Faster review

Before I jump into what "Faster" does have let me tell what it doesn't. Often times scenes shown on the trailers aren't in the final product. Sometimes it's simply because the scene was a nice trailer shot and nothing more or because in the grand scheme it doesn't work. 98% of these scenes are random shots or diologue. However "Faster" is probably the second film (the first being Michael Mann's "Miami Vice") that actually cuts a key piece of action. The scene is nearing the end of the trailer in which you see Driver (Dwayne Johnson) and Killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) play chicken in the desert and collide; sending Driver's car through the air and landing top down. Spoiler as this is that scene has been cut and basically the finale is a big "The End" on screen. Let's just say that spoiled a GREAT deal of cheesy, lead-headed fun. But thanks to the internet I have an idea of why that is the ending.

Now for what we DO get from "Faster". This is the return of Dwayne Johnson: action star. After exiting the WWF he did a number of action pictures some lame ('The Mummy Returns', 'The Scorpion King', 'Walking Tall', 'Doom') and some pretty good (like 'The Rundown' and... well he had 'The Rundown'). Anyways despite some of the movies sucking he was quite impressive. Easily he looked like someone who could and was interested in taking the reigns as a classic action heroes and maybe starting a collection of explosive work himself. Then he went all Brendan Fraser and Jackie Chan on all are asses and found out he could make boat loads of cash doing half-assed kids films. I find it absurd that people would pay more to see Chan in something like "The Spy Next Door" as opposed to "Thunderbolt". "Faster" reminds us that Johnson still can be the badass and look like a badass the same way the old boys did it. Sadly the movie doesn't match his skills.

Not that it doesn't try. Billy Bob Thornton plays Cop, in all his nasty, scruffy glory. His entrance brought a smile to my face as he shoots up heroin in an ally while Kenny Rogers and the First Edition flairs up in the background. Carla Gugino as a lady cop is more that always excepted. And "Notorious" director George Tillman Jr. displays that he could very well have a future in the action genre. Which is nice considering how many of late have tried it and failed (lookin' at you Haggis). The violence is... workable, the lighting and angles are moody and interesting; and mixed with Clint Mansell's music, quite cool. BUT within this very direct story of revenge there lay three back stories. One is of course of Driver. The second and most interesting is that of the Cop. And finally the one that is completely and utterly boring and pointless... The Killer. He is eye candy for the female viewers which is fine, except that he's dull. He's a computer genius that wants the ultimate rush so he got into contract killing. He has a beautiful girlfriend (Maggie Grace) and some slight mental issues. But neither him nor his backstory are interesting. In fact his character has pretty much NO POINT AT ALL. I think he was placed within this story simply to give Driver something else to deal with between hits instead of just having him deal with people along the way. You know like "Vanishing Point", a film they referenced during the making.

Okay... I'm sounding harsher than I want. "Faster" isn't utter shit. It's dumb, but never boring. It is at heart a throwback film that given the right set of circumstances COULD work as a true, blue grindhouse picture. Not in the tongue-in-cheek way like "Machete", but in the real way. The way where ridiculous shit happens and everyone is pretty dead pan serious about it. That's not a bad thing either. Most genre pictures do this, but aren't willing to embrace it as much as this did. But removing extra character pieces and the original ending do tend to fuck up the mojo. And now back to my original point. Why it ends the way it does.

At first I thought that CBS Films wanted to pick up where FOX left off and start snipping the gibbets off of otherwise decent pictures. Anyone who knows anything about revenge movies... more so road revenge movies knows how it must play out. Anyone watching "Faster" who is privy to this knows as well. It is what makes it work in the end. It's why "Vanishing Point" isn't just a fun movie, but goddamn great picture. No matter how the hero wants to change... in the end he must face the music too. According to sources Tillman and Johnson would like to make this a series. CBS Films announced a sequel due out in spring 2012. Despite my feelings about this film however... I can't deny that a sequel couldn't hurt. Even with the 'they all die' ending to the film wouldn't have been perfect. It's flawed, but it's fun. It keeps you fairly entertained and even more so in the events leading up to the ending. It's predictable, but then again it was never that complex so why shouldn't be? If they are actually serious about a franchise or what have you then do it. These aren't 100 million dollar movies and if you work out these characters and a fully formed story then you might have something totally fun to watch. It's rare that I think that a sequel to a film I disliked is a good idea, but for "Faster"... well... maybe it can work.

