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.

Red review

There are two things that "Red" get 100% right. One is that they casted the film to perfection from top to bottom. This is a great bunch of performers that could have put on many, many things and instead decided to go for a fun genre piece instead. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a little bit admirable since a lot of them mainly do award made films. The second thing is that this is the closest I've come to liking a film by Robert Schwentke; he also directed "Flight Plan" (which I still hate) and last years "The Time Travelers Wife" (*snooze*). However "Red" still doesn't quite work.

The set up is quirky and fun enough. Willis is Frank Moses, a retired CIA agent who destroys his severance checks so he can talk to the rep in Kansas. Her name is Sarah (Mary Louise Parker) and they both seem to really enjoy each others distant company. All of a sudden however a hit squad comes after Moses in the middle of the night causing him to on the run across America. First to collect Sarah who he thinks is in danger and then to meet old allies to figure out what's going on. Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren play his old buddies and off they go on one last adventure. Now seriously with people like this... what fun couldn't be had here, right? Well in the right hands boat loads. It's old people shooting up the town six ways from Sunday and even some clever humor, but it never goes all the way.

As a comedy "Red" works for a while and then allows that aspect to take a backseat to it's pretty by the numbers plot and action sequences. As an action picture it does have moments of delight. Despite it's PG-13 rating I did like the way they blew up bodies and showed it using fire to mask the gore. At the same time there are several other set pieces that aren't particularly exciting or intense; just stuff happening with no real style or even full blown clarification for why it's going on. The big ending sequence in which the team has it (mostly) figured out who is behind all this and why starts off clever enough, but really just boils down to a basic stand off and with an ending we saw coming. Well... ok... we saw most everything in this movie coming, but still there are ways of making that road there very fun.

The real strength of the movie is the fact that it's got so many talented and interesting people in it. In addition to the others there is Karl Urban ('Star Trek'), Rebbecca Pigeon ('The Spanish Prisoner' or most David Mamet films), Ernest Borgnine ('Escape from New York'), James Remar ('The Warriors', 'The Fast and the Furious'), Jullian McMahon ('Nip/Tuck') and Richard Dreyfuss ('Jaws', 'W.'). All of which are given there little moments. But nothing is enough. When certain main characters die we don't really care except for the fact that the actor is no longer in the movie. We don't know or feel for most of these people and it's a bit of a shame. This is a similar problem I've had with the last couple of Harry Potter films. I've wanted to feel something during the big, emotional or even epic moments of the film, but I don't. I see great images and performances and decent effects (seriously they haven't been outstanding for a while), but no real feeling. Direction has A LOT to do with this.

With "Red" Robert Schwentke did go into a new genre for himself. In the beginning you could see his eye and his skill as he took a few plays from Fincher's old book. But as the movie progresses his creativity wares away. I'm thinking he's getting better so maybe by his next picture he'll have gotten the hang of things, but so far I'm not too impressed. I can't and won't call "Red" a bad film, but I'll call it weak all day long. It's a fun idea that isn't made as fun as it could be. In the right hands it could've been a funny and exciting dark action, comedy as the source material seems to imply. Oh well... better luck nice time I guess.

Jackass 3D review

Anyone who is even the slightest bit aware of what "Jackass" is ought to know well and good what a 3D made version of it would entail. Poop in 3D, penis' going random sometimes horrible things in 3D, absurd and painful stunts... in 3D. That's what it is like it or lump it. And how is it? The same as it ever was. If you enjoy their brand of low brow, but occasionally somewhat higher comedy then you'll love it just as much as their other pieces. If not, then you won't. Also if you don't enjoy their stuff seeing it really wouldn't make a lot of sense; especially in 3D with the added ticket price.

The added enjoyment of "Jackass 3D" really is the 3D. It's not always in your face, but when it is it can add to the laugh. If for anything then for the fact that you're about to witness something like a dildo fired from a cannon go right into your face. What can I say, sometimes we need that raw, gallows humor. Sometimes seeing a bunch of guys laugh as their friend willing gets his tooth pulled out by a speeding Lamborghini. Maybe the key to it all is the enjoyment and good sportsmanship we see from all of these guys. Perhaps it's similar to the concept of "Fight Club", in which for men to feel masculine they get into brutal fist fights, but never with emotion or disdain towards the other man. Simply to get that missing rush in life. There's always that friendship and respect despite everything. I suppose it would be different if after every time someone hit someone in the groin they would scream and yell and go into a full bizerker mode.

Most of all the stunt pieces and set up achieve their desired effect. They aim for a heavy degree of shock value, but also have some very clever public skits and pranks on one another that consistently work. There's no much more to be said then that really. I've seen it now in both 2D and 3D and found them both a lot of fun. If you've got the extra cash then by all means seeing it in 3D is a great way to go. If you don't then 2D is simply a really polished looking version of the same film. Either way "Jackass 3D" is fast, dirty and hilarious. If this is the final installment then the boys have gone out on quite a high note.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World review

What does it say when Sly Stallone can't take an entire cast of established hard-asses and make them seem heroic, cool, badass or for the villains menacing? What does it say when Edgar Wright can take a bunch of twenty-somethings, most from comedies or teen dramas and shoot them in the way an old school kung-fu filmmaking pro would lovingly display the skill and talent of his performers while making them interesting and giving them something to do? I suppose it says that Stallone took what could've been cheesy, B-action fun and turned into a cheap, boring piece of junk and Edgar Wright has actually set down and crafted a joyful, fun, exciting, funny and creative piece of work. "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" actually lives up and exceeds it's hype. No easy feet.

But amidst all the fight sequences it is at it's core a love story and for the film to work you must believe that Scott really cares about Ramona and that she's worth it. Often this is a highly contested point because not everyone sees romance and/or love in the same light. And in normal movie with characters similar to this it probably wouldn't work, but this is no normal romance nor is it a normal film. Everything is touched with a bit of the cartoonish and the stylized, much in tune with Edgar's style, but less British. So in this case I think the romance can work because it's world and people in it aren't serious. The reason "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" didn't work for me is because Cera and Dennings didn't seem to connect the way they ought to on screen. Their world was one that was based around music in that fairly pretentious way building up to seeing one fairly mediocre band at the end. Scott and Ramona's romance is centered around just how far he's willing/ how many punches does he wanna take for this girl, but one that he's obviously connecting with. In addition it's a celebration of music, video games, cinema and friends.

Michael Cera gets a lot of flack and I still wonder why. I suppose it was because he started pulling down a lot more roles and said things started coming along quicker with him playing the same type of character beat for beat. Some say he did the same here and I call bullshit on that. I've literally been watching this dude since "Arrested Development" as Jason Bateman's super socially awkward son George Michael; since then I do agree not much has changed in his characters. But with Scott Pilgrim it is something different. He's not that quiet little kid in the corner worried about every little thing and afraid to speak up; here he's talky, ready, somewhat awkward at times, but always on the move and always thinking fast. By the middle of the movie he's gone on to the no bullshit approach. I suppose by then he'd fought half the evil ex's so my guess is you too would have that particular mindset after all that. Mary Elizabeth Winstead ('Death Proof' and 'Live Free or Die Hard') is Ramona, the girl of Scott's dreams (literally and figuratively). Winstead is slowly picking and choosing roles that work for her and lack a lot of the 'look-at-me' presentation a lot of young stars aim for. I actually wouldn't mind her fully headlining a film to see how it works for her considering her body of work is quite good. As Ramona she's snarky, but not quite mean and she's caring in that qusi-hipster sense of caring. Again in this supped up world that dynamic works.

