Lights, camera, action

Fall movie preview

2010-09-06T16:31:00.000-07:00

It's that time of year again - fall blockbusters, Oscar hopefuls and the so-so films leading up to them. Summer 2010 has amounted to a rather weak tentpole season for movies, so I was initially a little worried the same would be true of the fall. But after perusing the September-December release calendar, it seems there are several movies worth getting excited about. Below are my top five most-anticipated movies of the fall:

Honroable mentions: Jack Goes Boating, Buried, It's Kind of a Funny Story, RED, 127 Hours, Morning Glory, Love and Other Drugs, How Do You Know

5. Never Let Me Go (Sept. 15)

Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Kiera Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are childhood friends who grow up at a seemingly traditional English boarding school. When they enter the real world, they explore love, friendship and a life they can never have, as their own reality is something much darker.

Mark Romanek's bleak adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's acclaimed novel looks like an intriguing blend of "Atonement" and "Children of Men" in terms of tone and style. I've never read the book, but I've heard it's an emotional ride with twists too good to reveal. It's gotten rave reviews so far and could potentially be the path to second Oscar nominations for Mulligan and Knightley. It's also the first of two major fall releases for Garfield, known to most as the next Spider-man.

NEVER LET ME GO: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Never Let Me Go, Mark Romanek

4. The Town (Sept. 17)

Ben Affleck plays Doug MacRay, a Boston bank robber who falls in love with a bank employee (Rebecca Hall) he and his band of thieves hold hostage. As he pursues a relationship with the one woman who could bring the thieves down, Doug faces pressure from his best friend and fellow robber (Jeremey Renner), his incarcerated father (Chris Cooper) a desperate old flame (Blake Lively) and the FBI agent (Jon Hamm)determined to put him behind bars.

Affleck proved he has directing skills with "Gone Baby Gone," and "The Town" is his chance to prove that wasn't a fluke. If the intense trailer is any indication, he's about to have another winner on his hands with "The Town."

THE TOWN: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: The Town (2010 film), Jon Hamm

3. Black Swan (Dec. 1)

Natalie Portman stars as Nina, an uptight young ballerina who wins the coveted lead role in her company's production of "Swan Lake." She has what it takes to play the pure and innocent White Swan, but her teacher (Vincent Cassel) tries to persuade her to evoke a darker, seductive side for the dual role of the Black Swan. A new rival dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis) possesses these qualities and soon becomes Nina's alternate. They form a strange friendship as Nina's growing dark side threatens to consume her.

Darren Aronofsky's follow-up to "The Wrestler" looks as dark and twisted as it does visually stunning and meticulously detailed. Early reviews have been positive, many saying Portman and Kunis give career-best performances.

BLACK SWAN Trailer #1 - Funny home videos are a click away

2. The Social Network (Oct. 1)

Based on Ben Mezrich's book "The Accidental Billionaires," "The Social Network" tells the story of the founding of Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg's rise to success. While an undergraduate student at Harvard, Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) has an idea to bring the social aspect of college to the Internet. His project exploded into Facebook, and he became the youngest billionaire in history. But along the way, he falls out with his best friend and Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) when Saverin claims he was ousted, and faces a legal battle with the Winklevoss twins, fellow Harvard students who claim he stole the idea for Facebook from them.

"The Social Network" will undoubtedly get a lot of people talking about the founding of the Web site that has attracted 500 million users. Zuckerberg has already expressed his distaste for the film. Though people may have mocked "the Facebook movie" at first, the somber tone of the trailer proves director David Fincher isn't taking the subject lightly.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Andrew Garfield, Brenda Song

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (Nov. 19)

In the first part of the "Harry Potter" series' final installment, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) choose not to return to Hogwarts for their seventh year so they can track down the remaining horcruxes, the objects containing pieces of Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) soul that must be destroyed before the dark lord himself can be killed. Part 1 deals largely with the physical and emotional toll of the trio's task leading up to the epic final battle of Part 2, which will be released next July.

Like the books, the "Potter" films have continued to get darker and darker, and "Deathly Hallows" looks like the darkest yet. Based on the trailer, director David Yates isn't shying away from the themes of death and political corruption that are so crucial to the book. Eduardo Serra's cinematography looks breathtaking, and Radcliffe, Grint and Watson appear to be giving it their all in their final turn as Harry, Ron and Hermione.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint

Emmys 2010: Predicting the winners

2010-08-27T20:28:00.000-07:00

The past few years I just haven't been able to get into the Emmys. They frequently award the same people or shows year after year, leading to an overly long and unintersting ceremony. But for the first time in a long time, this year's nominees actually piqued my interest, with a few familiar faces and lots of new ones. The 2010 ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Fallon, is just a few days away, so who will walk home a winner and who will leave empty handed?

Best comedy series

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Glee

Modern Family

Nurse Jackie

The Office

30 Rock

Will win: "Modern Family." "Glee" took home the Golden Globe and is probably the hottest show on television right now, but unlike "Modern Family," it's not a straight-up comedy. Some of the most memorable moments from "Glee" this season leaned on the dramatic side, such as the moving scenes between Kurt and his father. "Modern Family" puts a hilarious new spin on the traditional family sitcom, which will likely resonate more with voters.

Should win: "Modern Family." I do love "Glee," but the back nine weren't nearly as strong in quality as the first part of the season. "Modern Family" was consistently hilarious and is one of the smartest family comedies to emerge in a long time.

Should have been nominated: "Community," "Parks and Recreation," "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia."

Best drama series

Breaking Bad

Dexter

The Good Wife

Lost

Mad Men

True Blood

Will win: "Mad Men." The AMC drama is an Emmy favorite, and that's unlikely to change this year.

Should win: "Lost." Sure, the sci-fi drama's final season had its weak spots, but overall it was a stellar end to what is possibly television's most original show. "Lost" was such an intelligent, mind-bending and emotional show, and try as they might with shows like "Flash Forward" and the upcoming "The Event," the networks will never be able to replicate it. An Emmy for "Lost" this year would be just as much about awarding the show's overall excellence as recognizing its finale.

Should have been nominated: I honestly don't watch any dramas that weren't nominated, but I hear fans of "Friday Night Lights" and "Fringe" are pretty livid that those critically acclaimed shows were ignored.

Best actor - comedy

Alec Baldwin - 30 Rock

Steve Carell - The Office

Larry David - Curb Your Enthusiasm

Matthew Morrison - Glee

Jim Parsons - The Big Bang Theory

Tony Shalhoub - Monk

Will win: Jim Parsons. He was widely regarded as the favorite to win last year but lost to Alec Baldwin. But given that "Monk" ended this year, it's possible that Emmy favorite Tony Shalhoub could pull an upset.

Should win: I love Parsons and would be thrilled if he takes home the trophy, but given that Steve Carell's reign as Michael Scott is about to draw to a close and he has yet to win, I'd love to see his work recognized.

Should have been nominated: Joel McHale - "Community," Ed O'Neil - "Modern Family" (Yes, I know he submitted himself as supporting like the rest of the cast, which makes me respect him all the more. But Jay is the true patriarch of the family, and if he submitted himself in the lead actor category, he likely would have won.)