Fair Game review

You know I had almost written off director Doug Liman a while ago. After the lackluster "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and the God awful "Jumper" I had pretty much figured that he'd peaked and now enjoyed simply getting nice pay checks for crap work. I was a bit surprised given his prior works "Swingers", "Go" and of course "The Bourne Identity", but between those films and some poorly produced tv shows that was my thoughts on him. Happily I was wrong and Liman has returned with not just a good film, but his best film and one of the most intelligent and entertaining CIA dramas in years.

"Fair Game" is about Valerie Plame, who in the early 2000's following the invasion of Iraq had her named leaked in the newspaper as an active CIA field agent. As you can imagine this isn't something light. Only her husband Joe Wilson (played by Sean Penn) and her parents knew about her CIA life which would then make normal life a lot less normal. Add to that her name and her husband's name being dragged through the mud on every news show around just so that Washington and the White House could destroy their public creditability. But the question is why. Why was her name dropped and why did they want so badly to make sure we the people wouldn't listen or wouldn't care about her story? The answer is... complex, but not hard to follow.

Simply put it boils down to the news that people want to hear. Behind the scenes motives and theories are never delved into much, but you can tell that it's a lingering thought within the screenplay. Adapted from two books written by Plame and Wilson, "Fair Game" and its impressive screenplay by the Butterworth brothers plays up the best parts of CIA stories, political films and just flat out good drama. Doug Liman seems to be playing with a style vastly different from his latter work and a bit more in tune with "Swingers", but stronger. His independent edge is evident however he has a fairly nice budget here so he can get great wide shots showing bits of destruction during the bombing raids and also shoot the film globally. However 98% of the film is very much focused on Valerie and Joe. As a couple and a working family they have to suffer through something extremely difficult in which they have conflicting opinions on. Joe wants to fight Washington while Valerie is simply worried about their future, the state of a few active operations she had going and just dealing with the overbearing negative press directed at her.

Watts and Penn simply go great together. They both pull off the sort of performances I love to see in which the actors effortlessly kill in dramatic moments while making us like and believe them in more somber settings. Hell there are times in "Fair Game" where it feels like the rage filled work of early Oliver Stone. Something that doesn't want you to simply be content with what the suits in Washington tell you is right, but wants you to ask questions. In many ways this is one of the more patriotic movies I've watched in a long time and equally brings pride and disgust. Many people have different opinions on why we went to war. At this point I'm not totally sure the answer matters as much as it did in 04', 05' or 06', but the amount of uncertainty should raise some red flags to Americans that maybe the simple 'we want to liberate Iraq' answer isn't totally correct. I actually remember her story quite well from the Vanity Fair article after she finally broke her silence. For me hearing her story should have been a big eye opener for those who believe the system is safe and right and truthful. But of course that wasn't what happened.

"Fair Game" doesn't take political sides for the most part, but it doesn't play it safe either. You see a lot of the rage and spit fire from Joe Wilson as he goes on television to defend his wife's name and her work. Wisely Liman uses the actually new footage about the story when say Watts or Penn is watching the tv. That way we can see that the things said about them weren't movie fabrication or exaggeration, but truly mean spirited cheap shots from the talking heads of the media. But the underlined point of it all is to never stop fighting... and they certainly didn't.

Overall this was a well crafted, fantastically acted and real spy drama that totally works. I'm highly impressed with Doug Liman's directing and willingness to not play to just one side. "Fair Game" is one of the very best films I've seen this year and well worth seeking out.

The Next Three Days review

Paul Haggis' "The Next Three Days" is a competent thriller that ought to be more. It comes down to a story that can go in a lot of interesting and different directions; takes some neat ones, but overall feels less surprising then it could be and feels just a bit too stale. Not that there aren't aspects that work, but they could be much better. Screenwriter and director Paul Haggis ("Crash") is actually the main issue here. Not so much his writing as much as his very regular directing. Throughout the vast majority of the film I caught myself thinking what if Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, Paul Greengrass or a number of other, more visually arresting filmmakers had put their eye behind the camera for this. What a thriller this would have been.

