michael Caine and Ellen Page. Caine is a tremendous actor that felt totally wasted in a partially unexplained cameo part (he’s mentioned as the grandfather to Cobb’s children, but it is never illustrated whether he is Cobb’s father or his stepfather.) As for Page, while they try with one line of dialogue to cover over her rapid acceptance of the world of dreams and being able to control them, she still ends up feeling rushed into the story more as a person to move the plot than a full fledged character.

***SPOLIER ALERT – SPOILER ALERT – DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM***

Now let’s talk about that ending. While I really do enjoy a nice ‘leave ‘em hanging’ closer, I think people are reading way too much into it. Yes, the top was still spinning, and yes the idea was to make you wonder if Cobb is still in a dream at the end of the film, but the theory that the entire movie was all a dream inside Cobb’s mind, showing his own journey to release himself of the guilt of pushing his wife to suicide, well, that just doesn’t sit right with me. The ‘whole dream’ theory robs the movie of all its importance and power and steals all the thunder from the other characters. I prefer to believe the top would have fallen in time; it was just really well balanced.

The End of the Page Recommendation: Nolan is on a hot streak that could see him crowned as one of the greatest directors in our generation, but let’s not pressure him too much, right? Inception is clever, intriguing and everything you want in a psychological drama, even if it draws a little long at the end. Worth seeing, if only for the ensuing discussion you will have immediately after.

What did you think of the ending? Does this top ‘Dark Knight’ for you?

Despicable Me: Universal Sneaks Out a Hit

Of course the milk is fresh. The entire cow is in this can.

Rating: 10 out of 10

Pixar has been wearing the sash of “Best in Show” for animation lovers out there since their inception, but Universal, considered by many to be the long-standing underdog in nearly every market, has proven they are on the rebound from earlier disappointments. Sometimes that’s the nice thing about being the dark horse, no one sees you riding up in everyone else’s shadows.

Despicable Me is the tale of a once super-villain named Gru (voiced by NBC Universal go-to-guy, Steve Carell), who has slid down in the ranks of evil over the past few years and is looked upon as a novelty by other villains, his evil banking investors and even his own mother. But that was before he rounded up his assets: a hearing-endangered mad scientist, an army of painfully adorable yellow creatures known as ‘minions’ and three young girls swept out of the local orphanage, all in a dastardly attempt to pull off the greatest heist in history, stealing the moon! Pitfalls and successes abound as Gru struggles against his decision to be the world’s greatest villain or to strive for something he never saw coming.

If there is one key to a successful animated film, it is making one or more of the side characters the most adorable, hilarious, or possibly both, creature or person you could possibly imagine. Aladdin had Genie, Finding Nemo had Dory, Wall-E had Eve (or basically any character in that movie), and here Universal has learned that formula well and created the minions. These yellow oddly pill-shaped creatures that speak in a language uniquely their own provide laughter pretty much every time they grace the screen. I have little doubt that the merchandising for them will be a great bonus for the company and I would be on the look-out for straight-to-DVD spin-offs or short films based solely around these mini-misfits.  Although you could only assume what they were talking about most of the time, this once again proved that real well written comedy has a language all its own.

Beyond the hilarious ovals of sunshine, Despicable Me stands up tall with a really tight script that is well paced and well balanced. Supremely funny moments are shared with more heartwarming beats and consistent plot and story. The main character of Gru was almost assuredly tailored for Steve Carell after he signed onto the project because in certain moments you could feel his TV alter-ego Michael Scott from The Office poking through. Normally that might be a tad unsettling and distracting, but the humor worked and Carell delivered, reminding us why he is one of the most sought after comedians on the market right now. The rest of the voice cast, including more big names familiar to the NBC Universal line-up like Russell Brand, Jason Segel, Kristen Wiig, Mindy Kaling and Jack McBrayer also lent their incredible timing and humorous natures to help make this movie the surprise hit of the year.

I also should mention I did pay the extra few bucks to see this in 3D since I had a feeling that was intended from the beginning and not retrofit into it after the fact, and I was correct. This is the only film I have seen since Avatar that actually had a real use for and benefited from the new 3D fad. I know we are due for more and more 3D films in the coming years, but hopefully they will learn that the decision to add another dimension to the film only works when you make it up front for creative reasons and not after the movie is finished for purely financial ones.

The End of the Page Recommendation: It’s a 10 out of 10 people. See it!

Already seen it? What did you think? How does it rank in your list of favorite animated films?

How to Train Your Dragon: Dreamworks Slays, But Only Slightly.