Best actress - comedy

Toni Collette - United States of Tara

Edie Falco - Nurse Jackie

Tina Fey - 30 Rock

Julia Louis-Dreyfuss - The New Adventures of Old Christine

Lea Michele - Glee

Amy Poehler - Parks and Recreation

Will win: Edie Falco. This is a tough category to call because there are so many strong contenders here, but Falco is an Emmy favorite in the drama category, and voters love it when an old favorite wows them with something new. Her darkly comic performance on "Nurse Jackie" should secure her the statuette.

Should win: Amy Poehler. "Parks and Recreation" saw a huge leap in quality in its second season, thanks in large part to Poehler's performance. She makes Leslie Knope just as intelligent and lovable and she is daffy and awkward.

Should have been nominated: Courteney Cox - "Cougar Town." Honestly, what is Emmy's problem with her? She was the only member of the "Friends" ensemble to never be nominated and now they have to snub her again? As "Cougar Town" evolved as the season progressed, so did Cox. Maybe next year...

Best actor - drama

Kyle Chandler - Friday Night Lights

Bryan Cranston - Breaking Bad

Matthew Fox - Lost

Michael C. Hall - Dexter

Jon Hamm - Mad Men

Hugh Laurie - House

Will win: Bryan Cranston. This is another one of those categories where the past winner is likely to remain the favorite.

Should win: Though I'd love to see Hugh Laurie recognized for his fantastic work on "House," I'm going to have to go with Matthew Fox. He really pulled out all the stops this year, and his performance in the finale alone should be enough to secure him the win.

Should have been nominated: Peter Krause - "Parenthood," Kiefer Sutherland - "24"

Best actress - drama

Connie Britton - Friday Night Lights

Glenn Close - Damages

Mariska Hargitay - Law and Order: SVU

January Jones - Mad Men

Julianna Margulies - The Good Wife

Kyra Sedgwick - The Closer

Will win: Julianna Margulies. She's swept every other award for her role on "The Good Wife" so far, and I don't expect that to stop here. She's a phenominal actress, and most critics and fans alike seem to agree she should win.

Should win: Julianna Margulies

Should have been nominated: Anna Paquin - "True Blood," Lauren Graham - "Parenthood"

Supporting actor - comedy

Ty Burrell - Modern Family

Chris Colfer - Glee

Jon Cryer - Two and a Half Men

Jesse Tyler Ferguson - Modern Family

Neil Patrick Harris - How I Met Your Mother

Eric Stonestreet - Modern Family

Will win: Ty Burrell. It's tough to choose between the three "Modern Family" men because they all turn in such consistently hilarious performances, but Burrell takes a character that could be grating and makes him completely lovable.

Should win: Ty Burrell

Should have been nominated: Charlie Day - "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," Danny Pudi - "Community"

Supporting actress - comedy

Julie Bowen - Modern Family

Jane Krakowski - 30 Rock

Jane Lynch - Glee

Holland Taylor - Two and a Half Men

Sofia Vergara - Modern Family

Kristen Wiig - Saturday Night Live

Will win: Jane Lynch. Is there even a question about this? She's the epitome of comedic awesomeness.

Should win: Jane Lynch. Although Julie Bowen and Sofia Vergara are also consistently hilarious.

Should have been nominated: Busy Phillips - "Cougar Town," Christa Miller - "Cougar Town," Kaitlin Olson - "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"

Supporting actor - drama

Andre Braugher - Men of a Certain Age

Michael Emerson - Lost

Terry O'Quinn - Lost

Aaron Paul - Breaking Bad

Martin Short - Damages

John Slattery - Mad Men

Will win: Michael Emerson. Especially in the final season, he turned Ben from pure villain to one of the show's most complex characters.

Should win: Michael Emerson

Should have been nominated: Josh Holloway - "Lost," Nestor Carbonell - "Lost," Sam Trammell - "True Blood"

Supporting actress - drama

Christine Baranski - The Good Wife

Rose Byrne - Damages

Sharon Gless - Burn Notice

Christina Hendricks - Mad Men

Elisabeth Moss - Mad Men

Archie Panjabi - The Good Wife

Will win: To be honest, I don't watch any of these shows, so I can't judge the performances. But most critics are choosing Christina Hendricks as the frontrunner, so we'll just go with her.

Should win: Christina Hendricks, for the same reason as above. Or Elisabeth Moss, because I like her even thought I don't watch "Mad Men."

Should have been nominated: Deborah Ann Woll - "True Blood," Khandi Alexander - "Treme" (another show I don't actually watch, but Alexander is an incredible talent, and the fact that she has never been recognized for her television work is a crime)

Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010-08-21T19:06:00.000-07:00

How is it that movies like "Transformers," with their massive explosions, scantily-clad young actress, cringe-worthy writing and directing that's about as original as a cardboard box, continue to rake in hundreds of millions at the box office while gems like "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" fall by the wayside?

Maybe it's just because I'm a 20-something dork, much like Scott and his friends, that this movie resonates so strongly with me. But "Scott Pilgrim" is one of the most refreshingly original films I've seen in a long time and is a welcome change of pace from the sequels, reboots and remakes that so often dominate the box office.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old slacker from Toronto whose only job is playing bass with the band Sex Bob-omb. He's dating a high schooler named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), and he lives with his gay best friend and confidant Wallace Wells (Kieran Culkin).

He coasts by in a world of hipsters, gamers and slackers, but everything changes when he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), an American punk who works as a delivery girl for Amazon. She's hesitant to his dorky advances at first but ultimately falls for him because unlike her former lovers, he's actually a nice guy.

But being with Ramona is no easy task. Scott soon discovers if they want to be together, he'll have to fight and defeat her seven evil exes, ranging from macho skater-turned-movie star Lucas Lee (Chris Evans) to pint-sized punk Roxy Richter(Mae Whitman) to slick record exec Gideon Gordon Graves (Jason Schwartzman).

If you're reluctant to see "Scott Pilgrim" because of Cera's "he always plays the same role" stigma, think again. True, he does play another scrawny, nerdy underdog here, but he does it with a renewed vigor that has been missing from many of his other recent performances. His comic timing and line delivery is perfect in this film.

Director Edgar Wright has assembled quite the who's who of up-and-coming young talent for his supporting cast. In addition to Winstead, Wong and Culkin, Alison Pill, Johnny Simmons, Mark Webber, Anna Kendrick and Aubrey Plaza round out Scott's ragtag group of friends. All of them click as an ensemble but Pill and Culkin emerge as the standouts, her with her stone-cold glares and him with his matter-of-fact wit.

Wong and Simmons are also frequently scene stealers, with her over-the-top attempts to re-gain Scott's affections and his mellow, deadpan reactions to his friends' zany adventures.

All of the actors playing the seven evil exes are perfectly cast, especially Evans and Schwartzman, but Brandon Routh as vegan bassist Todd Ingram is an absolute riot in his scene. Between this movie and his "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" cameo, it's clear Routh needs to leave his Superman image behind and pursue more comedic roles.

Wright and Michael Bacall's sharp script is some of the sharpest writing I've seen in a long while, and Wright's direction, as usual, is practically flawless. With "Spaced," "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" already under his belt, he's quickly proving to be one of the most innovative directors working today. Fast-paced action, eye-popping visuals and quick cuts are all trademarks of his that work wonders with "Scott Pilgrim." All of the movie's elements fall neatly into place, but it is Wright's imaginative vision that makes all of that possible.