Then the film is filled with great supporting work by Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Chris Evans, Alison Pill, Anna Kendrick, Mark Webber, Brandon Routh and more. Each work effortlessly to be funny and interesting on screen. The fight scenes are done in that video game stylization that actually makes them more exciting because anything can happen as opposed to the regular fights in films. Stephen Chow's films like "Kung-fu Hustle" is good example of the type of fighting we have here. Furthermore it's actually good for a bunch of actors who have probably never fought on screen (Evans and Routh are the exceptions). They inject humor into the battles and a lot of creativity steaming for again video games, but also clever movie odes ('The Warriors' for example). Really with all of Edgar Wright's work you see his love of the arts. "Hot Fuzz" was his love letter to action films, "Shaun of the Dead" was his love letter to Romero zombie films and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is love letter to video games.

But this is all kind of bittersweet for me as I'm writing this after opening weekend where the film opened in fifth place. Granted I believe there was less prints released and people had faith in Sly and Julia to provide something they didn't. Plus the anti-Cera movement. Well I'll say here what I said on my twitter. If you went to see "Grown Ups" or "Macgruber" this summer and are not seeing "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", then you deserve a kick in the head. I actually feel like I could now elaborate this having seen the picture, but what's the point. If you all want to keep this blind hope alive that "The Expendables" was actually fun, instead a boring compilation of bad action mixed with bad writing and directing be my guest. However at least give this a shot in the dark. People complain about the lack of creativity and originality in movies today, well here you go! You finally have a great and original film out there and you STILL WON'T SEE IT. This is why there's so many remakes and reboots. Get a clue people.

The Other Guys review

Odd as it seems "The Other Guys" isn't an easy movie for me to write about. Probably because it's filled with loads of disjointed lunacy and allows it's strangely "smarter" (which is to say complicated) crime plot to play second or even third fiddle. Then again this is something that we've all come to expect from Will Ferrall and co-writer/director Adam McKay's pictures together. This is the pairs fourth film and surprisingly one I've enjoyed more than their last too.

I'll never forget seeing "Anchorman" in theaters (this was before it got huge and was over quoted and ran into the ground). I saw it on a whim to kill some time on the weekend and hadn't really been all that impressed with the trailers. Still word of mouth had been good and it was being pushed like crazy on television as well as every damn movie I had seen that summer had a trailer for it attached. So I watched it and absolutely went nuts for it. It was completely devoid of what most comedies have... you know... that narrow path of sense and senselessness. Well this was all senselessness, but creative. It would become the duo's style of storytelling and film making. Next they had "Talladegga Nights" which left me pretty damn disappointed. I know people LOVE the film to death, but it was too one sided for me. The first half is as great as comedy can be, while the second half is dull and fairly uninteresting. Regardless it blew up like a nuclear bomb and is I think their best success to date. Then they went R-rated with "Step Brothers". This one I had to sit on. I found many parts funny, but SO many parts completely and utterly stupid, almost to the point of it being too stupid. However I'll say the extended cut works a good deal better for me and while it's FAR from being a great comedy, it does work well enough.

Ok fucking history lesson over; now to "The Other Guys". I had a friend see it earlier yesterday and we discussed it before I went to watch it. For her it was much like my feelings on "Talladegga Nights". There were parts early on she really dug, but as it dragged on she seemed to lose interest. She's not wrong either, it is a bit lopsided. However why "The Other Guys" works for me is the little things. First off we all know that Will Ferrell is going to say something completely out of the blue, outlandish and fucking stupid that will make 8 out of 10 people in the audience laugh. That well sort of ran dry for me two movies ago. So instead of working quite like that, he dials it down a few notches. This allows for him to be funny in slightly more conventional ways, but also for different gags to play out. He does still make those comments and yes some are fucking stupid and unfunny, BUT there are a select few that really work.

Another reason is this cast. I love, love, love this cast far more than I thought I'd might. No one feels underused or overused. In general Mark Walhberg is a funny guy, here he gets to really show off. It's not all punchline humor, it's not all improv, or situational; it's like a bastard mix of them all. He plays the angry cop. The one who hates being partnered with Ferrell who never wants to leave his desk and hates being mocked for wanting to do the right thing. Michael Keaton plays their captain and effectively steals a few scenes from the other actors. There is a particular gag that runs throughout with him that I really enjoy. You'll see. Then you have Eva Mendas playing the perfect wife that gets neglected, Steve Coogan and Ray Stevenson as our 'villains', Ice-T narrating and of course a gloriously over the top series of action sequences with Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson as hero cops. The more I think about just their sequences the more I actually want to see it all again.

As an action film it's not unskilled either. DP Oliver Wood ("The Bourne Identity") knows clever ways of shooting action that doesn't make it amazing looking, but is cool and effective. I've noted several times that it seems harder for comedy directors to switch to action then it is the other way around. I guess I'm still waiting for that action comedy that looks like Michael Bay directed it, but sounds like Mel Brooks wrote it. Hey, I can dream. And yet with all this I can still see why "The Other Guys" just might not mesh with everybody.

It's not a film to convert non-Ferrell fans or people are aren't fans of their style. And yes the second half of the movie strays a little bit from the humor it had to slightly more physical humor and jokes at the expense of the action. That can make a movie feel really lopsided switching gears as quickly as they did. A good example is "The Condemned"... (you know the one with Steve Austin and the convicts on an island fighting to the death and it being broadcast on pay per view... ). The first half is a fun, hard knocking action picture that actually works well. Then the second half of the movie starts steering towards this anti-violence message drama to the media that culminates in a sequence that almost kills all the fun you had in the prior 80 minutes. "The Other Guys" switch isn't nearly that damning, but it can and probably will lose some people with it.

When it's all said and done I found it fun and funny and easily the most successful action, comedy to come out this year. I had a strange comparison last night to "The Other Guys" with Kevin Smith's pretty damn bad "Cop Out" from earlier this year. The films have a very similar tone and qusi-similar style and humor, but "The Other Guys" is basically what "Cop Out" would've been in any of their jokes worked. Although I hear being in the right... how shall I say it... 'mindset' while watching "Cop Out" makes it all work. I question that and think I'll stick with this one that already works on its own.

Dinner for Schmucks review

What makes Jay Roach's remake "Dinner for Schmucks" work is what could and has killed other comedies. The movie was unhinged almost from square one and that's something more so reserved for smaller comedies from the independent market. Now it's not full blown and all the way out there, but it's pretty damn near it. The result is a surprisingly very funny picture that mixes mainstream punchline humor, mild slap stick and situational humor in a way that works and doesn't quite tire you out.

Now all this said Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd have played these characters before. They're great at playing people like this, however it's all slightly tilted. Carrell's Barry could be compared with Brick from "Anchorman" mixed with Michael Scott from "The Office". By the way this isn't leading to a backhanded insult, that mixture is oddly fantastic and takes what could've been a pretty one note character that's hit or miss with laughs and actually makes him constantly quite funny. In Roger Ebert's review he made a great point in stating that it's funnier when someone generally doesn't know they are doing something ridiculous and is thus quite serious about it. He's 100% correct. Rudd's character Tim is much like his character in "I Love You, Man", which I'm alone in thinking was just ok apparently. Rudd is a great cynic and his Tim keeps that streak alive. He's much more of the straight man than usual though so expect more laughs at his expense then at his actions.