It’s OK. Relax, boy. They said ‘The Hills’ is being canceled.
Rating: 7 out of 10

In the last decade we have been increasingly spoiled by legendary quality in the animated film world. Pixar exploded onto the scene and suddenly changed our Sunday afternoon trip to the movies with our little ones from a chore to a joy. Parents all over the country were now dragging kids along to see cartoons the kids hadn’t even asked about yet. “Trust me, son. You haven’t seen Toy Story 1 or 2 yet, but you’ll pick it up quickly. Now stop running around or we’ll lose our place in line.” Those wonderment wizards behind the screen also took notice of the change in demographic and began to layer their fare with subtle and intelligent adult humor, making it possible (and now possibly common) to see a grown man or adult couple walking into one of these movies without a single child in tow. I applaud this shift in content because I believe it helps remind us all to be a kid ourselves time and again.

How to Train Your Dragon is the newest effort from Dreamworks Animation, the studio once saved from going under by their imaginary friend Shrek. This tale, based on a popular children’s book of the same title by Cressida Cowell, surrounds a scrawny, accident-ridden viking named Hiccup (voiced expertly by Jay Baruchel) who stumbles upon a legendary dragon that no one has laid eyes on and lived. Finding he doesn’t have the heart to kill the dragon, he becomes the proud owner of a dangerous new pet and a planet-sized secret. Oh, his dad is chief of the village as well and their main chore in life is killing dragons. It’s like sprinkles on top.

While this colorful concoction doesn’t match up with headliners like Shrek, Kung-Fu Panda and Monsters vs. Aliens, it provides enough chuckles and consistent story flow to find itself placed above other Dreamworks outings like Flushed Away, Over the Hedge and Shark Tale. The main character of Hiccup is endearing in his self-deprecation and feels perfectly suited to the delivery of Baruchel. Also, if the animation studios have learned anything, it is to make any animal or magically living item into the most adorable thing imaginable. Dreamworks went for the gold here with their rendering of the dragon we all come to know as Toothless. They instilled him with a number of feline qualities, making him instantly loved by all cat owners in the crowd. They also have perfected the shifting of eye sizes (small for suspicion and huge for sugary-sweet cuteness) to the point where it almost feels like manipulation. I could have railed against being used like that, but I had already melted into my seat and mixed into the popcorn box below.

Other voice talents that held up their ends are Gerard Butler as Hiccup’s overly heroic Dad, Stoick, America Ferrera as the young competitor/love interest named Astrid, Jonah Hill as Snotlout (who to me sounded and looked on screen a lot like Jack Black), Kristen Wiig as Ruffnut, one half of a brother/sister twin pairing, and lastly Christopher Mintz-Plasse as the role-playiing stats nerd, Fishlegs.

The End of the Page Recommendation: How to Train Your Dragon provides enough chuckles to make it worthwhile, but the big screen is not totally necessary. Matinee pricing should be a safe bet. Oh, 2D is fine as well (skip shelling out the extra cash for 3D on this outing).

The Hurt Locker: Exploding with Power and Passion

I’m from America. I’m here to liberate your country. Why don’t you trust me?

Rating: 9 out of 10

In the years since we proved the motto “these colors never run” don’t include instances of running into other people’s countries under wildly false pretenses; we’ve seen the theaters filled with film after film dealing with the incredibly varied viewpoints of the Iraq War. Some are for the war, many are against, but all deal with the stresses and toil that it takes on the soldiers sent over there to protect us from afar and protect the civilians in that country from themselves. The biggest fear for any film covering this topic now is whether the audiences have seen it all. What more could possibly be brought to light after the 24-hour news cycle has been raking this story over the coals for nearly eight years? The answer coming from Hollywood seems to be making the stories more and more personal, connect them to individual soldiers and stories, whether they are true or based on true situations. We know why they are fighting, but we don’t always know who they are and that’s what still intrigues audiences.

The Hurt Locker centers around a bomb disposal unit in Iraq, dealing with car bombs, IEDs and any variety of homemade roadside explosive device. A new unit leader, Staff Sergeant James, finds himself trying to keep unit cohesion while not letting go of his unorthodox style of bomb defusing. Tempers flare, egos are tested, but the whole group must find a way to work together in order to keep themselves alive in their constantly hostile surroundings.

“Rare” is the first word that comes to mind when I describe this movie. In a project filled with so much inherent tension, very few are able to walk the hair thin line between too much tension, which would shut your audience down in some numb coma-type state, or too little tension, which would leave your audience bored and feeling as if the subject matter was taken too lightly. The story, the pacing and the intensity is handled beautifully by director Kathryn Bigelow, who really has had a intensely varied style of filmmaking ranging from the epitome of surfer action flicks, Point Break, to the turn-of-the-millennium sci-fi acid trip, Strange Days. No matter where she brings her vision, it always results in something unique to the current filmic landscape. With Hurt Locker, Bigelow paints a picture of three soldiers with completely different outlooks on their situation and she manages to give them all equal weight, which is an accomplishment in itself. She also is very specific with her use of camera tricks, like slow motion, so when they do appear in the film they don’t get lost in a sea of quick cuts, lens flares or unnecessary explosions. Overall it was a great effort from Bigelow and should keep her in the good graces of the Hollywood system for years to come.