True, its paltry fifth-place opening makes it a box office disappointment, but since when has box office been a good indicator of the quality of a movie? (The fact that a stale amalgam of pop culture references like "Vampires Suck" could outgross the raw brilliance of "The Hurt Locker," for example, is astounding.) It might not be resonating with the mainstream right now, but "Scott Pilgrim" is the type of movie that years down the road a generation of gamers, hipsters, punks and nerds will remember fondly as the film that captured their youth. A-

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin

Review: Inception

2010-07-20T20:09:00.000-07:00

When I first started reading about "Inception," the latest film from Christopher Nolan, the tagline "Your mind is the scene of the crime" was enough to pique my interest. Those eight words alone seemed to capture the essence of a great Nolan movie - complexity, intrigue, unexpected twists and turns. In a season often dominated by fun but ultimately lackluster popcorn flicks, Nolan takes the intelligent blockbuster to a new level.

In the world of "Inception," technology exists that allows people to explore the depths of other people's minds through dream invasion. We don't know how or why this technology was developed. We know only that it exists, eliminating tedious exposition and allowing the audience to jump right into the intracies of this new world.

Perhaps no one is more knowledgable about dream invasion than Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a man shaken by tragedy who has mastered the craft of idea theft, or extraction. After attempting to steal an idea from a powerful man named Saito (Ken Watanabe), Saito hires Cobb to plant an idea in someone's mind, a much more complex process known as inception that few have attempted. If Cobb succeeds, Saito promises to help the broken man get his life back.

Cobb assembles a team of experts, including an architect (Ellen Page), a point man (Joseph-Gordon Levitt), a forger (Tom Hardy) and a chemist (Dileep Rao) to assist him in planting an idea in the mind of their mark Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), a corporate big shot who recently inherited his father's empire.

While trying to accomplish the inception, the process is complicated by Mal (Marion Cotillard), Cobb's dead wife who he frequently manifests in his dreams. And as Cobb and his deam travel deeper and deeper into the dreamscape, it becomes difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is merely a dream.

From "Memento" to "The Prestige" to "The Dark Knight," Nolan never shies away from convoluted plots that make his audience - gasp! - actually have to think at the movies. "Inception" is perhaps his most perplexing film to date, and consequently, one of his best.

Not only is the story well plotted and the script well written, but it's refreshingly original. In an industry dominated by sequels, remakes and adaptations, Nolan dared to take a gamble on a new story and new characters that audiences didn't have pre-existing ties to, and Warner Brothers trusted him to make it a smash all the same.

It's engrossing. It's mind-bending. It's innovative. It's visually stunning, intellecutally stimulating and emotionally engaging. It succeeds and connects on so many levels that more and more blockbusters are unfortunately failing to do.

And rather than banking on popular but hollow actors, Nolan once again assembles an impeccable cast. From the well-known DiCaprio to the little-known Hardy, every actor succeeds in the nuances of character for which such a daunting story calls.

Sharp editing, haunting cinematography, a commanding score and a doozy of an ending worthy of its own separate discussion round out the exceedingly impressive "Inception."

If you haven't seen it yet, step away from the computer and make your way to the nearest multiplex. And even if you have seen it, step away from the computer and make your way to the nearest multiplex. "Inception" is one film for which multiple viewings can only enhance the experience. A

Inception: Movie Trailer. Watch more top selected videos about: Ellen Page, Christopher Nolan

Review: The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

2010-07-06T20:30:00.000-07:00

Ah high school - those were the days. Finding yourself. Getting lost in the feeling of first love. Having a vampire and a werewolf fight for your affection while they save you from another vampire who's trying to kill you. What, that wasn't your experience?

The teen angst and melodrama of the vampire-human romance at the heart of "The Twilight Saga" won't appeal to everyone. But given the $176 million it banked in its first week and the droves of screaming "Twihards" who flocked to cinemas in their Team Edward and Team Jacob attire, "Eclipse" is only making the Twi-fever grow stronger.

Sure the first two films were successful, but "Eclipse" is the first of the "Twilight" films that feels deserving of a blockbuster summer release.

In the franchise's third installment, supernatural drama is hitting Forks, Wash., full-force. A string of murders in Seattle has the media crying serial killer, but the Cullen clan knows the real culprits are an army of newborn vampires - those whose lust for blood is still so new that it can't be controlled. But why the army was created remains a mystery.

The personal lives of Bella (Kristen Stewart), Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) aren't much prettier than the carnage and mayhem the newborn vamps have wreaked on Seattle. Bella is still set on becoming a vampire, but she's reluctant to meet Edward's condition that she marry him first. Jacob refuses to come to terms with Bella's choice, and his feelings for her only continue to grow stronger.

If Edward turns Bella, the Cullens' treaty with the werewolves is off, but if he doesn't, they'll have to face the wrath of the Volturi, the ruby-eyed, creepy vampire government who may have alterior motives of their own. And then there's still the matter of Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard), who wants Bella dead as vengeance for Edward killing her mate, James.

What's a girl to do with a charismatic vampire and a studly werewolf vying for her affections? Convince them to team up to take down Victoria and the vampire army for good, of course.

A few parts of "Eclipse" feel a little slow, but overall the film is a vast improvement from its predecessors. The visual effects are superior to the previous two installments, though the vampire makeup is still too pasty and gaunt, even for the undead.

"Twilight" and "New Moon" often relied a bit too much on romance and melodrama and not enough on plot. Bella and Edward are still swooning over each other and exchanging angsty glances - after all, it wouldn't be "Twilight" without that element. But "Eclipse" boasts a more defined plot and a lot more action, maybe even enough to keep the dragged-along boyfriends and husbands interested.

As with the previous two films, the script is the weakest element, although I don't completely blame screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg. Stephenie Meyer's sappy dialogue may read well enough on the page, but it just doesn't translate when spoken onscreen. It would breathe more life into the script if Rosenberg took a few liberties, but given the fervor of the "Twi-hards," hardcore fans would likely revolt if she changed too much.

"Eclipse" still isn't the best showcase of Stewart's, Pattinson's and Lautner's acting chops, but all three seem more comfortable in their roles this time around. The film also makes better use of the supporting players, who were barely present in "New Moon." We get a glimpse of Jasper's and Rosalie's backstories, which gives the underused Jackson Rathbone and Nikki Reed more to do. But as usual, Billy Burke as Bella's dad emerges as the movie's scene stealer.

Much of the film's success can be attributed to director David Slade. His experience with darker fare like "Hard Candy" and "30 Days of Night" gave "Eclipse" more of an edge, but he still never lost sight of the romance at the heart of the story.

If you liked the other "Twilight" movies, you'll like "Eclipse." If you hated the other movies, you'll probably hate "Eclipse" too. But if you're neither a Twi-hard nor a Twi-hater, odds are you'll find it's at least entertaining enough to be worthy of a summer blockbuster release. B-

Review: Letters to Juliet

2010-05-16T22:00:00.000-07:00

Romeo and Juliet. The ultimate couple. They may have met a tragic, premature end, but their love story has lived on for centuries as a representation of true, unconditional love. Now, the timeless tale is the basis for the token rom-com of the summer movie season.

In "Letters to Juliet," Amanda Seyfried plays Sophie, a hopeless romantic and a fact-checker for the New Yorker who longs to be a writer. Her overzealous fiancé Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal) is opening a new restaurant immediately after their wedding, so they decide to turn Victor's business trip to Italy into an early honeymoon. But Victor's passion for Sophie pales in comparison to his passion for Italian cuisine, and Sophie is left to sight-see on her own.