Before we jump on that though here's the skinny. Russell Crowe plays a college professor whose wife (Elizabeth Banks) gets arrested for the murder of her boss. We speed up three years as she's attempting more appeals and trying to stay connected with their son while in prison. In their visits the child doesn't respond to her in almost any fashion. Her husband though can't stand any of it. It isn't so much as he feels she's innocent of the crime, but he loves her so much that he cannot take seeing her jailed for possibly the rest of her life. And after the legal system seems to be swinging out of his favor he decides to take on a daring prison break in, rescue and escape. The vast majority of the film is the prep work he does. It's extensive and with some brief words from a master escapist (Liam Neeson in a nice cameo) sets his plan in motion. Though slow this probably one of the more interesting parts of the film. He's sloppy and learning his tricks of breaking into cars or creating bump keys via the internet and doesn't really have the stomach for violence or for making the hard decisions.

Another aspect that works well is Crowe and Banks' chemistry. From the darkly humorous opening it all works well with their back and fourths. They both seem human and quite down to Earth characters. The real problem is simply Haggis' dull directing and lack of style. The idea of "The Next Three Days" can go in so many directions and include so many close calls and tense sequences of suspense or out and out action. Haggis aims more for the suspense, but it rarely hits the mark and is never memorable. I thought back to Michael Mann's "Collateral". It's character rich and includes some decent action and suspense sequences on just a story level. What Mann did was paint us not just full pictures of the characters, but of L.A. from the top down. The world surrounding this one taxi in the city. It made the night and the locations characters and that helps create a real mood. "The Next Three Days" has no mood.

Furthermore Haggis works best in the slower bits of the film in general. Conversation pieces work fine, lead ups to slightly important moments work ok as well, but the bigger sequences or intense stuff is flat. It put me in a similar mind frame of "Derailed" and "Taken" except I liked both of those enough to recommend them, however slight it might be. Haggis is a strong and impressive writer and perhaps his directing will get better or he'll pick a story that might require more of a straight dramatic approach. Either way the film left me disappointed in all it could have done.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 review

I'll spare you the 'interesting' tale of how I gained entry to the CW sponsored screening tonight, but I did and as a general event it was fantastic. Since I go to the movies a ridiculous amount at different venues and for different types of films I'm always looking for experiences that transcend just watching a movie. With some films I look for a lively crowd of spectators to provide some sort of running commentary on the film. Not necessarily actual diologue, but emotions and reactions to what they're experiencing. As far as that's concerned HP 7 and it's giddy bunch of fans there tonight were very entertaining and fairly close to the type of group I excepted. Well... perhaps a bit more tame. Oh and the film? Highly impressive.

For those who don't know my feelings on the long running Harry Potter franchise it goes like this. I think the first two films are GREAT for kids, but don't hold up well to anyone else. If you have kids and want an easy way to introduce them into this universe through cinema or into the fantasy adventure genre all together, they are great points of entry. Then came the third and fourth films which stand as two of my favorites. Three because of the best use of CGI in the entire series of films (this one included) and because they began to really flesh out the characters and universe more. Really most of what we say in three we are still seeing now design wise. However part 4 is my favorite of them all. For me it encompasses all the light, dark, adventure, humor and real world troubles this sort of story could contain and it does it very, very well. This brings us to the fifth and sixth films where David Yates took over directorial duties. For both of those films he was my biggest beef. Both films were photographed nicely and performed well, but his directing was rarely exciting and never packed any real emotion.

The best example was in the last film where the beloved Dumbledore dies. There was ways of shooting and editing that sequence to make it more dramatic and actually deliver something more from it, yet it was just another scene. Nothing special. So heading into the Deathly Hallows I figured it would be more of the same. Happily I was wrong. The film isn't perfect and it doesn't dethrone part 4 as my favorite, but it is now a close second. It seems Yates got the picture for the most part and impressively delivers stronger character moments and fairly decent action sequences. But really the best stuff in the film is the slow pieces. The long stretches without a ton of shoddy CGI and simply Radcliffe, Watson and Grint acting in fascinating, real world locations. If there was ever a time to be impressed with their acting abilities, this would be it.