Taking on the stresses of the bomb-busting trio are Jeremy Renner (Staff Sergeant James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant Sandborn) and Brian Geraghty (Specialist Eldridge). Renner takes the point position here and leads the trio through the film with a wildcat mentality and seemingly careless attitude towards death on the job. This might have come off as a one note performance for Renner were it not for the brilliant script and the arc which his character travels. Mackie and Geragthy both show their initial discomfort with working for their new unit leader in different fashions. Mackie does a great job keeping the strong face and trying to remind Renner that they are all a team and must work together, but Geragthy has a more youthful persona and he becomes an endearing soul to the audience, swinging back and forth between emotionally shell-shocked and frantically fighting for his own freedom. Truly toned performances all around.

The Hurt Locker feels a great deal like what The Kingdom wanted to be. A balanced social commentary about life on the ground in the war zone balanced with action and tension to keep the audiences involved and attuned to the fact they weren’t watching  a documentary.

Recommendation: If it is still playing in a theater near you, check it out. The sound design alone is reason enough to not wait for DVD. If you can’t catch it on the big screen, don’t worry, the performances and poignancy of the film still carries through. Plus, you could just turn up your TV really loud.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Slides Off The Rails

Go ahead, mention “Battlefield Earth” one more time. I dare you!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Remake, rehash, reboot; call it what you want, it all boils down to the same thing, this story has been seen before. Now that doesn’t imply automatic boredom or even a certain level of quality, all it means right off the bat is the audience will be coming in with a particular expectation set by the previous version of the story. How big the expectation is will depend on how popular the original film was and how recently it was in the theaters. Most second chances at the silver screen come more than ten years after the original version, but that gap seems to be closing in the last decade. Maybe it’s a statement about our national attention deficit disorder or it could be a comment on there being a complete lack of new and original ideas.

It also could resonate in our current economic climate as a safer bet in the eyes of the studio. The film has a built in audience, which at least a portion of them will certainly be curious enough to come out and see it in an updated fashion. But, beyond the financial aspect, someone in the studio, whether it be the director or the writer or whomever, must think they have something new to add, some new take on the tale to make it worth all the time and energy to return it to the screen. On occasion they do follow through and allow us to see some entirely new dimension we previously looked right past, but in a number of examples the new version just proves to be flashier CGI and more contemporary actors, nothing at all to do with the story. In the end, the eternal question, looking past the bank accounts, is “Was it worth it?”

In today’s example, I would say not.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an action/thriller about a random New York City subway controller who gets unwillingly pulled into becoming a hostage negotiator when a ransom plan for a carload of subway passengers is hijacked underground. It’s a psychological tug-of-war between a devious and determined kidnapper and a seemingly moral citizen who can’t help but try and do the right thing. Each step along the way leads to bigger consequences as lives are lost and the money in play skyrockets until the whole world is tuning in to see how it will all end.

The original version of this was released in 1974 starring Walter Matthau as the unassuming hero and Hector Elizondo as one of the gang of hijackers. There was also a TV movie version in 1998 that tossed in Edward James Olmos as the good guy and Vincent D’Onofrio and Donnie Wahlberg as members of the gang. This new millennium version posts Denzel Washington in the hero role and counterparts him with John Travolta as the leader of the gang. The early versions were much more based around tension and intrigue, while this one went after it with more action, fast editing and hyper-kinetic camera tricks to infuse energy into the story. One of the other main differences was the hijackers were originally only named by color (possibly the inspiration for the same decision in Reservoir Dogs), but this version skipped out on that plot point altogether.  Tony Scott, the director of this installment, definitely retained his current style of loud noises, quick cutting and washed out coloring to instill a raw, edgy reality to the universe, but it didn’t feel like it added anything new to the story. I appreciated his visual stylings much more in Man on Fire, with Domino a close second.

As for the performances, Denzel Washington rarely disappoints. He is near the top of any list when thinking about an ordinary character put into extraordinary circumstances. He really embodies the everyday man having to rise up and take on situations way beyond his normal expectations. Even when playing the bad guy, as in John Q., he still relies on his ability to connect with the blue-collar movie watcher and portray that reality on screen. Yet, with all that said, being the best part of this film doesn’t give him a huge boost. On the other side of the punch card is John Travolta, who turns in a slightly less than believable performance as the criminal mastermind. Some of his issues can’t be discussed without giving away plot twists, but let’s just say he doesn’t fit the bill once the story is unraveled. Also, I’d have to go back to the other versions to see if this was present, but Travolta made an unusual amount of references to the attractiveness of Washington, both in person and over the phone. At a certain point in the film I wondered if Travolta would switch the ransom demand from large amounts of cash to a single date with Washington. I can easily and happily give Travolta his due credit when his performances merit it, as in Michael, Pulp Fiction and Face/Off, but this time out he pales in comparison to his co-star and borders on the ridiculous.