The strongest piece of the puzzle though is the supporting cast which is loaded with talent across the board. From the office workers and bosses like Bruce Greenwood, Ron Livingston and Kristen Schaal to the various other schmucks like Zack Galifianakis, Lucy Punch and Jemaine Clement; they all get more than enough space to dig in and have their moments of glory. In fact it feels rare to see a mainstream comedy like this really giving out it's space to just about everybody in the film. It reminds me kind of like the heyday of action-comedies where you had your two leads and then you got the full experience of meeting all the crazy people along their adventure. Hopefully "The Other Guys" will have a little of that in it.

Really the only thing that holds "Dinner for Schmucks" back is it's run time and it's tie-it-all up ending. The ending was an issue I kind of had with "Role Models" as well where I felt like things are ended up very unrealistically clean. However that was a small dent in what was otherwise extremely funny and entertaining. The run time is just a touch longer than it ought to be though. If the film had crossed the two hour mark then I think it might not have fared quite so well overall, much like a lot of Broken Lizard's films. As the film stands there's far more action taking place in a short period of time then I expected which gets a little exhausting at times, but once the dinner kicks off we get a nice mixture of different characters and different humors so we're not bombarded with the same things over and over again. I've gotta say while Jay Roach's last couple of directorial efforts left me cold ("Meet the Fockers" and "Austin Powers in Goldmember"), especially considering his work of the prior films in those series'; "Dinner for Schmucks" more than makes up for those missteps and is one of the few impressive and highly entertaining comedies I've seen this summer.

Despicable Me review

If Pixar and "Toy Story 3" told of what is all right in the world of animated films, then "Despicable Me" tells heavily of what's wrong. Yes, much like my unpopular opinion of this springs big hit "How to Train Your Dragon", I just don't get the greatness that's supposed to be found in "Despicable Me". I get the references and the point of the story... but I don't see what's supposed to be so great about it all. Perhaps if the movie went as far as to give us something that was... oh say... original feeling, then maybe I'd be on board.

Basically the film is as the trailer dictated. Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is a super villain who has been out matched by Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). This starts a rivalry between the two that ultimately leads to Gru adopting three young girls so that they can sneak into Vector's fortress and steal a shrink ray which will allow him to commit the crime of the century; which is stealing the moon. And as mildly complex at that might sound, it's really not. In fact it's so incredibly simple minded that at one point I forgot it entirely and felt the film was designed for the sole purpose of making an over the top villain have to take care of kids. In my mind that's about as awesome as action heroes taking care of kids ('The Spy Next Door', 'Race to Witch Mountain', 'The Pacifier', 'Kindergarten Cop' etc).

Now much like in 'How to Train Your Dragon', our lead (in this case Carrell) offers up a voice that after about forty minutes or so will have officially gotten on your last nerve. Basically Gru is something of a Russian or German or general Europe type and Carrell's voice acting chops wavers throughout. Sometimes it's meshes together alright and sometimes it's like he's speaking normally, but very slowly. Regardless of that it's still an annoying ass accent. Segel's isn't much better as his tries his hardest to sound dastardly. All the while his character Vector simply does mildly smirk inspiring things like dispatching attack sharks on Gru by dragging his butt across a computer board. Splendid.

I can say however that I don't think this is quite as horrible as I expected. Honestly I've been dreading this movie all summer. None of the trailers interested me in the slightest and after a while of hearing the snazzy one line the world loves ('it's so fluffy, I gonna die!') about fifty thousand times I was pretty dead set against it. But it's not totally bad, just really lame. In fact while watching it myself and my friends noted the similarities to the animated adventure, comedy "Hoodwinked"; both through substance and animation style. Oh and they're both super lame. One thing I remember about "Hoodwinked" specifically was that it was ugly as far as CGI animation goes. Obviously it was made much cheaper than most, but the characters looked oddly shaped and almost so cartoonish that it was a turn off. The lighting was always really wonky in which it would range from awkwardly lit in the house to this blue night which made it's characters look slightly crappier. With "Despicable Me" it all seemed like it was one tier up. The designs were better, the lighting was better, the storytelling was... about the same and the character movements were just as stiff as before. I should say that I don't know if it's the same team, but there are many connections that could be made. Some of the jokes are fairly clever due to the timing of the actors and sometimes of the images like in the case of the sight gags. But it's never anything to write home about.

Yes... that's the phrase I want to use. It's nothing to write home about. The world is that of Roger Moore- James Bond movies and not in the cool way like 'The Incredibles'. It's a world of general cartoonishness, but with less interested writers. They never go full 'Shrek' sequel and just start pumping out pop culture references for laughs, but it'll play tricks like it. It'll somewhat be touching and somewhat be clever, but none of these things ever hit their marks. It's simply a safe and easy going animated feature that brings nothing new to the table. I maintain what I said about animated films in the spring, in that so many of them play by the same rules. I'd love to see some more animated films that attempted something more creative or more clever. I have hope for projects like Gore Verbinski's "Rango" (in glorious 2D) which he explained awesomely and I'm interested to see what Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians" will be like. I feel like there's a push to just give out the most generalist animated pictures and maybe if a couple of more experimental or stronger written ones come along and spice the field up, that it could create a change in the flow of things and maybe we'll end up seeing some more impressive animation features coming out way.

Grown Ups review

So I thought back in late May/early June that I'd probably found the worst movie 2010 with "Sex and the City 2". I figured while I might find some stuff that is so powerfully unfunny and rancid that NOTHING else I would see this year could possibly compare. And then I sat through 102 minutes of "Grown Ups" and found a worthy opponent for the two and half hour epic of incomprehensible sewer gunk.

"Grown Ups" is just what it's advertised as. It's Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider acting like they think kids are supposed to act when around one another. What's worst is they bring in smarter people like Salma Hayek, Maria Bello and Maya Rudolph and make them act they way they think kids think women should act. And before I fucking deliver this piece of crap the knee in the groin it deserves lets go through some of the less painful portion of the movie. If there's one thing they get right it's eye candy. If you blank out the words some of these women have to say and just sit back and look at them then hallelujah, you've just seen this movie best way possible. Most of these women have had killer roles where they were convincingly smart, sexy, crazy, FUNNY... and all that is lost in this picture by reducing them to the lamest of the lame jokes involving farting, role reversal and breast milk. One day I hope to see these women in a film again together and God willing doing the work they deserve to be doing.

Ok with that said everything else in this entire movie is utter shit. It's like a shit sundae with extra peanuts. None of the jokes or sight gags or anything works on even the basic, making you smile level. Sandler pulls the hat trick by starring, co-writing and producing this utter trash and given his really impressive and really self-deprecating work in Judd Apatow's "Funny People" you might think he would've used just a single shred of that to make something in "Grown Ups" likable. Furthermore his character has nothing to do, but attempt to not get made fun of because he's a super successful Hollywood agent with his fashion designer wife and nanny. Kevin James is basically here to be made fun off because he's fat. So they run through the book of fat guy jokes and then when they're done they run it through again just in case you missed one. Because remember everybody... Kevin James=FAT. Then we have Rob Schneider who's been married three times, has two humorously beautiful daughters that look nothing like him and one ugly one that does. HAHA... he's ugly and so is she. FUNNY! Oh and he's now married to a woman around the age of 60. HAHA... he's fuckin' an old lady. FUNNY! And last, but not least David Spade and Chris Rock. You know... these two kind of get a pass because they barely have any lines. Spade is a lonely horn dog and Rock is Mr. Mom, but only a few jokes get thrown their way so it's almost like they were called in to fill out the poster.