The supporting cast of well-knowns return and don't have a ton of screen time, but in his few scenes Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort gets to play a bit more than in the last two films and almost reminds me of his grand debut in part 4. Back when he was the character we heard about for three films and then finally get to see in all his horrific glory. Here we see a bit more of his true malice in some great quiet scenes. It really makes me long to see the final confrontation between him and Harry. Not so much the fight, but the lead up to the fight. Harry and the gang are really 90% of the picture. Granted they are always the mainstay of things, but this time there are less character additions or action fills. Harry doesn't have all the answers as usual, but this time I kind of... feel it. It doesn't feel like there's the magical safety net that there used to be and getting out and away from Hogwarts makes it far more atmospheric. The foggy woods mixed with Desplat's quiet score and the general tone Yates sets brings it all together.

So what holds it back from greatness? Honestly it's simple things... well mostly. For some reason they still don't spend either the right time or the right amount of money on their CGI. The Dobby stuff near the end looks pretty good, but quite a bit of the beginning CG appears very dated. Also for a time they pull the old 'let's talk about what we don't show' game. This works when you're trying to avoid hard violence or something along those lines, but they decide to tell us about two rather important characters demise instead of showing us the lead up and/or what happened. It's not as if these scene were horribly violent or prolonged, but visually something ought to be delivered. It's as if Sirius died and someone walks in, tells the group and they have a moment of silence. And finally Yates hasn't quite got the hang of action sequences. His love of wanting to stay on the actors faces is well and good, but a nice wide shot or a longer wide shot to really show off the scope and magnitude of the event would be great. All of those issues however, happen within the first twenty to forty minutes of the two and half hour picture. So there was a lot of making up for me to still be really impressed.

I'm happy to eat crow on this. I'm happy that this turned out to be a fun fantasy adventure that hits the right notes. I don't really feel like this had a climax, but it certainly ends at the right moments. I'm not talking like "Empire Strikes Back" right moments; where everything feels horrible and all hope could be lost one way or another. I'm not even talking about "The Dark Knight" finale where it's a 'happy' ending, but with a less than favorable outcome for the hero. It's more of a just the right moment kind of thing. Power and momentum have swung the other direction for the moment, but the battle is far from over. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a hit already no matter what. But at least with this installment I feel that it's earned it and it actually has me looking forward to it's conclusion next July.

Skyline review

In no way, shape or form is "Skyline" a good, decent, passable or even mediocre film. "Skyline" is utter piss from opening to closing. Word to the wise for anyone wanting make a film to 'stick it' to the studio system, try not to make a film far, far worst then they could. This was the plan set up by the Brother Strause; heads of the effects company Hy-dra-lux. They've worked on "Avatar" and the "Iron Man" movies, however we forget so did about a dozen other effects houses and more than likely better ones than theirs. The brothers Strause were also the duo behind "Aliens vs. Predators: Requiem" which managed to suck far more than Paul W.S. Anderson's PG-13 predecessor. At least with Anderson's you see the aliens and predators.

Plain and simple these guys have NO CLUE how to make a movie on any level expect put a bunch of highly unimpressive CGI effects into a city, add some sports cars and hots chicks and BAM instant hit. Again... this is why I can never hate Michael Bay. He can do a similar set up, but with better effects, hotter chicks and sports cars that get to perform on camera. Oh and his films tend to also be shot beautifully. "Skyline" effectively makes the real L.A. skyline look gloomy and dull. It's just a bunch of bright lights and buildings. There was nothing added to make us feel anything for what was about to happen to this city and this planet. No care or emotion or lead up. Nope, we just get 94 minutes of a bunch of self-important doucebags who wake up from a party to discover bright lights have landed all around the city and are sucking people up. Eric Balfour ('Texas Chainsaw Massacre'), Donald Faison ('Scrubs'), Brittany Daniels ('Joe Dirt') and Scottie Thompson ('NCIS') play the 'lovable' and 'interesting' group we follow throughout this event.