Recommendation: Not a great outing for Scott, Washington or Travolta. Avoidable on most accounts. Maybe catch it on HBO someday if you don’t feel like getting off the couch and you’ve already drained your TiVo.

Wolverine: Cuts Just Underneath The Bar

C’mon, who wants to try and take the Oscar host gig away from me? I dare ya.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Bring on the over-buttered popcorn, the obscenely large sodas and the amazingly radiated hot dogs…the blockbuster season is upon us! Every summer the world rushes into the theaters daring the movie studios to try their best to blow us out of our seats. CGI masterminds and real life stuntmen pull out all the stops in a yearly effort to make us drop our jaws once more at something we believed we would never see. Amazement and imagination collide inside a brilliant torrent of big-budget action flicks for the next five months and most studios bank their entire year on these “tentpole” films. The money made or lost on these cinematic feats can determine whether a studio will even be in business the following summer. With all that pressure, being the first one out of the gate is a big deal and this year that incredible honor is bestowed upon a familiar face, Wolverine.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells of the beginning of one of the most standout characters in the Marvel universe. It follows him from his start as a sickly child though his transformation into one of the world’s most deadly and indestructible killers. It also brings to light his mysterious past in Canada and what made him the missing piece to a terrible and destructive puzzle. Backgrounds and motivations are brought out of the shadows as we delve deeper into the lifeline of this wild and mostly untamed anti-hero.

There was a small rebellion right away when this idea got announced for a Wolverine origin film and the reasoning was some people felt we had already gone down that road in X2. While that is partially true, the secret of this script is it actually tells us more new information on the birth of other characters, letting Wolverine be the lynch pin to bring it all together. Beyond our cigar-smoking hero, we also get the origin story of Sabertooth and Deadpool, which in the end might prove to be the single best thing to come out of this film. Ryan Reynolds, who played Wade (aka Deadpool), has already signed on for a spin-off film surrounding the future of his wise cracking assassin. From the second he was announced as the casting choice fanboys around the world breathed a sigh of relief because they knew they had hit the jackpot. Deadpool is an insanely skilled weapon who never stops talking and cracking jokes, even during the most complicated missions, and that smart-ass nature makes Reynolds that absolute perfect choice for the role. Plus, we had seen him bulk up and take on the comic world before in Blade: Trinity and although the movie itself wasn’t anything to jump and shout about, Reynolds brought some much needed humor to the screen.

Getting back on track with this film, while the storyline of Wolverine might not feel incredibly necessary, the fans can’t seem to get enough of Hugh Jackman playing this iconic comic book role. This film is the fourth time we get to witness him wear the scowl of Wolverine and according to various Hollywood trades it won’t be the last. Making me and scores of other comic book geeks happy, the word has come down that the next Wolverine film will center around his time in Japan, which is a much more interesting storyline than this one.

Following the trend of causing your comic-loving audience to geek out for the sheer joy of it, Wolverine flooded the screen with numerous other characters, which sometimes can be a detriment, like in the original Batman franchise, but Marvel seems to have a slightly better hold on how to approach multi-character films. The most anticipated in this category was certainly Gambit, played by Taylor Kitsch from the TV show Friday Night Lights. I appreciated the physicalization of Gambit and the expression of his powers, but they toned down two of the best parts of who Gambit is, the Cajun accent and his overbearing romantic nature. Admittedly there was no female character for him to draw a bead on, but they could have dropped in at least one line or moment of him making a super-cheesy move on a girl in a bar and watching her melt under his skills. In the comics one of the most memorable things about Gambit is his determined romantic assault on Rogue, which in the X-Men film universe would have to take some clever restructuring since by the end of X-Men: The Last Stand Rogue has given up her powers completely so she can have a real relationship with Bobby Drake (aka Iceman). There were some rumblings about a possible Gambit spin-off as well, but I think his showing in this film wasn’t strong enough to warrant the money and resources, especially not when the Deadpool film is already greenlit and the Magneto script has also already been written (supposedly).

To the other names and faces popping up throughout this film, there was not too much else to get excited about. Will.I.Am, from the music group Black Eyed Peas, did a fine job as the teleporting cowboy, John Wraith, but nothing extraordinary. Dominic Monaghan, who is undoubtedly more connected to Hollywood history than anyone in this film due to his roles in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the TV phenom Lost, played the cool and quiet telekinetic Bolt, but he also felt slightly underused and just there to fill out a head count of comic book archetypes. Without going through the rest name by name, I will leave you with the person I thought was the worst represented, The Blob. No disrespect to the acting talents of Kevin Durand, but the physicalization of The Blob when he reached his massive and imposing size just ended up looking silly on camera. This brought one of inherent and most dangerous problems of the recent trend in adapting comic books for the big screen, some of the characters just don’t translate well in a realistic fashion. Sometimes you have to find creative ways to get them up there in a different physical form while still holding onto the core meaning and nature of the character, not that I know a way to do that in the case of Blob, but the fact remains, he ended up reminding me of Chet from Weird Science when he got turned into a big pile of crap.