She visits the supposed location of Juliet's house and stumbles upon her dream story, one she hopes will prove to her boss she has what it takes to be a journalist. Women from all over the world travel to Verona and leave letters for Juliet, asking her for advice about their love lives. A group of women, who have dubbed themselves the Secretaries of Juliet, answer every letter with a return address.

Sophie discovers a letter that has remained hidden for 50 years and sends its writer, Claire (Vanessa Redgrave), a reply, only to be met a week later by Claire's angry grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan). Claire has come to Italy to find her first true love, but Charlie is afraid she'll end up with a broken heart and blames Sophie for encouraging her. Claire refuses to relent and invites Sophie to accompany them as they travel the Italian countryside in search of Claire's long-lost love.

"Letters to Juliet" is filled with romantic clichés. The fiancé without one shred of a redeeming quality. The handsome newcomer who, despite being a bit antagonizing at first, melts the heroine's neglected heart. There's even a man who rides in on horseback. But the movie doesn't try to be anything it's not. Everyone involved knows it's just a mushy, sappy, feel-good romance. And because of its lack of pretense, it manages to find a certain charm.

Sure it's completely predictable, but one of the movie's strengths is its ability to be engaging throughout nonetheless, due in large part to its leads.

Seyfried is a likable lead, and Egan is delightfully snarky. But Redgrave and her real-life husband, Franco Nero, steal the show. Redgrave's Claire is the woman we hope to be one day - caring and carefree, having lived a long and happy life. But something is missing, and it's easy to get caught up in her quest to find it.

The only off-putting element of the film was Bernal's Victor. He's supposed to be irritating. He's supposed to be clueless. He's supposed to be selfish. But after less than five minutes onscreen, I could barely stand to listen to another word of his overblown, hyperactive babble. He made it too easy for me to root for Charlie instead.

"Letters to Juliet" won't be winning any Oscars. Heck, it probably won't even be winning any MTV Movie Awards. But if a feel-good sap-fest is what you're looking for, "Letters to Juliet" won't disappoint.

The story is unoriginal, the dialogue is mediocre and the performances are decent. But as cheesy, clichéd rom-coms go, "Letters to Juliet" sweeps you off your feet. B-

Review: Iron Man 2

2010-05-08T13:55:00.000-07:00

Superhero sequels tend to fall on one of two extremes – they’re either vast improvements over the first installment like “X2: X-Men United” or “The Dark Knight,” or they’re huge disappointments like the debacle that was “Spider-Man 3.” The sequel to the surprise smash “Iron Man” isn’t quite as strong as the first film, though it’s a far cry from “Spider-Man 3.”

“Iron Man 2” picks up six months after “Iron Man” left off. The world knows that Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is Iron Man, he’s successfully made the world a peaceful place and all the attention is starting to go to his head.

But Tony is soon knocked off his high horse when he faces scrutiny from the press and pressure from the government to share his technology with the military, a point that causes tension with his best friend, Jim Rhodes (Don Cheadle).

Unable to keep up with his Iron Man duties and running Stark Industries, he promotes his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) to CEO of the company. But business pressures are the least of Tony’s worries. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist who’s recreated his technology, wants him dead and Tony’s business rival, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), will do just about anything to bring him down.

Tony must also contend with a mysterious new assistant (Scarlett Johansson), the increased presence of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and a borderline midlife crisis.

This time around the story doesn’t feel quite as fresh as in the first “Iron Man,” but the snappy dialogue and Downey’s charisma still make it a fun ride. It’s action-packed, hilarious and a surefire crowd pleaser.

It’s also clear that director Jon Favreau is setting the stage for something greater – the upcoming “Avengers” film that unites Iron Man with fellow Marvel heroes Thor, Captain America and The Hulk. “Iron Man 2” contains a few shout-outs to the other Avengers that are sure to please fans of the comics.

As in the first installment, Downey’s performance really carries the film. He’s so funny and so charming that it’s impossible not to love him despite his ever-increasing narcissism. Tony isn’t anywhere close to perfect, but that’s exactly what makes him such an interesting hero.

Paltrow’s chemistry with Downey is particularly magnetic in this film, and Cheadle seems to be a better fit for Rhodey than his predecessor, Terrence Howard.

The whole supporting cast is strong, but Rockwell in particular is a scene stealer. His Justin Hammer is delightfully slimy. His desire to be as powerful as Tony is overwhelming, but his cowardice always gets in his way. Rockwell is probably one of the most underrated actors working today, and he really has the chance to shine here.

“Iron Man 2” might not be as complex as “The Dark Knight,” but it’s the perfect blockbuster to kick off the summer movie season. Especially for fans of the first film, the sequel is a fun-filled adrenaline rush that will leave audiences walking away smiling. B

Top 5 summer movies

2010-05-03T20:46:00.000-07:00

From highly-anticipated blockbusters to small Sundance favorites, summer is never a dull season at the movies. Starting Friday, moviegoers can say goodbye to uneventful weekends at the multiplex as summer movie season officially begins. Here are five summer movies I'm particularly looking forward to:

Iron Man 2 (May 7): Most superheroes go to great lengths to protect their true identities. Not Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). At the end of the first installment of John Favreau's smash-hit franchise, Stark revealed that he is Iron Man. In "Iron Man 2," he has to deal with the ramifications of that. Gwyneth Paltrow is back as Pepper Potts and Don Cheadle steps into the role of James Rhodes, who gets a superhero alter ego of his own this time around.

Stark also has to contend with three villains: Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). Hopefully "Iron Man 2" will follow in the footsteps of "X2" and "The Dark Knight" and fare even better than its predecessor, but trying to balance three villains could land the film in "Spider-Man 3" territory.

The A-Team (June 11): As soon as Bradley Cooper jumps out of a plane with a parachute attached to a tank and starts firing mid-air, you know you've got an insanely fun movie on your hands. "The A-Team" looks over-the-top and ridiculous, the perfect combination for an enjoyable summer blockbuster that isn't meant to be taken seriously. With an overload of action and explosion and a cast including Cooper, Liam Neeson and "District 9" star Sharlto Copley, what's not to love?

Toy Story 3 (June 18): It's been more than a decade since the last "Toy Story" film graced the big screen, but the series is just as beloved as ever. If anyone knows how to deliver an amazing sequel, it's Pixar. This time around, Andy is heading off to college and Buzz (Tim Allen), Woody (Tom Hanks) and the gang are shipped off to a daycare center.

If it's anything like the previous two films, "Toy Story 3" should be funny and touching for kids and adults alike. Pixar has yet to release a bad movie, so it will be a complete shock if "Toy Story 3" doesn't deliver.

Inception (July 16): Not much is known about Christopher Nolan's follow-up to his last directorial success, "The Dark Knight." But Nolan has earned a reputation for telling such original, engaging and mind-bending stories that "Inception" is still one of the most highly-anticipated movies of the summer.

The story involves dream invasion, the complexities of the mind and the quest to steal an idea. It will undoubtedly be complex, and it boasts the talent of Leonardo di Caprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy, Marion Cotillard, Michel Caine and Ken Watanabe.

Scott Pilgrim vs.The World (Aug. 13): Yes, this looks like Michael Cera playing Michael Cera again, this time in the big screen adaptation of the "Scott Pilgrim" graphic novel series. But this ecclectic vehicle is from the brilliant mind of "Hot Fuzz" and "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright. As Scott (Cera) tries to defeat the seven evil exes of his new girlfriend, comic book stylings mesh with live action in the most colorful, delightful way.