The one upside to them is they're not hate-able, just boring. About 85% of the film is them sitting in posh high rise apartments peaking through automatic blinds to see what's going on in the streets. After they get tired of that they talk or rather mash around their mouths and things that kind of sound like words come out. Oh and they smoosh up their faces sometimes too. I think they were trying to discover what emotion is. I could be wrong on that one though. Someone on set might have farted. What fills up the rest of "Skyline" is just shotty effects and technical work. Having just seen "Unstoppable" the day before, one thing that stood out was it's sound design. Trains are huge behemoths and they deliver sounds and metal crunching noises that make us believe that fully. We get a feeling of how dangerous these machines really are. In "Skyline" I couldn't tell you want the aliens or their ships sound like. They have a noise... but it's not distant and I get nothing from it.

The overall designs for the alien shit is just as bad. Basically they took elements from "Independence Day" and Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and smashed them together in as crude a way as possible. Their ship is a giant cluster of steel concealing a blue orb. The aliens themselves are a mix of the previous two films designs with a touch of "Dreamcatcher"; which is to say the aliens eat people using their giant teeth filled vagina mouths. Oh and they regenerate. Because that was really needed.

However the saddest moment of "Skyline" is within it's finale. At one point there is a perfectly fine moment to end this enormous piece of crap. It wouldn't have saved the movie, but it would've been more respectable and logical. NOPE! The brother Strause go for one last hooray within the alien ship. I won't tell you what happens except to say that they rip-off "District 9" in the dumbest goddamn way possible. And by doing that effectively lowered the film to the level of 'a sci-fi channel original movie'. "Skyline" is about two steps away from being on the same level as "Giant Boa vs. Giant Python 2". Congrats boys, in just two films you've nearly hit a directorial low that only likes of Uwe Boll and Ed Wood have achieved so quickly.

Unstoppable review

A long time ago I started realizing that certain studios were best at certain things. Others might be able to do those same things well, but there would always be the studios that did it best as a whole. Universal is a great house for science fiction and horror. Paramount used to be known for it's dramas and comedies... that has changed now I suppose. Now it's more big budget whatevers. Warner Brothers could pull off crime pictures like clockwork. Fox though was a tough one. Really their strongest suit in the old days was putting on nicely produced pieces of whatever was selling at the time. They could do a little of it all. After a while I did notice a few little things that stood out to me more and more. They could make common folk look awesome. For some reason there are a TON of films in which they make slightly more everyday people much more heroic. Cops, civilians, simple villagers, grunt workers etc. Sure it might be a bit of an odd thing to notice, but they did. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" actually helps revive that skill over at Fox.

First off I admit to a bias in enjoyed the vast majority of Tony Scott's films. I maintain that he is still one of the most impressive and enjoyable action directors working today and can more than hold his own in the over CGI-ed genre. But heading into "Unstoppable" I was actually expecting NOT to like it. I wasn't impressed by the trailer which depicted the movie as this massive series of overly emotional and big events, when really it's just one event. As I told a co-worker last weekend I don't think the whole kids on a train thing is a big part of the movie. I was right. It's really about three minutes of the movie... at the beginning. Instead it's one major issue and a fluid series of problems. There's an unmanned train gaining speed, carrying explosive chemicals that will at some point derail and potentially kill several thousand people. Whats to stop it? Two normal working joes.

Right there is where "Unstoppable" fully wins me. There's a lot about it I like and enjoy the shit out of, but the basic fact that we're dealing with realistic guys that at their most heroic are still grounded firmly in the real world, that's something I love to see in film. Sure we get a little bit of emotional and family schmaltz near the beginning when learning about Coulson (Chris Pine), but it's all needed for the bigger picture. This is taking a true story and sensationalizing it into a perilous, escapist thriller. And what would it be without heart? Or for that matter main characters risking their lives with nothing on the line.

Scott again teams up with Denzel Washington who plays Barnes, a train driver and veteran of this kind of work. He's smart and knows his stuff. Basically the kind of role Denzel can play like a fiddle. Pine's Coulson is the newbie, but not unskilled and very daring. Together it's a match made in qusi-realistic, badass heaven. Somewhere Charles Bronson and Walter Matthau are smiling. Rosario Dawson is also in there as Connie, the yard manager from which the train escapes from. Interestingly enough the way it happens in the movie IS the way it happened in real life as well. It's great seeing Dawson in any capacity, but seeing her hold down a role that would normally go to any number of male character actors and do it better than they would makes me a happy viewer.