There's no point to "Grown Ups". The movie is undeniably an excuse for these guys to hang out and make some money. Okay, I'm cool with that. But what they've actually managed to make other shit comedies they've been in ('I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry', 'Pootie Tang', 'Benchwarmers', 'Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star', 'Click', any movie that Schneider was the main character in) pale in comparison. Why make something so apologetically stupid?! Granted I don't walk into 95% of Adam Sandler movies looking for something great, but at the least sometimes he's funny. In no way shape or form is any of this movie even close to being funny. But hey that doesn't matter because the audience for this will eat it up and think it's great. They'll repeat it's God awful, disjointed one liners till they're blue in the face and there's nothing anyone can say to stop it.

But with all this out in the open... is it worst than "Sex and the City 2"? As for viewing experiences I can say they're both unwatchable and soul crushing, but surely one most be more distasteful. I'm getting close to thinking it's worst than "Macgruber"... but Satc2 is another monster entirely. There was a movie that fully embraced ignorance and intolerance for other peoples religion and customs because they just didn't like it. I guess "Grown Ups" was too busy smashing David Spade's face in a large pile of poop to think about being offensive AND being unfunny. That's a lot to take on in a helium headed picture, right?

Marmaduke review

"Marmaduke" is something that was probably set up to be made somewhere within the 90's and got lost in the shuffle of bland ideas with lamer than lame jokes. With a host of bizarre things in this movie however the biggest oddity is the quite talented cast involved.

After watching the film in it's entirety it's hard to imagine most of these people reading this script beforehand and thinking 'yeah... this is a great movie to be a part of'. My guess is that a nice sized pay check came paper clipped on top and that was all these people really looked at.

Basically the story of "Marmaduke" is that of an 80's high school movie... wait... no. It's like a 90's high school movie that thinks those movies from the 80's high school movies were so super cool that it wants to have that same vibe. Only with dogs. Owen Wilson voices Marmaduke, a two hundred pound teenage dog who moves from Kansas with his family to Orange County California. Basically it's everything you've ever seen with human teens and high school cliches, bullies and set ups... but with dogs. There is dog romance, dog dancing, dog DDR, dog partying, dog surfing even dog white water rafting without rafts. All done with creepy and fairly annoying CGI mouth work.

Now lets talk some more about this cast, shall we? In addition to Wilson, we have Emma Stone ('Zombieland'), Sam Elliot ('The Big Lebowski'), Fergie (singer... you know who I'm talking about), Keifer Sutherland ('24'), Damon and Marlon Waynes, Lee Pace ('Pushing Up Daisies'), Judy Greer ('Arrested Development'), Steve Coogan ('Tropic Thunder'), Christopher Mintz-Plasse ('Superbad') and William H. Macy (far too many fantastic films to name). Oh and George Lopez, which is the only non-surprising name in the bunch. He probably offers up the biggest reason to never (even for the sake of laughing AT the film) watch this. He voices Carlos, Marmaduke's cat friend. What the writers or Lopez himself have done is made sure that everybody and their mama knows the character is Latino, by stereotyping the hell out of everything he says. His character alone dances on the line of annoying stereotype and being out and out racist.

Also there's a sequence in which basically Marmaduke pretends to be racist against cats so the 'cool' dogs will like him. And yes I'm aware of what they were aiming for with that segment, but at the end of the days that's what it is. Moving on from that though is just tons and tons of awful things to look at and really weird things to think about. Like how can dogs string up lights and hook up DJ equipment in a house? And why after the house is trashed to almost cartoonish fashion do the owners not think that they had a break in and someone wrecked the place? OH NO it's just our giant retarded dog! That's why there's random ass turntables and what not crunches on the Ikea rug. What happens after the doggy date in the junkyard with the girl dog Jezebel? And why is William H. Macy so freaking creepy in this film? So much to ponder.

I do seriously wonder though why any execs thought this movie was a great idea. Then again while watching the trailers for "Smurfs" and "Gulliver's Travels" with Jack Black I wondered the same thing. Unless both films hide some great, lovable magic that comes through only while watching the film (not impossible, but I highly doubt it). But why create this movie? As crappy as all this was at least as a full ANIMATED movie I could have seen some of this junk maybe... SORT OF working a little better or at least not being so weird. I could live with Lee Pace's character fucking falling every time he ran in the animated world because perhaps it would be some sort reoccurring joke that he mentions later. Actually... scratch that; that would imply that the writers would have had some idea of what humor is. It probably wouldn't matter what medium "Marmaduke" was in because it'll still be unfunny, witless and annoying.

Toy Story 3 review

I've waited since Thursday night to write this up. It's taken so long simply because I wasn't FULLY sure how I felt about the film. Granted to did really like it, in fact if anyone didn't like it then I'd think they lacked a heart. However I wasn't 100% sure how I felt about the film as a whole. I looked at different pieces as something all their own, but the big picture wasn't quite visible to me. After much thought and re-watching key sequences (including the ending with nearly "Terminator 2" level intensity) I've concluded that this is A: the best film of the summer thus far, B: one of the best films of the year and C: the best film in the trilogy.

As for the Pixar lineup I'd say it's somewhere under "Wall-E" and "The Incredibles". On a technically level this is beautiful and from a storytelling perspective it's smart, somewhat tipsy in the middle but has a final act packed with intensity and emotion. You all know the story, Andy getting ready to head off to college and his toy's getting donated to Sunnyside Daycare only to discover that their new home isn't as friendly as they thought. So the crew must go all 'Great Escape' on these goons and get back home. However it won't be easy. Woody's dead set on everyone simply returning home and being there for Andy no matter what, whereas Buzz and the others truly believe that it's time to move on and have new owners. These differing mind sets is where 90% of the emotion with the rest coming from that last bit of hardcore peril the toys must face.

We gets lots of great new characters including Ken and Barbie, the evil Lotso and the creepy Big Baby. Despite it's G-rating 'Toy Story 3' plays in the darker side of things quite a bit. Sure there's that frolicking good, bright fun we see in all their films, but there's also a heavy amount of darker toned sequences, jokes and general style. Those things really make the film stand out and adds something fresh.

It's funny seeing how fantastic a picture "Toy Story 3" is compared to the dozens of animated films that have come out this year already and were simply cookie cutter tales with rehashed jokes that don't work. Here is a well written conclusion to a story began in 1995, that's still funny and charming and witty. Here's a film that doesn't need bottom feeder jokes to get you laughing. Really there's not a lot else to say about "Toy Story 3". I was surprised at how good it was and how strong it gets, but not surprised that Pixar could pull off something this impressive for their only real franchise piece. I can't swear that we'll NEVER see Woody or Andy again. I don't really think it's something necessary, but I wouldn't be against it either. Let's just say out of everything in theaters now THIS is the best you can see.