Honorable mention - The Kids Are All Right (July 7): This Sundance favorite puts a new spin on the dysfunctional family dramedy. A lesbian couple (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore) are living happily with their teenage kids (Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson), but the kids feel like they're missing a father figure. They track down the sperm donor that fathered both of them (Mark Ruffalo), and all five try to adjust to their new family dynamic.

The film received rave reviews at Sundance for being topical without letting politics outshine the relationship aspect of the story.

Review: Date Night

2010-04-18T23:02:00.000-07:00

There are few things that are worse for a moviegoer than eagerly anticipating a good movie only to have it ruined by a miscast actor. The screen adaptation of “Hairspray” had the potential to be every bit as fun as the Broadway show, but John Travolta’s awkward turn as the protagonist’s mother, Michelle Pfeiffer’s lack of vocal chops and Christopher Walken’s expressionless performance drag down an otherwise decent film. The brilliance of Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan in “Watchmen” is sometimes overshadowed by the woodenness of Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode. It’s a rare occurrence that the opposite is true – when good performances have the power to turn a lackluster film into an enjoyable experience.

When looked at as a film overall, “Date Night” is a bit of a mess. The latest movie from director Shawn Levy shares many of the same flaws as his “Night at the Museum” series. It’s a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be, but Levy tries to mask it with unbelievable action and a seemingly never-ending stream of stars (the supporting cast includes Mark Wahlberg, Kristen Wiig, Mark Ruffalo, James Franco, Mila Kunis, Taraji P. Henson and Ray Liotta). But while Ben Stiller couldn’t elevate “Night at the Museum” above silly action comedy, Levy was lucky enough to lure two secret weapons to “Date Night” that make it feel like a better movie than it actually is – Steve Carell and Tina Fey.

Carell and Fey have the uncanny ability to be completely charming no matter what they do. Even in the decidedly less funny episodes of “The Office” and “30 Rock,” Carell and Fey dedicate themselves fully to their roles and they sell the material with everything they’ve got. “Date Night” is absurd. Carell and Fey probably knew it was absurd when they read the script. But they are so funny individually and work so well as a pair that they took what should have been a poorly constructed story, a lifeless script and one-note characters and turned it all into a rollicking good time.

Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster, a long-married New Jersey couple growing weary of their mundane lives. When they learn their closest friends (Ruffalo and Wiig) are getting divorced, they’re motivated to breathe life back into their relationship. Phil and Claire leave the kids with a baby-sitter and head to New York for a night on the town. When the upscale restaurant they go to is booked, they take someone else’s reservation, which naturally leads to a case of mistaken identity and a game of cat and mouse with the mob.

There are worse scripts out there. The directing isn’t terrible. The supporting players do a fine job with the material they’re given. But without Carell and Fey, “Date Night” would be completely forgettable. When they’re onscreen (which, thankfully, is the majority of the film’s 90-minute run time), it’s impossible to take your eyes off of them. I kept telling myself the movie is ridiculous and I shouldn’t be enjoying it, but I couldn’t help but laugh at even the cheesiest lines because Carell and Fey delivered them with such charisma. If nothing else, the movie is a testament to their skill as comedians. It makes you wonder what the two of them could do with a fantastically funny script given what they were able to achieve with this mediocre piece of filmmaking.

During the movie’s closing credits, viewers are given the chance to see Carell and Fey in action, improvising hilarious line after hilarious line. It makes you appreciate the fact that Levy gave them the opportunity to add their own special touch. In less capable hands, “Date Night” would have been a disaster. It’s one of those fateful films that leaves you wondering, “How did he get them to do that?”

Academy Awards are handed out every year for stellar performances in stellar films, but sometimes it’s the good performances in bad films that really prove an actor’s worth. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Meryl Streep received some of the greatest box office success of her career following her performance in “Mamma Mia.” The kitschy musical set to the songs of ABBA should have been a sickly sweet marriage of beach scenery and disco music. But the usually-serious Streep was so funny, so fresh and so magnetic in a way people had never seen her before. The fact that she was able to shine so brightly in such a silly film made her even more impressive of an actress than she already was.

“Date Night” is the definition of mediocre, but Carell’s and Fey’s comedy chops will likely never fall under that category. They have perfect delivery. They know exactly when to restrain themselves and when it’s acceptable to go over the top. They play off of each other like pros, sharing the spotlight rather than stealing it from one another. They’ve got Tracy-Hepburn banter down to a tee (if Tracy and Hepburn had ever been in a film with gangsters and car chases). Despite the film’s flaws, Carell and Fey are so entertaining I would pay to see “Date Night” again. Anyone can act poorly in a bad movie. It may not be easy to give a truly great performance in a truly great movie, but it’s been done many times before. Giving a great performance in a bad movie? Now that takes serious skill.

The guilty pleasure of 'Hot Tub Time Machine'

2010-03-28T22:11:00.000-07:00

"Hot Tub Time Machine" is probably the most aptly-named movie since "Snakes on a Plane." You know immediately exactly what you're going to get: a hot tub that's a time machine.

You know it's going to be ridiculous. You know it's not going to be "Citizen Kane." But you know it's probably going to make you laugh. It puts a likable cast (John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry and Clark Duke) in absurd situations as they travel back to the 1980s, cause mayhem and use an overabundance of gross-out humor.

There are certain movies like "Hot Tub Time Machine" that you know objectively you can't argue are good movies, but they're wildly entertaining nonetheless. They're guilty pleasures, a classification some movies just wouldn't exist without. Would the likes of "Eurotrip" and "Beerfest" ever see the light of day if producers didn't count on them being someone's guilty pleasure flick?

As a critic, I can look objectively at the "Twilight" films and say they're overly melodramatic, feature beyond unrealistic portrayals of teenage love, have shoddy screenwriting, semi-descent acting and mediocre directing at best. But I've been in the crowd at both midnight showings.

Sometimes I need to step away from all the "Hurt Lockers," "Preciouses" and "Up in the Airs," and just watch some absurdly angsty vampire romance. Everyone needs that movie they pop in their DVD player when they want a little pick-me-up. Mine is a vampire boy and a human girl staring longingly at each other in a meadow. I can't totally explain why I love it. I just do.

It's the same with the "American Pie" movies (the original three, not the lame direct-to-DVD sequels that have sprouted up in recent years). Excellent filmmaking? Not so much. But a fun, raunchy ride with Jim, Stifler and the gang is enough to completely cheer me up when I'm stressed or feeling down.

So what are your guilty pleasures, those movies you know aren't great movies but you can't live without? Sound off in the comments section.

Review: Remember Me

2010-03-13T12:17:00.000-08:00

"Remember Me" is not for the pre-teen crowd that flock to see Robert Pattinson in the "Twilight" films, though Summit's marketing campaign wants you to think so. It's a darker, more mature look at love and family, albeit a fairly melodramatic one.

The film opens when young Ally witnesses her mother's murder in a subway mugging. The action then jumps ahead 10 years when Ally (Emilie de Ravin) is in college. Her rebellious classmate Tyler (Robert Pattinson) has also been affected by a personal tragedy - the suicide of his older brother.