Most of the film is spent looking at hulking, steel trains running at high speeds through small towns and country side. What Tony Scott and writer Mark Bomback do is explain more than enough of the world of trains to get us to understand why this is such a bad thing. Much like a semi truck trains don't stop on a dime... and neither do the cars it's carrying behind it. Something slightly more important however is the speed limits for certain sets of tracks. Which is to say if an elevated curve says limit 15mph then a train going 75mph just...might...have a problem. Scott makes this situation exciting and fun to watch unfold. His photography is great, Harry Gregson-Williams score is booming as loud as the trains, yet strangely works nicely together. And of course the stunt team pulls off some absolutely intense and fantastic work.

One reason I think I love Tony Scott's work so much is his lack of interest in doing things with CGI. He knows what it can do and why you can use it, but opts to actually derail and explode a train instead. Opts to use real stunt men and his actors running across moving trains rather than green screen it. That attention to detail and the moment makes him invaluable to the film industry.

Beyond that there isn't much left to say really. "Unstoppable" was promoted fucking horribly if you ask me, but it's a surprisingly fun ride. It's sort of a throwback in a way to the days of movies about common people being heroic in the face of peril. I know there's some other runaway train movies, however I can't think of a single one. Or the the last time one was made. It's not a hard movie and it's damn sure not a complex one which is probably why it's so fun. Today I watched and reviewing "Morning Glory" as well and my biggest gripe is that they wanted as much conflict as they could instead of just letting it come naturally from the characters in their current situation. "Unstoppable" wisely doesn't second or third guess itself like that. It's fluid and deals with it's main issue as a whole with no real added fillers.

Also HERE is a link to the real story for which the film is based on.

Morning Glory review

To say "Morning Glory" is lighthearted might be too soft. It's downright fluffy. It's also lopsided and very much a happy comfort food of a movie. But even with all that I did fairly enjoy it. Mainly because of Rachel McAdams. To say she saves the film is a bit of an understatement. She pulls off the goofy, workaholic, sweet thing perfectly. They want us to like her and we do. A lot of the supporting characters are good too; Harrison Ford as a former new anchor great, Diane Keaton as the anchorwoman stuck in a rut and Patrick Wilson as the nice guy Rachel gets with, but without her and her performance the film would fall completely flat.

McAdams plays Becky, an unemployed morning news producer from New Jersey that gets a bit of luck when an exec (Jeff Goldblum) offers her a job on their morning show. Becky is giddy and somewhat naive, but knows her job like the back of her hand. What stands in her way on the road to success however is the terrible work atmosphere on Day Break. Colleen Peck (Keaton) is a constant pessimist and most of the other crew have no reason to think any differently than she does. So in an effort to raise morale and ratings Becky pulls a wild card and convinces Mike Pomeroy (Ford), a Tom Brokaw like anchor to join their show. If Keaton's Colleen Peck was horrible, Pomeroy is easily twenty times harder to deal with. On the upside though Becky is slowly getting to know Adam (Wilson), another producer and things are looking good... if she can shut off her blackberry.

This would place us around the middle area of the film and really this was it at it's tip top. It was light, nice, funny and sweet. Pretty much what it aimed for. However then we get the same old song and dance that if ratings don't improve Day Break and your job are down the drain. Had "Morning Glory" decided against adding in more outside conflict and just allowed the film to play in the sandbox of the rough situation it would've been better. What somewhat saves this piece of the film (besides McAdams again) is the laughs during it. Simple things added that really, really work. Adam and Becky's relationship isn't the best in here either. Their flirtation is cute and somewhat humorous, but when they inject more conflicts into it... well... it just goes down the same old road we've seen in a million movies before it.