Get Him to the Greek review

Movie spin-offs work about as often as television spin-offs. As great as the people in and behind them are usually they just don't work out the way they're supposed to. A lot of times it's due to the massive lack of effort put fourth by the creators because they feel like they've got their fan basis so what does it matter. Other times it's just things not clinging together well. Fortunately "Get Him to the Greek" aka Aldous Snow from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" gets his own movie is part of the few spin-offs that does work well. I'll say it's not as good as it's leaping point film, but they aren't the same types of comedies either.

A big part of why "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was so good was because it was first and foremost a romantic comedy that was both sweet and nastily funny. It attempted to lampoon everything about celebrity and celebrity relationships while still creating an ensemble group of memorable characters that tired to deal with the situation in a fairly realistic manner. "Get Him to the Greek" at it's core like a rock n roll excess film in which Jonah Hill's Aaron Green character must go through hell and back in transport his idol Aldous Snow to the Greek theater in L.A. for an anniversary concert which could easily revive his fading career. We get to learn a lot about Aldous' music, family, relationships and lifestyle which leads to scenes of utter and out of control hilarity and surprising moments of conviction in which he discusses his long spanning trouble with drugs. What's more interesting is when they attempt to blur those two things and try both in the same scene. It's kind of half and half.

I've read about a half a dozen reviews for the film and one thing I keep noticing is that people have been picking out who makes the movie. That's something I highly disagree with because like in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' I felt ALL the characters help shape the picture. Hill plays (for a change) the straight man and actually manages to kill it and at times out shine Brand who works hard to be the center of funny. I'm not saying Russell Brand isn't funny (cause he damn sure is), but there's a lot of sharing going around with the others performers. I will also say that indeed Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs does steal a number of scenes. As a music and business mogul I don't care for him, but as an actor... I've got to say he's impressed me. Between this, "Monster's Ball" and the remake of "A Raisin in the Sun", Diddy's got range. Elisabeth Moss as Hill's doctor girlfriend is the un-sung hero I feel. She works hard to be a likable, sweet and kind of realistic character in Aaron's now maddening world of rock excess that he's trying to escape. And finally Rose Byrne who I don't think I've ever seen in a comedy, plays Snow's former girlfriend (or wife, I'm not entirely sure) model and singer Jackie Q. You might remember Byrne from a number of dramas including FX's "Damages", "Wicker Park" and "28 Weeks Later". It's great seeing her cut loose a bit and doing something very much unlike her normal fair and as it turns out she's fucking great at lampooning atypical posh, UK female musicians.

I have to say between this and "Splice" the weekend of June 4th has been pretty damn good. Writer-director Nicolas Stroller is one of the few Apatow backed directors that appears to have a greater sense of style about him, that could and probably will carry him much further. It certainly takes the film further and creates something great to look at even when a few of the jokes don't fly as well. The songs and the writing are still fantastic here and this cast is pitch perfect to every scene. Really with all the shit comedies out right now (looking at you 'Macgruber' and 'Sex and the City 2') here is finally a one that lives up to it's potential and provides numerous tear inducing scenes of hilarity in a great looking package. Perhaps finally the summer season is churning out something better than what we've been seeing.

Sex and the City 2 review

As we return to the world of "Sex and the City", the highly successful book series, television series and now film series I'd like to note that yes as a young male this film is NOT geared towards me or my demographic. I'd also like to comment that I have watched various episodes of the show and did in fact watch and review the first film so I'm not unknown to this world and these characters. With the first film we leaped into the life of Carrie Bradshaw and and her gal pals as they bitched over a span of two years about the problems they were having with the men in their lives until they all finally pretty much realize that several of the issues were caused by themselves and their neglect, ignorance or idiocy. After resolving all their past issues (which were boring and pretty damn nonsensical) Carrie and "Mr. Big" get married and that was that.

So now we meet the girls again two and half years later for "Sex and the City 2" where Carrie and Big's marriage has lost it's spark. All he wants to do is sit at home and watch black and white movies while bathing in Old Spice and all she wants to do is to graze out under the stars every night. Samantha Jones aka Skank-o-tron 1000 is in full swing popping two fists full of pills to keep from looking like the Crypt keeper while still managing to go about the planet fucking anything that moves. (thanks Dennis Hopper, we'll miss ya) Charlotte is having a break down because she can't get control of her possibly retarded children that either continuously cry or fight tooth and nail to get some of mommy's precious attention. And then there's Miranda the walking corpse, whose googly-wide eyes, bleached white skin, flaming red slicked back hair and tiny Irish teeth could scare anyone better than the best Hollywood effects artist creation. Oh... yeah she's supposed to have a problem right? Hold on.... oh yeah, her male boss didn't like her cause she was a woman and all so she quit and started working with a bunch of happy hippie lawyers and then she was happy again. Spoiler alert.

But let's hop into the real meat of this film. Here is Michael Patrick King's second 'SitC' picture that is just as painfully long (146 minutes, longer than "Robin Hood") as the first film, but manages to be unfunny, borderline disgusting and yes pretty racist and insensitive. While I'm not going into this looking for well written humor (actually I'm going in to make up the humor with my friends, mission accomplished by the way), I would expect something clever or witty to slip out of one of these walking 'What Not to Where' promos. Instead we're treated to some of the out and out lamest ass jokes you could hear in modern cinema. I mean just hand in your face lame. The opening sequence which was a gay wedding decided to go as over the top as they probably could until they send it ONE STEP FURTHER by having the God of the gay men Liza Minelli sing a Beyonce song. That was the first scene in which I had my head in my hands... the first of many.

As we continue into that slow, steady descent into shitsville we head around the world to Abu Dhabi where the girls are on a free vacation of complete and utter vomit inducing decadence. I mean the fucking money these wee-brains spent while on this trip would really make you a bit sick to your stomach. At one point Carrie's hotel shadow aka paid slave tells her about how his wife lives in India and every three months they have enough money to see one another. After telling this to her friends the next morning over an elongated table filled with food, they quickly suggest going on a desert trek and picnic. I could only think about how everything on that table was probably a year of that guy's salary. But seriously what do they care? They've got their own problems like if Charlotte's smiling tub a goo husband is going to cheat on her with her large chested and bra-less Irish nanny. No readers this lovely lass says no, no, no to the shackles of the modern world of female undergarments and thus lets it all swing-a-ding loose. But hell at least she's good with the kids unlike their actual mother.

Honestly it's rare to see a two and half hour film completely filled with nonsensical bullshit. Not even the dreadful "Twilight" movies go as far as to make me just feel depressed watching it. While in the middle east they figure, hey this is the NEW middle east; a world without war, oppression or a super conservative moral code, religious belief system and law structure towards open sexuality so why not just grab on to a dude's erect cock at the hookah table?! This then brings about more sequences of ill done humor and general offensive bad taste. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for offending people but only when it's done for a point. Here, no point... just a bunch of bullshit to get horny older women and impressionable younger women laughing and mildly aroused.