One night Tyler gets involved in a fight outside a bar that results in an altercation between him and Ally's father (Chris Cooper). Tyler's roommate Aidan (Tate Ellington) sees Ally with her father one day and suggests that Tyler date Ally and dump her as a way to get back at her father. But of course, nothing goes according to plan, and Tyler really falls in love with Ally, her free spirit and enthusiasm for living in the moment reinvigorating him.

The romance between Tyler and Ally is just one aspect at the center of "Remember Me." Ally's relationship with her father and Tyler's relationship with his family play just as important of a role. After the death of Ally's mother, her father is fiercely protective and can't come to grips with her growing up and becoming independent, a battle that strains their relationship.

Tyler's father (Pierce Brosnan) is a workaholic who, while he has provided for the family monetarily, has been largely absent personally. Tyler's sister Caroline (Ruby Jerins) is a socially awkward budding artist who just wants their father to pay attention to her. Tyler's intense loyalty to his little sister drives him to become angrier and angrier at his father's neglect.

This movie doesn't feel like it's meant to be a blockbuster success, although I'm sure Summit wouldn't complain if Pattinson's new teen idol status earns it some extra dough. Instead, it feels like part thoughtful indie, part "Love Story" or Nicholas Sparks melodrama. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but overall "Remember Me" is an engaging film.

This isn't the movie for Pattinson to show audiences whether he has versatility and staying power beyond "Twilight" - his upcoming "Bel Ami" and "Water for Elephants" should be better suited to that - but it does show he has potential. It's nice to see him go beyond Edward Cullen, even if Tyler can be equally brooding at times.

He gives a good performance with the material he's given to work with, as does de Ravin, best known for her work on "Lost." They're both such likable leads that it's easy to care about their characters, and they both exude a certain charm that reels you into them. They definitely have a strong screen presence, and they have good chemistry as a couple.

The veteran supporting players are equally strong. Brosnan and Cooper shine in their scenes, Brosnan oblivious and narcissistic and Cooper powerful and pained.

But the real standout of the film is Jerins as Caroline, who glows with a maturity and wisdom beyond her years in every scene she's in. The slightest twitch of her face or lilt in her voice is enough to make you laugh or break your heart. She also brings out the best in Pattinson, who, while he does have good chemistry with de Ravin, shines the most in his scenes with Jerins.

The only performer who was a bit off was Ellington as Aidan, who was fun and goofy sometimes and a bit too obnoxious the rest of the time. He is so overzealous, saying every line and making every gesture with so much energy that he comes across like Tigger on speed.

Allen Coulter does well in the director's chair, but Will Fetters' script is the aspect of the film with the most weaknesses. If the somber tone and dialogue leading up to the film's climactic end were less drenched in melodrama, the movie may have been more effective overall.

But I do applaud Fetters for taking a huge risk in the film's last 10 minutes. It may or may not have worked depending on your view of the scene's execution, but it's refreshing that Fetters attempted to go there rather than playing it predictably safe.

Now I'm going to do something I don't usually do in reviews - I'm going to give away the ending. I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen the film and doesn't want to know, but I don't feel like I can give a complete and honest review of this movie without addressing the ending, which most people have probably heard by now is controversial.

So, if you haven't seen "Remember Me" and you do not want to know the ending, stop reading now.

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

The controversy surrounding the ending of "Remember Me" seems to have to do largely with the fact that it comes as a surprise, but to be fair, the film does present the audience with a timeline, albeit a subtle one.

The murder of Ally's mother takes place in 1991, then jumps ahead to "10 years later," which of course, if you do the math, is 2001. We know it's the end of the school year. Then we know it's the summer. Then Ally makes a point of mentioning it's Labor Day. But it doesn't really hit you where the film is headed until Caroline's teacher writes the date on the chalkboard: September 11, 2001.

Tyler has gone to see his father at work. He looks out the window while he waits for his father to arrive, and when the camera pans out, we see that his father's office is in the World Trade Center. You feel like you've been punched in the gut as dread starts to overwhelm you. You know exactly what is going to happen to Tyler.

We never see the plane hit the tower, just people running and ash descending on the city, falling on the faces of a stunned and horrified-looking Ally and Aidan. What many people thought was going to be a typical tragic romance ends with Tyler dying on 9/11.

Many critics and viewers alike have condemned the film because they feel it exploits a national tragedy. While I may not agree, I completely understand how people might feel that way. Fetters treads a fine line here, and it's debatable whether or not it works. Though Fetters does provide a subtle timeline, the ending comes largely as a surprise, so many people feel it was done purely for shock value, to force the audience to feel emotion in a film that may or may not have touched them until that moment.

Part of this debate could be a case of the "How soon is too soon?" question. When people go to the movies, for the most part, they probably don't want to be reminded about 9/11. Even though it was nearly a decade ago, it still feels like it was yesterday. But if the same story were told in the same way but was set in 1941 and Tyler died at Pearl Harbor, or in 1970 and he died at Kent State, I doubt people would be as offended by it.

Personally, "Remember Me" did not give me the vibe that Fetters wanted to use 9/11 for shock value. Yes, it does come as surprise, but isn't that exactly what happened that day? It completely blindsided everyone. When people woke up on Sept. 11, 2001, no one had any idea what was coming. The ending of "Remember Me" recreates that sense of shock, that sense of horror, that sense of overwhelming sadness.

And that's something that probably makes a lot of people uncomfortable. But should 9/11 really remain a subject untouchable to movies? Right after it happened, most New York-set TV shows didn't even mention it. They just wiped the Twin Towers from the skyline, choosing to move on and continue entertaining people. At that time, maybe that's what people needed. But is almost 10 years later too soon to address it at all?

"World Trade Center" and "United 93" chose to focus entirely on 9/11 from the beginning. "Remember Me" goes at it from a different, more personal angle. It tells the story of how it changed the lives of one small group of people. Like all the individuals affected by the tragedy in real life, Tyler is just living his life when this horrifying event cuts it short. Ally wakes up feeling happy only to have her boyfriend cruelly taken away much too young.

It was a risky move, but "Remember Me" dares to make audiences remember their grief. The whole point of the movie is to remind you not to take for granted the people you love, because you never know when you might lose them. This is a lesson the characters in the film learn the hard way, as Tyler's father loses a second child but in turn becomes more a part of his daughter's life than ever before.

There is no more relatable way to share this message than through 9/11, something everyone in the country was affected by. It brought the nation such a powerful sense of unity, one most people would probably agree we have lost since then. Could the ending of the film have been handled differently? Maybe. But it reminds us not to let all the people who lost their lives that day have died in vain. It reminds us to honor them by appreciating the people we still have in our lives.

However you feel about the ending of the film, whether you appreciate it or it angers you, it accomplishes what I believe Fetters set out to do. It makes you think about 9/11 again. It makes you talk about it. It makes you remember. B

Review: Cop Out

2010-02-27T20:00:00.000-08:00

I love "Clerks." I love "Dogma." I even love "Zack and Miri Make a Porno." But unfortunately Kevin Smith's latest directorial venture is a bit of a disappointment, probably because it didn't come from the wonderfully off-kilter mind of Smith himself.

In "Cop Out," the first movie directed by Smith that he did not write, unconventional detectives Jimmy (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracy Morgan) are temporarily suspended from the New York Police Department for botching a drug ring investigation. Jimmy has been counting on every bit of money he can get to pay for his daughter's wedding, so following the suspension, he decides to sell a prize baseball card that is worth thousands of dollars.