In a certain sense it's disappointing. "Morning Glory" has the potential to be a very smart and sweet and funny movie, but settles too easily and relays way too much on classic Hollywood set ups. Things were complicated enough in the movie and the addition of more problems just for the easily foreseeable and happy resolution kills the buzz from the first half. BUT... I can't say I didn't like it. Perhaps it because I don't see nearly as many of these films anymore or because I really like Rachel McAdams, but it doesn't suck. I wish it were better. I wish I could say it's a lighter version of "Network" or "Broadcast News"... but it's not that strong. "Morning Glory" simply works while Rachel McAdams works a lot harder.

Megamind review

Well the good news is that Dreamworks' "Megamind" isn't nearly as headache inducing as their "How to Train Your Dragon" and it's not as boring and dunderhead-ed as Universal's "Despicable Me". But it still doesn't quite hit the right notes. What it does accomplish is making a decent animated superhero adventure movie that's animated and designed quite nicely and flows along smoothly enough. It's failure is that NOTHING in it is funny. No one and nothing. It's not insanely unfunny either. It's basically a movie you can sit through with a straight face and not feel it one way or the other.

Will Ferrell voices the big, blue headed super villain Megamind; who is of course not such a bad guy in his heart of hearts. And in an extended cameo Brad Pitt voices the city's hero Metro Man, who is basically Superman. They have battles, monologues and so fourth, but after one battle it appears as if Megamind has won. So what will he do with the city? No clue. The point was the same of any super-people bout. Who wins isn't important, but the game is. Without a hero Megamind is bored. So was I kinda now that I think about it.

They fill out the cast with impressive talents including Tina Fey and Jonah Hill, but again none of these people do much in the way of laughs. No one has even one stand out line that makes things work above the basic levels of a film. BUT it's crafted nicely. At the end of the day that counts for something right? Dreamworks Animation has really taken a creative dive. For me they have at best four or five good or better movies and the rest are all disposable junk. Will they be forever #2 to Pixar? For the time being, yes. However Pixar is another company that I'm not too pleased with. I stand by almost everything I said about "Toy Story 3" in June, however after re-watching it I don't feel it's strengths are as high as they were on that first viewing. It seems after "Wall-E" (which I think is their best film) they went after the idea of tugging the shit out of people hearts to get what they wanted. Okay, that's all fine and good.

My issue is that with "Up" and "Toy Story 3" they try too hard and they're not as good at it was "Wall-E". For the time being it seems like Pixar has found the secret to award and audience success without being the best. Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and the animated film "The Secret of Kells" were both leagues better than "Up" and yet walked away penniless and without accolades. Apparently being different in that genre doesn't work so well anymore. Both Dreamworks and Pixar have the same problem, yet I know it's not soon to change completely. As it stands the animated film I enjoyed watching the most this year was Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole". Granted I passed on reviewing it (mainly because I waited over a month to see it), but it reminded me of the Don Bluth cartoon days. When it was okay to be a bit dark in these films and a bit more adventurous. At no point in 'LotG' do they attempt to make a bigger, more emotional film. It's pure, rich adventure. And it's something we DON'T see anymore.

I got WAY off track here, but honestly there isn't much to talk about involving "Megamind". It's trailers tell you the story top to bottom, left to right and with no surprises. The genre doesn't need more "Megamind". It doesn't need more overly emotional goo either. It needs something different and original. Something to stir things up. Boy I like dreaming.

Due Date review

Todd Phillips' "Due Date" isn't as good as "The Hangover". I wanted to get that out of the way since that's probably the biggest thought people might have. At the same time I don't think it aimed to be and I don't think it quite had the potential. The issue is that it's funny, but it doesn't always gel together right. That's what "The Hangover" really had going for it I think; it was cohesive and connected comedy throughout. "Due Date" is basically a simple road movie comedy where Peter (Robert Downey Jr.) and Ethan (Zach Galifianakis) travel across the country to L.A. so Peter can see his child be born and Ethan can meet an agent and begins his tv acting career. Plus Ethan is an idiot and Peter hates him for all the massive trouble he's giving him.