Seriously though this film actually manages that moment where the film hits rock bottom. I've only witnessed this in a few pictures; not all terrible movies have a moments of complete and utter shit where the house of cards comes crashing down and all that is left is a horrible image on screen you'll remember for as long as you see movies. For "Sex and the City 2" it would be Kim Cattrall in the middle of an Abu-Dhabi market air humping in a linebacker like fury while swinging around a sheet of condoms and tossing out the finger like high fives after a Panthers game (ra-Oww!). This then leads to a scene that is equally as ridiculous and idiotic, but without that furious botox rage face and protruding Hulk veins. Really this is a horrible movie and as it stands the worst film of the year. The only plus side to the film is as a cinematic experience it was far funnier than watching "Macgruber".

Shrek Forever After review

Is "Shrek Forever After" aka The Final Chapter the grand send off for the major animated franchise of the past decade? I'm hoping it is. While this newest installment is nowhere as bleeding tear boring as "Shrek the Third", it still doesn't live up to the glowing originality, humor, wit and intelligence of the first two. This time around the basic construct of Shrek is that of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Shrek is never born after he gets all bitchy for not feeling like a 'real ogre' anymore. The subtle point at the end being that parenthood ain't easy, but always be thankful for what you've got.

So he signs a contract with Rumpelstiltskin who in turn plays the trading game where Shrek will get his one day of being a feared ogre again for a day he doesn't remember, that ended up being his birth. Awwwww snap, the playa got played! This then takes us down remake road where Shrek has to do basically the same things he did in the first film just with less death and depth. The only way to break the contract is for true loves kiss so he has to find the now warrior queen Fiona and get her to fall in love with him again and along with way re-friend the loud mouthed and only slightly humorous Donkey and the now retired and overweight Puss who isn't bringing in the laughs either, but he's doing a better job than the others. Oh and he has to defeat a small man with a big ego. Ah memories.

Ok, but seriously I don't hate this film. In fact I don't really dislike it, but it doesn't do anything for me. "Shrek Forever After" is 100% forgettable. Like "The Rocker"! You watch it, you shrug it off then you eat and go about the rest of your day. Nothing in this film is funny, but nothing is so blatantly unfunny as to make me hate it. Thus I'm not having to re-watch "How to Train Your Dragon" which is a film that I STILL go over and think of just how annoying and headache inducing those terrible jokes were and how tired I am of the overly cartoony and uninspired designs being used in a lot of these movies. Oh and don't get me started on Baruchel's fucking voice. Instead this final chapter plays is safe and does things that work to move along the fairly weak little story while not carrying on too long or throwing in too much.

I will say that the multitude of pop culture song uses have worn out their welcome and at this point it's like watching an episode of "Cold Case" and seeing what oldie they've got headlining this weeks episode. So what comes next in the animated world? I have zero interest in Universal's "Despicable Me", which MIGHT have been just a mediocre idea until they decided to turn it into complete junk by giving him kids to take care of. There's "Toy Story 3" of course which will probably be alright as most Pixar movies are, but I doubt it'll send us forward in anyway. And then to round out the ones being pushed now and that HAVE a chance to be something (that's right "Alpha and Omega", you look like shit, sound like shit and probably are shit) is "Megamind" which is basically a lot like the plot of "Despicable Me", but without kids and with a better cast including Brad Pitt. In anycase I don't feel like any of these will recapture that special something the first "Shrek" had. That certain kick that the animation world needed where they didn't think kids just wanted pop culture references and silly jokes, but that they could understand at least some form of satire and parody.

MacGruber review

You know I talked a lot of shit about "MacGruber" before it's release, but there was heavy praise from critics as well as from advanced viewers I started thinking that despite the lackluster trailers and my general lack of love for comedian Will Forte and this SNL skit that I could be quite surprised and delighted in the glorious R-rated humor and excitement of all that is "MacGruber". And you know what? It didn't happen. Not for one second of this steaming pile of fecal matter did I feel like I was enjoying myself. So to the critic whom stated "The Best SNL Movie since "Wayne's World", you sir or madam are an idiot.

To summarize MacGruber is an idiotic former Marine who can basically do what MacGyver did on tv and also tends to dress and carry himself in a similar manner by keeping a 1980s mindset while in the modern world. On the other hand he also fucks everything up as constantly as possible while [SPOILER ALERT] still defeating the bad guy played by Val Kilmer [END] who killed his wife and has now stolen a nuclear warhead that he plans to blow up Washington D.C. with. I wanna first deal with why this sucks quite as much balls as it does. On the surface one could simply call the movie boring and forgettable because honestly it is but certain things have an ability to work. Kristen Wiig who plays MacGruber's love interest and partner Vicki St. Elmo is never really let to have too much fun, because she's forced to play straight-ish second fiddle to whatever bullshit Forte does. But there are one of two moments for her that really work. Both Kilmer and Powers Boothe (who plays Col. Faith) could sell just about anything on their worst day and here they try to make the most of what they've got. And Ryan Phillippe, God bless him even pulls off the dumbest of moments kind of well. The major huge annoyance of the movie is sadly enough star and co-writer Will Forte.

Basically the man jumps around, tries to impersonate action heroes and makes really, really, REALLY bad jokes the entire film. The only scene that works for him his a sex scene between him and St. Elmo and even that is made better due to it's editing. Beyond that he's just on one long ass running joke that no one finds funny except maybe himself. And I'm not saying this because I'm not a fan of the dude. He's no Ashton Kutcher to where I cringe even at the thought of him getting another movie, I just don't think he's that funny most of the time. He's like David Spade, with the right people around him and the right writing he can be pretty damn ok, but without it he sucks the big one.

The film is actually quite comparable with another powerfully weak action, comedy for this year, Kevin Smith's "Cop Out". And while both films work to try and kill the genre by created some really, really lame ass low brow jokes that never ever work, I can at least say SOME of "MacGruber" has action scenes that look nice. Mainly the opening scene which involves little to no action, but it's shot damn well after a bloody ambush had taken place in the desert. "MacGruber" is directed and co-written by Jorma Taccone, one of the members of The Lonely Island, which for my money has big hits and nice sized misses. He was also a big part of Andy Samberg's big one piece "Hot Rod" which I still have fond memories of, but by no means is it a great comedy. In fact its humor and style is lodged way up the butt of "Napoleon Dynamite", but it's was still kind of funny.

Now to what could've made this crapsterpice work. Something I've remembered since the Coen's "Burn After Reading" was that it proved once and for all you don't need the usual suspects for comedies to make a really, really funny movie; you just need the right people. This needed writers that A: knew how to make dirty jokes that were actually funny. Meaning poop jokes that worked, sex jokes that worked, gay sex jokes that work etc. B: could create a real sense that this was an action piece, but everything in it is just hilarious because of these crazy characters. And C: people that could tell some sort of a story. Even with the most basic genre example as Piere Morrel's over the tip top film "From Paris with Love", you always felt like you were in an action piece, but the antics worked so well. Even when Travolta would lay down some lame shit like 'wax on, wax off' (referring to his name and killing people), then Meyers' reaction would make it all worth while. Plus it pulled off some surprises with it's story and at the end you have had a good time filled with cursing, violence and low brow humor. That'll be on DVD soon by the way and if you're thinking of watching "MacGruber", save you cash and spend a buck to pick up "From Paris with Love" from Redbox instead.