But when a zany thief named Dave (Seann William Scott) steals the card and sells it to a baseball-loving drug lord, Jimmy and Paul attempt to track it down. They get more than they bargained for though, when their series of misadventures leads them back to the drug cartel the NYPD has been investigating.

"Cop Out" sounds side-splittingly funny on paper. Willis and Morgan, who have both proved hilarious in the past, seem like they would be a good team. Scott, Adam Brody and Rashida Jones seem like they would be fantastic support. Smith seems like he would be the perfect fit for a lampoon of buddy cop fare like "Lethal Weapon." But for whatever reason, "Cop Out" just doesn't work.

Willis and Morgan both do a fine job with what they're given, but with a few exceptions, they just don't elicit a lot of laughs together. Same with Scott, Brody and Jones. They all try, but the material just isn't that funny.

I can even see how it would read well. It just doesn't play well. I chuckled a few times, but for the most part it was just a little bland. The acting was fine, the directing was fine, the writing was even so-so, but it just doesn't gel.

One of the brighter spots in the film was a cameo from Smith mainstay Jason Lee, who is as delightfully smarmy in the few minutes of screen time he has as he is in Smith's other movies.

"Cop Out" could make for a decent rental on an otherwise dull night at home, but I would recommend saving the cost of a ticket. Now excuse me while I pop "Clerks" into my DVD player and revisit the Smith I know and love. C-

Review: Shutter Island

2010-02-20T20:25:00.000-08:00

Martin Scorsese fans have waited four long months to see "Shutter Island" after it was pushed back to Feb. 19 from its original October release. Sometimes when a movie's release is delayed, it sparks curiosity about whether there are any problems preventing the movie from being released on time (the constant re-edits of "The Wolfman" spring to mind). But in the case of "Shutter Island," the wait was absolutely worth it.

The film opens with federal marshals Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) arriving to investigate the disappearance of a patient at Shutter Island, a remote psychiatric facility for dangerous, mentally unstable criminals.

The methods of chief psychiatrist Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) seem off to Teddy from the start, and he is immediately suspicious that the patients and staff at Shutter Island aren't as in the dark about the missing patient's whereabouts as they let on.

Teddy soon discovers that nothing inside the walls of Shutter Island is what it seems, and the facility may be involved in a conspiracy that goes way beyond one missing patient. Teddy is also reeling from the death of his wife (Michelle Williams) and his time serving his country in World War II, and his motives for investigating Shutter Island are not strictly professional.

Scorsese takes a detour here from his familiar gangster fare, and he does it beautifully. From about five minutes in, the entire movie is full of edge-of-your-seat suspense. He throws twist after twist at the audience, and you never have a clue what's coming. I hate predictable suspense films, and "Shutter Island" is anything but.

Laeda Kalogridis' script is seamless, flowing freely from one head-scratching moment to the next. Whenever a character speaks and whenever there is only silence, the script maintains an evenly eerie feel. This is further enhanced by the haunting score.

Scorsese also couldn't have asked for a better cast. He and DiCaprio have always had a great synergy, which unsurprisingly continues in this film. Kingsley and Ruffalo (who I think is one of the most underrated actors working right now) also give fantastic supporting performances.

While Jackie Earle Haley, Patricia Clarkson and Emily Mortimer may not have much screen time, they make the most with what they have and are chilling in the few minutes they're onscreen.

"Shutter Island" may not be quite as masterful as "The Departed," but it's an intense thrill ride that will keep audiences guessing until the very end and leave them glued to their seats long after the credits start rolling. A-

Review: Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T19:27:00.000-08:00

Remember how "Love Actually" made the ensemble rom-com seem like such a good idea? That movie was charming, heartwarming, funny, sensitive and had a long list of prominent actors (Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Kiera Knightley, Billy Nighy, Colin Firth, Laura Linney and Liam Neeson, just to name a few). It had cute, feel-good intertwining stories that just happened to merge into a good film.

It's no surprise that other filmmakers would want to try this formula: choose a holiday, attract big-name stars, put them in romantic situations and voila - you've got yourself some romantic comedy gold.

Cue "Valentine's Day," the latest rom-com from Garry Marshall, the man behind "Pretty Woman," "Runaway Bride" and "The Princess Diaries." Centered on the titular holiday, Marshall has accumulated a who's who of Hollywood's most beautiful and famous people and clustered them into romantic situations.

Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah, Taylor Lautner, George Lopez, Shirley MacLaine, Emma Roberts, Julia Roberts and Taylor Swift round out the star-studded ensemble.

When you see a cast list like that, you think one of two things: 1) Wow! How did they get so many stars in one movie? That must mean it's amazing! 2) That's an awful lot of famous people for one movie. Are the filmmakers maybe trying to overcompensate for something?

Unfortunately, in the case of "Valentine's Day," it's the latter. For most of the people in this movie, "Valentine's Day" probably amounted to a fairly sizable paycheck for a short time commitment. For the most part, it feels like Marshall and his team decided to see how many stars they could lock down for the film and then attempted to craft a coherent story around all of them.

Like "Love Actually" and "He's Just Not That Into You," "Valentine's Day" combines several intertwining love stories. Essentially, characters get together or break up, all because of the pressures and excitement of Valentine's Day.

A few of the film's romantic situations involve Reed (Ashton Kutcher) proposing to his girlfriend (Jessica Alba) only to learn that Valentine's Day might not be as magical as he initially believed, phone sex operator Liz (Anne Hathaway) attempting to hold down a normal relationship with her unsuspecting new boyfriend (Topher Grace), a sports publicist (Jessica Biel) and a sports journalist (Jamie Foxx) trying to avoid the anti-single holiday and an airline traveler (Bradley Cooper) striking up a conversation with a soldier (Julia Roberts) on leave for the weekend.

One of the movie's biggest flaws is that it tries to do too much. Yes, it has lots of stars, but most of them aren't given any time to do much of anything. In order to accommodate all of its actors, the numerous storylines feel very rushed.

On top of that, "Valentine's Day" features some of the blandest writing I've seen in a romantic comedy in awhile. The dialogue is so forced and so wooden that even Oscar winners like MacLaine and Foxx seem stale. Most of the storylines and most of the characters are boring and forgettable, with only a handful of exceptions.

Roberts and Cooper are by far the best part of the film, both in terms of their characters and their storylines, but of course that means they have the least amount of screen time. Latifah also provides a few laughs during the few minutes she is onscreen.

The movie attempts to emulate the charm and awe-inducing cuteness of "Love Actually" and even "He's Just Not That Into You," but "Valentines Day" turns out to be nothing a jumbled, sickly sweet mess. D

Review: Dear John

2010-02-07T20:38:00.000-08:00

Anyone who sees a movie based on a Nicholas Sparks book should know exactly what they're getting into: a sappy love story set on the beach in which the couple experiences a montage of happy moments and lots of drama-filled trials and tribulations that prevent them from ending up together. A key character also usually dies.

As cliche as it sometimes is, the Sparks formula usually works very nicely onscreen for people who love a good romantic tearjerker. I will openly admit that "A Walk to Remember" never fails to move me, and Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams' sizzling chemistry warrants repeat viewings of "The Notebook."

I'm someone who constantly falls for this Sparks formula, but unfortunately the latest film based on one of his books, "Dear John," just doesn't live up to hype.