Basically it's "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", but rated R. Nothing wrong with that either. Movies have similar plots all the time, but as long was it's enjoyable then it's and mostly fresh then it's not ripping anything off. Peter is the straight man and despite that does manage to be just as stupid as Ethan some times. Mainly through his attitude towards people and it getting him into worse trouble then he already was in. And Ethan is simply a buffoon that falls into things, smokes too much pot and generally isn't fit to be in public without a leash. Ethan only gets worse as the trip continues which leads to hijackings, car crashes, broken bones and people getting shot. Some of the best stuff though comes from their later banter. Whether it's Peter laying into Ethan outside a hospital or them discussing Peter's wife and his friend Darryl's (Jamie Foxx) friendship; it's all quite funny.

Seeing the film with a big audience is also pretty fun because... well... it's a big and often lively audience. They can make funny stuff funnier and they can make not so funny stuff funnier. Entire sequences might have been drowned out due to laughter. And honestly that always a great time at the movies... unless the movie is shit... like "Grown Ups". Luckily it isn't. I mean despite them giving away a good number of funny jokes on the trailers, there is still a great deal to laugh at here. But it doesn't always come together right. Some gags just kind of fizzle about and aren't that impressive. There's also some pretty damn big logical lapses. Not a MAJOR issue, but to a point it feels like something more should've happened after the boarder patrol scene (one of the best parts in my opinion) and a few others. And then there seem to just be pieces to add insult to injury for the sake of a joke.

What's weird though is that despite that... a lot of those things are still at least kind of funny. Enough to be chuckle worthy. Usually when that point arises I'm exhausted from the humor and kind want out. Yet this comes to the edge and pulls back enough for me not to get too tired of it. I feel like with "The Hangover" Todd Phillips turned over a new leaf as a director. His style that he used in "Old School", "Starskey & Hutch" and the boring as hell "School for Scoundrels" was gone. He had tweaked it in just the right ways to make it flesh, a little darker photographically and storytelling wise making simple plot concepts and working around in them sandbox style. "Due Date" keeps that style alive and I'm sure next summers "The Hangover 2" will offer up some more of that. Despite it's flaws "Due Date" is really fun to watch and a good crowd-pleaser. If you need a simple comic pick me up or escape from your life for 90 minutes, this is certainly not a bad way to do it.

Hereafter review

Every Clint Eastwood film is a treat to me in some form or another. Even if the film isn't up to par with his better work, even if the film isn't even good... it still will have some quality to it that's impressive and different from the norm in that genre. "Hereafter" is very good, but isn't quite up there with great Eastwood; mainly because it the double edge sword of a story it has.

What I love about it's plot is that is follows three separate stories: a woman who has a near death experience (Cecile De' France), a psychic who left that world behind him to attempt a normal life (Matt Damon) and little boy whose twin brother was killed and has some serious questions about the afterlife. Each of these stories are made important and have strong emotional keys. It's rare for a film like this to keep those plates spinning consistently, but Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan get it done. France's character was a French news reporter who has seen the afterlife and is beginning to see visions from it. She can't shake these images and it's beginning to effect her work and even day to day life. Matt Damon's normality seeking psychic has to contend with his brother who wants him to go back to reading and start making the big bucks again. He hates his ability and wants nothing more then to put it behind him and meet someone. And the great lengths the young boy goes to for answers is astonishing and offers up a healthy bit of skepticism in religion and the afterlife.

The main flaw that arises however is that after a while... when those stories start coming together it gets a bit if-y. There was a story about producer Steven Spielberg saying the ending needed fixing because the film begins big (with a tsunami) and then ends small. He's right and while I don't think it kills the film by any measure and it's a pleasant conclusion, I do think it's an odd note to go out on. "Hereafter" is really a supernatural film for the skeptical. It offers both sides of the story and Morgan's beliefs on the whole thing. Although I am a bit fuzzy on if he believe all psychics are fake or that most are, but there are those rare people with an extra sense that we cannot explain. Then again that's not so much the big picture point.

"Hereafter" impresses the most though for one simple fact: it's a film not about death, but about life. The real point is how do you deal with loss and pain and keep moving forward. Most movies like this would run up the ghostly stuff as much as possible and really make that it's main focus, but again that power and intelligence of Eastwood helps move it into a more human and equally interesting area. This isn't a drama for everyone... there's a lot going on, a lot of strings and it doesn't move in a regular fashion; however that's why I liking it so much. "Hereafter" is a beautifully crafted piece of work that definitely deserves a viewing.