Now with all this said, I do think there is something important to be learned from this film. This is yet another failed action/comedy genre piece and I think this puts a little extra pressure on Sony and Adam McKay's "The Other Guys". Sue me even when Will Ferrall's at his lowest he can make things at least fairly watchable and considering the extensive cast of with and against the grain performers this can work out... if it's done right. I think this and "Cop Out" are great examples of what NOT to do and should be considered as heavily for this genre as "The Heartbreak Kid" is considered what not to do when making a sex/rom-com.

The Losers review

"The Losers" is perhaps some of the most fun I've had watching something in the realm of PG-13 action that's not 3D or based around superheroes or sci-fi. The key to the movie is honestly... the release date. Had 'The Losers' been knocked back into the real heat of the summer movie season or into the early fall there's a hefty chance it would've blended in with a lot of the other movies in the same field (i.e. 'The A-Team' or 'The Expendables') and thus wouldn't have the same pop and flair it's got now. Have you seen this film? Yeah probably. This was the type of action picture that came around like clock work in the 90's and offered that ambiguous rating that smeared PG-13 and R together so the only way to know the different was with nudity or counting the 'fucks'. Early Michael Bay, Tony Scott, John Woo (both U.S. and Hong Kong), Robert Rodriguez's 'Mariachi' trilogy and others making crazy fun and gleefully ridiculous action films in which darkness wasn't a consequence for getting into shoot-outs or blowing up air plan hangers. Remember "Con Air"? Did that shit make sense? Hell no, but was it fun to watch? Yes. Sorry I'm I don't find joy in the watching of human condition films day in and day out. Generally when you have troubles of your own, the problems of attractive young people living pretty well tend to effect you slightly less than intended.

In anycase this is a big reason why "The Losers" is good, it just feels like a 90's throwback, man-on-a-mission exploitation flick. However that alone doesn't make it enjoyable. Credit goes highly to it's cast. Really I loved how it's not the typical cast of action hero stars we see in every movie. I fucking like Jeffery Dean Morgan as Clay, the leader of the bunch, Idris Elba is always exciting to watch, even in the episodes of "The Office" he starred in. I've said this about a thousand times, but Zoe Saldana and Columbus Short are making quick work of becoming major players and then we have Chris Evans aka Captain America and formerly Johnny Storm and Oscar Jaenada who's got quite a tracklist, but few major flicks. I have a sneaking suspicion that could change after this. And then Jason Patric as Max, the Keysor Soze like villain who attempted to kill the losers after they completed a mission he headed and is now trying to buy 'green arms'. If anything I'd say he's more an old school Bond villain than a Soze in the film, but it's still fun to watch Patric play a villain in a bigger film than he's had of late.

Now again I stress that you've probably seen this film and could easily dismiss it or discard it like nothing new and you wouldn't be wrong except for the fact that we don't really get these films any more. So much emphasis is placed on darkening subject matter and putting a more realistic and humanistic face on things that the market is filled with it. "The Losers", isn't heartless (after all one of the things that prompts their revenge plot is the murder of children), but it breaks from that by delivering a boat load of action, mildly witty jokes that... ehh... do the trick frankly and style. The screenplay penned by Peter Berg (director of 'The Rundown' and 'Hancock') and James Vanderblit ('Zodiac') helps place it in that 1995-1997 early summer action flick world. Best of all it's a film done on a budget that again proves that mega stars and $100 million don't make the movie all the time. And also Joel Silver and Warner Brothers backing up director Sylvain White, who's only real claim to fame is "Stomp the Yard" (it made money I guess...), but impressively handled big action set pieces and brought something fresh back into the genre. All and all it was a good call.

Now I do also urge people to read the graphic novel. It is equally fun, albeit a bit more graphic in it's violence; but a damn entertaining series. "The Losers" taps onto that mainstream, general audience thing for those looking for 90 minutes of escapist thrills and spectacle where shutting your brain off is fine and you'll have a good time. Fans of old school Bruckheimer or just general fans of the works of Luc Besson, you know have something new to watch and enjoy.

Death at a Funeral review

The idea of America remaking anything from overseas is considered... how shall I put it... the worst idea imaginable in our cinematic world. There's tons of reason why it's a bad call, but very few reason why it can work. By the way we aren't the only country that does this, Sweden's been known to remake movies and shows as well although I can't tell you what their success rate is. Often with any sort of remake if it doesn't work it could be a million things but generally there's a few usual suspects. Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" didn't work, A: because remaking it wouldn't really add anything to the story (or stories considering there is sequels) and B: because he was so scared of screwing it up, he basically made a straight by the book remake of it scene for scene, word for word and in turn it sucked. Other times it's because of poor casting choices ('Point of No Return'), poor directing choices (the Pang Brothers managing to fuck up a remake of their own film 'Bangkok Dangerous') or simply a studio that isn't interested in telling the right story (FOX and the shit burger that was 'The Day the Earth Stood Still').

When remakes DO work like in that case of 'The Departed', 'Insomnia' or hell I'll be nice in throw 'Friday the 13th' in there because really they got that shit right for a change; it's because the people involved understand how these stories need to be told to make them actually work no matter what other changes occur. While I won't say Neil LaBute's remake of 'Death at a Funeral' is on par with some of those (mainly the first two), I will say that it works, it is surprisingly funny and it successfully handles on ensemble in one place for the entire movie; all of which is fucking hard to do while not boring the shit out of the audience. Now trading terms of black comedy- for black comedy (the second referring to making it an almost all black cast) is another issue; one that tends to inspire idiotic beliefs that it'll be a stereotypical movie of that nature, and as annoying as it is that people think that at first glance they do have a long line of evidence to support that. Add Chris Rock (who it feels like we haven't seen in years) and Martin Lawerence (who hasn't done anything of even mild importance in years) and it appears to be moving in on Tyler Perry turf, but with better names.

No, in fact both Rock and Lawerence play well in the film. But aren't really the stars per-say. Rock sure, but Lawerence plays in the the supporting cast which perhaps steals a great deal of the show. James Marsden continues his supporting comic reign on the world, Zoe Saldana also continues to play up the fact that she's pretty, can act and be funny. Danny Glover as the constantly pissed off Uncle Russell who hits and demeans Norman, Tracy Morgan's character. He and Luke Wilson's conversations were perhaps one of my highlights as their chemistry was near perfect. Everything's filled out with Kieth 'They Live' David, Loretta Devine, Regina Hall and Columbus Short, who is well on his way to becoming well known and making some pretty decent film choices to display his range. Everybody is given a chance to shine in the film and they all succeed and right there might be why this film works as well as it does.

Frank Oz's original 'Death at a Funeral' was... to some a modern comedy classic. I thought it was funny, but nothing beyond that. Much like how I feel about LaBute's. They again used Dean Craig's screenplay and wisely didn't change much if any of the jokes, but manages to make some of the ones that weren't too funny in Oz's, extremely funny while at the same time missing the mark on some of the other ones that did work. The slightly added slap stick humor is also done pretty well and helps to provide an escape from the constant dry humor that fills the whole picture. It's like a balancing act that the whole time you're waiting to topple over all the way and it never does. It's nice to see a non-Apatow mainstream comedy accomplish something again. Seriously it feels like most of the comedies that do work now are either made by him or involve people that often work really close with him.