Recommendation: Having a three movie lead-in for this character built up a huge following, which is great for box office potential, yet it also built up huge expectations, which this film did not completely meet. It has some really good scenes, but it fails to keep the pace up throughout.

Fast and Furious: On the Road Again…

See that light over there? That’s our future. Let’s race to see who gets there first.

Rating: 6 out of 10

There are times when a movie ends and you just feel sad because you don’t get to spend any more time with those characters. No more twists and turns in their stories and no more chances for possible redemption, if they haven’t already achieved it. Yet sometimes you get lucky and a sequel is made, then if you’re really lucky a sequel is made of that, giving you the much sought after “franchise”. Certain movies you can look at from the very first moment and know they are destined for the franchise route, but I would challenge anyone to look back into 2001 at the original The Fast and the Furious and claim they saw this coming. It spawned three subsequent films, with this newest chapter opening to over $100 million dollars worldwide in its first weekend, a record for any April movie opening in history.

No palm reader in the world would have taken that bet.

Yet Universal Pictures seemingly struck gold with Fast and Furious and there is an entire pantheon of reasons why this worked. First, and most notable, was the return of the original cast making this movie feel much more like a sequel and less like a spin-off (ie: The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift). The two main machismo machines, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker, haven’t shared the screen in eight years, so this was a huge draw for people who actually stood up for the quality of the original movie. Secondly, the original teaser trailer and the first theatrical trailer were both cut extremely well, showcasing the scope of the car stunts and the parkour-influenced foot chase with Paul Walker, which will go down in history as a close second to the foot race in Point Break with Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze (Swayze throws a dog at Reeves, that cannot be topped!). The third element, which is a little less apparent, is that this movie is an “interquel”, meaning it is not placed exactly in continual sequence with the rest. Fast and Furious actually takes place in the timeline before Tokyo Drift, which is shown to the audience in an early scene where Toretto tells his friend Han, also reprised by Sung Kang, to get out of town for a while. Han replies by saying, “I hear they’re doing some crazy stuff in Tokyo.” So they aren’t necessarily pulling the Highlander 2 maneuver, where they just ignore that the movie ever happened and continue the series without ever mentioning it, but instead they are treating Tokyo Drift more as an off-shoot, which keeps it legitimate in the universe of the characters. All in all they had every element in place for a new chapter that frankly no one thought would ever happen, but it did, in a big way.

Diesel returns to the role of Dominic Toretto, the mad-dog roughneck of the road racing world, who is now running a gasoline stealing outfit south of the border. When one heist goes slightly off the rails, Torreto is forced to move along without his comrades and his girlfriend, Letty, played once again by Michelle Rodriguez. On the other side of the border, bad boy FBI agent, Brian O’Conner, reprised by Paul Walker, is hot on the trail of a massive mafia cartel. When another mafia killing cuts too close to home, O’Conner and Toretto have to team up once again to infiltrate the cartel and bring it down. Both men are fighting for justice, yet they have slightly different definitions for it.

On paper the plot line actually holds together really well, but let’s be honest, no one watches these movies for the plot. It’s all about the cars, the crashes and the chaos. Fast and Furious makes a decent effort in all those areas, bringing the car races back to the forefront of the movie, without losing the sense of needing a storyline. That was one of the things the last chapter in this franchise, Tokyo Drift, was lacking. The racing never escalated, never changed from nearly the first screech of the tires in the movie to the last. While in Fast and Furious, the races did change throughout the film, they lose a little credit for placing their most impressive race about one-third of the way in. The scene where Diesel and Walker have to race each other along with two others in hopes of being chosen for the cartel driving squad is full of variety and intensity, yet later on the races begin to feel a touch redundant. Also, that first race had pertinent meaning for the story, whereas the later races feel tossed in just because they needed another scene of cars zooming by. No matter how silly the movie you still need to make the action on the screen make sense, otherwise the audience will drift away.

Diesel and Walker return to form in these characters and give us what we all know and love them for. Diesel proves once more that he can intimidate with only a glance and also the fact that he never sweats, ever! Walker still retains his boyish charms and continues to be endearing when he tries to act all tough on screen against Diesel. Yet, while Diesel wins the machismo battle, Walker always looks more comfortable on screen with the ladies, as he proves once more with his re-ignited love affair with Toretto’s sister, Mia, played once again by Jordana Brewster. Brewster still shows her skill in being able to make a believable on-screen connection with people who aren’t all that talented in the lighter arena of human emotions. As for Rodriguez, she is one of the original four and used heavily in the marketing of the film, but she is in only a few short minutes of the movie and really boils down to a plot device.