This also isn't Chris Rock's first run in with remaking a foreign property. His last directorial effort and his best in my book 'I Think I Love My Wife' was based on the french film 'Chelsea in the Afternoon'. So perhaps Rock as an eye for seeing things that can work well over here that may or may not need some extra padding or re-working. I won't lie there's better films out right now you could watch, but this is one of the few comedies to come out this spring that actually can make you laugh successfully.

How to Train Your Dragon review

I decided last night to wait on writing this review simply because... I was hot piss angry about it. Which I shouldn't be given that it's a kids film I went into with low expectations, however it was blending in to the blob of family junk food movies that we're hit with dozens of times a year that are filled with dated pop culture comments, tasteless jokes, overly cartoonish design and worst of all monsters with no spine. But I thought it over really hard and realized I shouldn't take out my frustrations on this single picture and instead need to just focus on it's flaws and successes and nothing else. SO let's do that!

"How to Train Your Dragon" is a tailor made movie for kids in that 7 to 12 year old range that just like seeing movies with jokes and action and damn the rest; and for their parents who either never had too good of cinematic taste to begin with or who have been mentally brought down to the level of their child and think this junk works. Easily this is out of my demographic, but hell I enjoyed "Kung-Fu Panda" and "Monster House" and those were out of my demographic, so really that shouldn't matter too much. The problem here is it's pure old junk food, with nothing added to make it taste better. All the vikings have 'funny' names like Hiccup and Stoick and live in a very viking world of screaming violently and running around trying to kill things. I'm not saying vikings didn't do that, but there pretty much one big, bearded stereotype in the movie. Jay Baruchel voices our dweebish hero Hiccup with his dweebish fucking voice which works well... if he wasn't a main character and thus didn't have to hear him so often. This is something that worked for him in "Tropic Thunder".

Hiccup wants to be a viking, but instead is a loser that disappoints his father (voiced by Gerard Butler) on a regular basis and causes much chaos in the village. OK now let's get good ole' Toothless the 'dragon' with is really just a mixture of a cat and a newt with wings. They attempt to make that dragon as cute... scratch that they attempt to make every dragon as cute as possible while still trying to make things as adventurous as possible. That concept kind of works in the final act which is strangely filled with better looking and moving imagery, but nothing amazing or awe inspiring. A cute winged cat-newt and an ugly six eyed, winged version of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla going head to head in dark clouds; not quite cool, but not lame either. Sadly that's the only sequence I can get behind.

I notice that a lot of people aren't so hard on judging animated kids movies and that right there could be the problem. If creators know that now matter what they do as long as it has a mild story and moral and some action or comedy, then they're looking at mega money and at least decent reviews. And maybe I wouldn't be so feeling so bad after watching this movie if there were more animated movies or just kids movies in general with balls now-a-days. If we could have a family adventure picture come out that could give kids something fresh and interesting to look at and think about. Something that might scare them a bit or confuse them some, but damned if it won't stick with em' so they remember that and want to re-watch it when they're older to see if it still has that effect. Oh wait we did have that last year. One was called "Avatar" and was quickly trumped up into an awards film and hated on to a high level because of that and the other was called "Fantastic Mr. Fox"... show of hands, who saw that last movie? *crickets* I see...

Perhaps crap like "How to Train Your Dragon", "Monsters vs. Aliens" and upcoming crap like "Sherk Forever After" and "Despicable Me" is what parents, kids and I guess everybody else wants to see. On the one hand they get the big bucks and nobody yells out that it's ripped off from something else or it's too long or weird or has a bad message and all that. It appears that audiences don't care as long as they're content with what it is and nothing more. But on the other hand this has got me all depressed for the future of cinema and shit because then most of the impressive stuff goes unseen and mediocrity reigns. But until producers or audiences wake up, some of us will have to await in silence for animated films NOT made for kids (like the Fincher, Eastman, Cameron, Verbinski, Snyder etc collaboration of "Heavy Metal") or just any kids picture that's not dumbed down as far as possible (basically most non-U.S. made kids films that reach our country. Or things from Pixar... sometimes.)

Hot Tub Time Machine review

Is it possible that in a world where we have shit comedies throughout the entire year, that a film with such a ridiculous title and premise could be not only entertaining and funny, but in fact an all around great comedy? I ask this pretending as if I wasn't sold on the movie from the first time I watched the original redband teaser which had Craig Robinson screaming about 'Terminator' with cocaine all over his face. Ok "Hot Tub Time Machine" isn't some masterpiece of cinema and nor was it ever destined for that, but it is a great comedy that's original and relentlessly entertaining.

I should also state that this film is made by the same team that brought us "Grosse Point Blank" and my favorite Cusack picture, "High Fidelity", so that too was something that ran through my mind when factoring in what could this be like. Cusack plays the kind of guy that he's great at playing, snarky, alone and somewhat depressed, but never so gone that he would admit to being depressed. Beyond that he's just a fun dude to watch on screen because he lacks that 'I'm a big star' look and feel to his performances, making him seem like anybody. Craig Robinson has stole a many of scenes in a many of shows and movies and finally here he gets some quality screen time. His timing and demeanor makes almost every joke he delivers work to perfection. Rob Corddry gets to play the asshole friend... you know him or her. Robinson and Cusack explain it quite well in the film as 'he's that asshole friend, but he's our asshole'. We've all got somebody in our lives kind of like that. However Corddry is that guy on crack, but as over the top as he gets, it really works out. And lastly Clark Duke who we'll see in "Kick Ass" and I remember for "Sex Drive", a very funny and underrated comedy. Duke is the rational one not from the 80's and thus is trying to get things steady so he actually ends up existing still.

In present times it can be said that all four of these guys lives suck. They are bored, lifeless, existing in their own selves for the most part and slowly going through their paces. That is until Conddry's character Lou attempts to kill himself. The boys then decide to take a trip back to where they had some of the best times of their lives only to find out that for the most part the town is boarded up and the ski lodge they loved so much has pretty much become a wreck. However after a long bout of crap, the hot tub beings working, they begin drinking and an accident launches them back to 1986, the weekend so much happened for them all.

Ok, now to the our concept of time travel via this film. From what it appears I would say we're dealing with "Back to the Future" logic. Meaning if you change too much of the past then you mess you the future. Now how said hot tub time machine got there and what not is never explained or anything like that. All that is known is that after the boys reach 1986, Chevy Chase appears from time to time as a maintenance man trying to fix it and get them back to 2010.

In 1986 however they were all in their prime and loving life for the most part. Partying, hooking up, the whole nine. But they must attempt to stay on that path and what they did back then to ensure their futures... although one would wonder since their futures suck... might they want to try something different. This leads to several funny and well thought out sequences that sometimes don't feel like they're here to tell the story, but just here to tell a joke. And it works well. The soundtrack is another point of notice where they use a lot classic 80's tunes at just the right moment and know just how to make a funny moment funnier. Seriously anyone doubting this movie is an idiot; I'd very much like to see it again and see if it holds well as that was an issue of mine I had with last years "The Hangover". A film that I did very much like, but works best on that first viewing and then again when you haven't watched it for a while and have forgotten some of the gags. "Hot Tub Time Machine" on the other hand has that creative edge that often makes repeat viewings work right away like Edgar Wright films for me.

If you love movies of the 80's you can't pass this up either because it's a concept that would've been down right perfect for that decade. Something so over the top and absurd that could be made absolutely hilarious in the right hands. But it's here now, so don't miss while you've got the chance.