Recommendation: If you liked the first film in the series, you should have no problem enjoying this one. It still has holes and many parts of it could have made more sense with some basic story adjustments, but in terms of this series it is just under the original. Plus, you might as well keep track of what happens so you can be all set for the next chapter, which Paul Walker just signed on to. Faster and Furiouser!

Adventureland: Carnies in Love

Wait, you’re not actually a vampire, right?

Rating: 9 out of 10

When an ad campaign continually blasts, “Brought to you from the director of Superbad!” you might find yourself wondering exactly how many crass terms for random pieces of anatomy can be filled into ninety minutes or what quota will be reached for on-screen vomiting. In this particular case, surprisingly only one of those is really taken into account (on the down side, it’s the on-screen vomiting). Following up a mega-comedy hit like Superbad can be a tough ride, but director Greg Mottola came back with something subtle, touching and heartwarming, while still holding onto some of that raw and youthful comic edge. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of today’s raunchy comedy tidal wave, Mottola reaches back into the archives and gives us something much more in tune with John Hughes and the date movies of the 1980s.

Adventureland is the story of James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) who instead of spending the summer in Europe with his wealthy friends as planned, ends up working at the local amusement park to try and save enough money for grad school in New York next year. Beyond his family’s money struggle, James also is dealing with his own private struggle in still being a virgin after college. His die-hard romantic notions which kept him fairly untouched before are taken to task once he meets fellow carnie, Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart). Damaged and dark, she becomes the willing target for his romantic quest, but along the way he ends up breaking much more than he fixes and learns that being the nice guy all the time isn’t all that easy.

There is a lot of tone and pacing carried over from Superbad, but while that movie saved the depth and meaning until deep into the third act, Adventureland plays out with much more intelligence and heart right off the bat. It might be easy to write off the main character of James as a carbon copy of Evan (played brilliantly by Michael Cera), but the characters really only share their social awkwardness and lack of success with women. James goes deeper into a real tumultuous place of pain and love and the mysterious moment when those two emotions meet. Seeing that on the page, Eisenberg was a perfect choice to play the role. While Cera and Eisenberg could make a great buddy comedy about two guys who struggle at trying to be cool, Eisenberg displayed a depth in Adventureland which Cera might have a hard time reaching at this point in his career. Eisenberg’s portrayal of James never comes off as a caricature or comedic statement on youthful longing; instead it is filled with minuscule moments of honesty which bring the audience closer to him. This movie marks another great performance in his already critically lauded career, including Roger Dodger and The Squid and the Whale.

Now, in terms of following pace with career performances, Kristen Stewart made a distinct about face here. Coming off of a terribly directed and painfully weak performance in the vampiric soap opera, Twilight, Kristen reminds viewers exactly why she still gets work. During numerous scenes in the movie she displays a vulnerability and fragile nature with barely a single movement in her eyes. Her painful and troubled stare through the windshield of her car is enough to make any caring person want to fix anything and everything wrong in her life. That special spark is exactly what allowed her to even steal scenes away from Emile Hirsch in Into the Wild, who honestly had the performance of his career. Personally, I am looking forward and hoping for this same raw intensity in her upcoming biopic of Joan Jett, where Stewart takes on the punk rock queen herself.

Beyond these two stellar performances, I need to give credit one more time to Greg Mottola for everything he did in creating slice of life in the mid-eighties and balancing in the perfect amount of generational references, from the constant blaring of “Rock Me Amadeus” out of the park speakers to the wardrobe selections filled with that classic mixture of muted over-washed t-shirts and neon high-waisted jam pants. How any of us grew up in through those years without being scarred as fashion misfits for life is a miracle in itself.

Recommendation: While not a shocking laugh riot like Superbad, the warmth and meaning of this film should guarantee you come out with a smile, both on the outside and inside.

I Love You, Man: The New King of Bro-mance Comedies

Just describing this picture sounds like the beginning to an old-timey joke: “Two straight guys are riding on a Vespa…”

Rating: 9 out of 10

For years we’ve had movies showing female best friends whose relationships are rich, fulfilling and often surprisingly lacking in naked pillow fights, but nonetheless still satisfying. In the past few years though a trend has emerged, the “bro-mance” flick, a platonic romance genre where the two main characters are guys just trying to figure out how to express themselves inside the civil war-era social norms of daily society. Women have forever been not only allowed, but encouraged to wear their emotions on their sleeves, but men have been told since birth to “suck it up” or “act like a man”, which is somewhere defined as “stoic, rigid and bearing the emotional capacity of a petrified tree”.  Now those walls are starting to break down and Hollywood is riding that wave of acceptance. Pineapple Express is another example of these male-bonding, Hallmark-shifting scenarios, but here on the “Vespa of manliness” this film powers through to say what it needs to say in a meaningful way while being distractingly funny.

I Love You, Man is the story of Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) who is pleasantly happy with his life for good reason. He has a great job as a real estate agent, on the verge of working his first big celebrity house sale for Lou Ferrigno and he’s hoping to parlay that money into an even bigger commercial land deal, which would secure not only his future, but that of his brand new, nearly perfect fiance, Zooey (Rashida Jones). With wedding plans being put together, a small fissure in his perfect plateau begins to open when it is pointed out to him, by his own family, that he has no real male friends and therefore no one to be his Best Man. Peter is forced to jump into the incredibly awkward male “friend dating” scene and along the way he stumbles across Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), a man who is still living the man-child life Peter never got to experience. Social regression ensues as Peter finds out what it means to have a male best friend, but it comes with the downside of finding himself stuck between being a child with Sydney and being an adult with Zooey.

Balancing the tone of a film like this is a tricky situation. It has to be spitfire funny on a moment-by-moment basis, yet still follow the beat structure of a typical romantic comedy, completely ignoring the fact that your two main characters are both men. Once you block out that fact from your mind, I Love You, Man is a wholly traditional fit in the romantic comedy field and works brilliantly. John Hamburg directed this with a pure-hearted sensibility and really let the scenes develop naturally. He stayed far away from preset notions of what should happen to make the movie funnier and just let the script and the actors play with the reality of what would happen in situations like this. Case and point, if you have a person in his mid-30′s who owns a decked out garage which he calls “The Man Cave”, that person would without a doubt have a jack-off station out in clear view. No doubt about it. Sometimes people forget that comedy relies just as much on honesty in storytelling as drama, possibly even more. As the classic saying goes, “It’s funny ’cause it’s true.”

Yet, no matter how honest the script may be written, the performers have to deliver in a big way and Paul Rudd and Jason Segel did not disappoint. Right now you can’t find another actor like Paul Rudd. He is the king of the awkward everyman role and plays it with such tenacity and confidence that you have a hard time believing he isn’t exactly like that in real life. He also refuses to pull back from scenes other actors might approach in a more over-the-top comedy fashion. Rudd brings heart and class to even the most immature moments and that’s where his key to the kingdom lies. Accompanying Rudd on this yearning journey for friendship is Jason Segel, who plays the more outlandish and uncontrollable foil for Rudd’s straight arrow. Segel dives into his character unabashedly and manages to hold himself together even in the face of utter ridiculousness and embarrassment. He is quickly challenging the throne of Seth Rogen as the lovable schlub, which is made even more amusing by the fact both actors started together under the tutelage of R-rated comedy guru, Judd Apatow, back on the short lived TV show, Freaks and Geeks. Now more than ever, I’m convinced something was in the water back there on the craft service table that made everyone from that show incredibly talented and funny. (Wonder if they bottled any of it? Hmmm…)

Dancing in the wings of this two-man show is a whole slew of great actors. Jon Favreau and Jamie Pressly play a married couple that we all know too well, the ones who love to fight, love to make up and absolutely love each other in a fashion no one else understands. Rashida Jones, as Zooey, continues her stride towards epitomizing the perfect girlfriend, which she started when she appeared on The Office as Jim’s girlfriend, Karen. She’s witty, adorable and really shines in the deadpan comedy styles she’s chosen recently. I’m hoping it all continues well for her as she co-stars with Amy Poehler in the upcoming show, Parks and Recreation (made by the same producers of The Office). As many people have already said in other online reviews, the only downside you can scratch and claw to find is the painfully tiny amount of Andy Samberg, who plays Rudd’s gay younger brother, who is in turn much more masculine. Samberg is leading the new wave of young, out-of-the-box comedians and the more of him you include in your projects, the more successful you are bound to be.  I also appreciated J.K. Simmons who seemingly walked right off the set of Juno, where he played her dad, and onto this one, where he plays the dad once again. I guess if you do something well, keep on truckin’.

Recommendation: The audience I saw this with was a packed house and I missed a good handful of lines of dialogue because people, including myself, were laughing too loud and too long. The combo of Rudd and Segel is just too good to miss. Even though the movie might seem immature at times, there is heart and honesty in there that I think many people, male and female, will relate to.

He’s Just Not That Into You: Light on the Charm, but It’s There.

“What? All I said was I thought Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a cool movie. What?”

Rating: 6 out of 10

There comes a time when the norm needs to be redefined, or in some rare cases, reaffirmed. This usually happens in areas where there are just too many signals, too many varied social customs to keep track of and no scene is more rampant for study and redefinition than the dating scene. While not being the most skilled movie to tackle the subject or the most flawed, it currently holds the title for being the most recent, which is why you get to read more about it right now.

He’s Just Not That Into You is romantic web spun around a modern day version of the group from St. Elmo’s Fire. One way or another all these people are connected to each other and at one single moment in time they are all experiencing a singular and unique version of love and relationships. From the tender awkwardness tickled by tiny sparks to the touching sorrow of bitter disappointment, all the heart strings are played. It is also another in the continuing trend of book adaptations from the “chick lit” market, following in the stylish, stiletto heels of The Devil Wears Prada, Sex and the City and the upcoming Confessions of a Shopaholic, proving that coveting the female moviegoer, over the commonly praised 18-24 year-old male market, can be an extremely profitable move.

This movie has a couple things working in its favor. First, their release date is near Valentine’s Day and makes for a perfect early date night with that certain someone. Second, it offers up an amazing ensemble of talented actors to portray this bevy of bumbling romantics. Yet, that last one also ends up being one of its biggest detractions. There are just too many story lines at work here and over half of them fall by the wayside before the credits roll. When trying to showcase each and every type of relationship problem, very few movies can give them all equal and effective share of the screen time (Love Actually, which is an immediate and highly superior comparison to this film, is nearly perfect, but still could’ve dropped one of its many tales.) As the pacing clumsily drives to the closing moments, only two of the couples were emotionally worth following anymore and everything else felt like a distraction from the meatier bits. I’m sure in the book there was more time to get involved with each and every relationship, but on screen it comes off as a bunch of separate movies trying to be told at the same time.  The throughline just isn’t strong enough here.

Getting back to the impressive, yet excessive casting, the people who shined brighter than the combined spotlight of the group are Justin Long, Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck. Long and Goodwin take the prize as the most emotionally satisfying and most complete character arcs in the movie. Long once again proves that he is much more than a jokester and begins to show off as a leading man, even if it is inside of a crowded room such as this one. I’ve been impressed with his comedic timing and earnestness ever since Accepted (the ending speech is pretty close to brilliant) and I pray he keeps getting chances to hold the reins in the romantic comedy world. Goodwin, on the other hand, epitomizes the hope and trusting nature of all those standing outside the party waiting for someone to invite them in. She’s adorable in a way that goes completely unchallenged in this film and I have no doubt she will be capitalizing on that in the coming years. Aniston and Affleck, arguably two of the biggest names in this cast, pull off touching and poignant moments inside the most subtle and least flashy story arc in the piece. Aniston has had her share of hard knocks since leaving the TV mega-hit, Friends, and Affleck also shows up with some bruises on his resume, but they are incredibly well matched here and take their scenes far above the level of B-movie romanticism.

Falling to the sidelines in the overcrowded group are Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore and Kevin Connolly. All of the characters here gave little to nothing to root for and because of that gained no real closure at the end. Cooper, who feels he was bullied into his marriage and now finds himself tempted by the incredibly alluring Johansson, enters the film the nice guy in a tough situation, but as the minutes slide away, so does his righteousness and strength as a character. In turn with that, Johansson brings up a common social question about what happens when you fall for a married man, but loses her focus in the third act, but that gets nicely blamed on Kevin Connolly, who plays a friend, sometimes “more than friend”, who wants more from her. Although that is a commonly played and often shown arc for the romantic comedy, Connolly neglects to bring the charm needed to bring the audience behind him and ends up looking needy and addicted to attachment. Jennifer Connelly gets the joy of playing Cooper’s silently bullying wife, who jumps back and forth between teasingly imbalanced and bravely stoic. If we got to see one of those ideas progress into the other, instead of the frantic switching between the two, maybe she would have been in the former category of actors, but her character ends with the audience wondering whether she was righteous or just walked on. The only one to escape this particular state of character confusion is Barrymore, but she falls into the singular fate of being only present to act as social commentary on the dating scene as a whole. Her story is practically non-existent outside of being a cultural narrator and it gets tied up in the closing moments in such a trite fashion that begs the idea they just didn’t want to leave her alone when the credits rolled.

Multi-story movies are not easy by any means and few of them can really handle the pacing and balancing act required to emotionally satisfy each and every character (again, see Love Actually for an example of doing it right, or as close to right as it gets). This film would have come off much stronger if it only chose those story lines from the book that owned their romantic notions and fulfilled the complete journey. Sometimes, you just have to be cruel and chose one from the many and leave the others to rest between the paperback covers at the local book store.

Recommendation: It’s a date movie, that much is clear, but an afternoon matinee this weekend might be the way to save a couple bucks and not feel like you ended the night just thinking, “Well, that was just alright.” Find a theater where the arms raise up between the seats so at least you can make your moves, even if the people on screen aren’t.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::