John Tyree (Channing Tatum) is an Army soldier at home in Charleston, S.C., on leave. He meets conservative and innocent college student Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried) when she accidentally drops her purse off a pier into the ocean and he dives in after it. The two hit it off and spend the next two weeks falling head over heels for each other.

But at the end of that two weeks, Savannah must return to school and John must return to his tour. They decide to write to each other constantly to stay connected and agree that at the end of his tour, they will reunite and live happily ever after. But as Savannah warns, a lot can happen in 12 months.

While John is on his tour, planes hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, and he feels it's his duty to continue serving his country. Torn between the Army and Savannah, John struggles to make their relationship work from overseas.

Also integral to the plot is John's relationship with his father (Richard Jenkins), a quiet and awkward man who would rather stay inside with his coin collection than venture out of the house. When Savannah tells John she thinks his father may be autistic, it forces John to come to terms with their strained relationship.

"Dear John" begins promisingly for a Sparks film. No, the writing isn't great, and no, Lasse Hallstrom's direction isn't as beautiful as Nick Cassavetes' direction of "The Notebook." Seyfried and Tatum may be a bit stilted at times but overall their performances are solid.

What's important is the love story, and the film sets it up to be one that viewers could really care about. The characters are likable and engaging, and Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent war is something that is still so fresh in audience members' minds it is easy for them to relate.

It begins as a sweet story of young love surviving challenges, one that should move audiences and enthrall them. But about halfway through the film, it takes a nosedive.

The writing becomes choppy, and the pace of the story is thrown off by the convoluted stream of obstacles hurled at John and Savannah that ultimately lead to a very rushed ending. The twists at the end feel contrived, only serving to provide unnecessary and unrealistic angst.

Yes, there's angst in every Sparks film, but most of the time it flows with the story. Here, the last third of the film feels so forced and rushed it falls miserably flat.

The bright spot in the film is Jenkins, whose portrayal of John's autistic father is so nuanced and thoughtful it moves viewers effortlessly. Everything about his performance feels completely natural, proving the Oscar nominee has the power to shine in even the most mediocre films. He and Tatum also play well off of each other, and their relationship ultimately proves more interesting than the relationship between John and Savannah.

"Dear John" starts strong enough but ultimately turns out to be unsatisfying. If you want a great Sparks romance involving letter-writing, check out "The Notebook" instead. C-

Oscars 2010: Who will take home the top prizes?

2010-02-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

With 10 Best Picture nominees and several surprise nominations, the 2010 Oscars are already shaping up to be an interesting awards ceremony. But who will ultimately take home the top prizes on March 7? And which snubs should have been given a chance?

Best Picture
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Most of the nominees in this category were expected, but there were two major surprises: "District 9" and "The Blind Side." Neill Blomkamp's brilliant sci-fi thriller/apartheid allegory was one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year, but many expected "Avatar" to be the only science fiction film to land a spot. And while Sandra Bullock has been earning awards buzz for "The Blind Side" no one expected the film to win a Best Picture nomination instead of critical and fan favorites "Star Trek" and "The Hangover."

While "Up in the Air" and "Inglourious Basterds" could be contenders, the real race is between "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker." Both outstanding films in their own right, many people expect "Avatar" to win because it's proved to be such a financial juggernaut. The last time a movie was so financially successful was "Titanic," James Cameron's other huge success that took home Best Picture.

But "The Hurt Locker," which has remained the little movie that could since its summer release, just might steal "Avatar's" glory on Oscar night. While "Avatar" took home the Golden Globe, it has remained largely absent from the guild awards. "The Hurt Locker" took home the Producer's Guild and Director's Guild awards, cementing it as real competition for "Avatar." In 54 out of the past 60 years, the DGA winner has won Best Picture. Don't be surprised if Kathryn Bigelow's little movie that could edges out Cameron's box office juggernaut.

Will win: The Hurt Locker
Should win: The Hurt Locker
Should have been nominated: Star Trek

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
George Clooney, "Up in the Air"
Colin Firth, "A Single Man"
Morgan Freeman, "Invictus"
Jeremy Renner, "The Hurt Locker"

Best Actor is perhaps the strongest category this year. Every actor who is nominated gave a phenomenal performance. For Bridges, Clooney and Firth, these performances are regarded by many critics as their career bests. This category is so competitive that other incredible performers like Sharlto Copley of "District 9," Tobey Maguire of "Brothers" and Sam Rockwell of "Moon" were left out.

Bridges has won most of the major awards so far, and with four previous nominations and no wins, many people seem to feel it's his time to take home the gold. His stiffest competition is probably Clooney, whose charismatic but damaged Ryan Bingham showed the actor at his best. Both actors have strong support, but expect Bridges to take home the gold.

Will win: Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
Should win: George Clooney, "Up in the Air"
Should have been nominated: Sam Rockwell, "Moon"

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Helen Mirren, "The Last Station"
Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious"
Meryl Streep, "Julie and Julia"

Most critics consider this category to be a race between Bullock and Streep. Both have been garnering award after award for their performances, including Golden Globes, but Bullock edged out Streep for the Screen Actors Guild award. "The Blind Side" proved Bullock's range extends far beyond her typical romantic comedy roles, and people are loving her as much for her incredible comeback year as for her "Blind Side" performance. She has the edge at this point, but newcomers Mulligan and Sidibe could potentially sweep in for an upset.

Will win: Sandra Bullock, "The Blind Side"
Should win: Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Should have been nominated: Emily Blunt, "The Young Victoria"

Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, "Invictus"
Woody Harrelson, "The Messenger"
Christopher Plummer, "The Last Station"
Stanley Tucci, "The Lovely Bones"
Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"

There is no question Waltz is going to walk away with the Supporting Actor prize. He's swept every major award so far and shows no signs of slowing down for his role as the vile but funny "Jew Hunter" of "Inglourious Basterds." The real surprise here is a nomination for Plummer, who edged out the supporting men of "An Education," Alfred Molina and Peter Sarsgaard.

Will win: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"
Should win: Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"
Should have been nominated: Alfred Molina, "An Education"

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, "Nine"
Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
Anna Kendrick, "Up in the Air"
Mo'Nique, "Precious"

Like the Supporting Actor category, Supporting Actress is a lock. Mo'Nique has deservedly picked up all of the major awards in this category and she will undoubtedly take the Oscar home. Farmiga and Kendrick were both amazing in "Up in the Air," but Mo'Nique's flawless portrayal of an abusive mother stands out above the other nominees.

Cruz seems to be riding on the success of her win last year with her nomination for "Nine," a very underwhelming film. Gyllenhaal's nomination came out of no where, as she hasn't been nominated for any other major awards prior to this. One noticeable absence is Julianne Moore, who has gained awards recognition for her role in "A Single Man" but was shut out here.

Will win: Mo'Nique, "Precious"
Should win: Mo'Nique, "Precious"
Should have been nominated: Julianne Moore, "A Single Man"

Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
James Cameron, "Avatar"
Lee Daniels, "Precious"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"

Like the Best Picture race, this category is between Bigelow and Cameron. Most people seem to think Cameron is a sure thing, expecting the same awards success he saw with "Titanic." Cameron's technology has changed the way blockbuster films will be made, but Bigelow's intense, edge-of-your-seat, highly detailed direction has also resonated strongly with critics and audiences alike.

Cameron may have taken home the Golden Globe, but Bigelow nabbed the Director's Guild prize. In the past 60 years, 58 DGA winners have gone on to win the Oscar. If Bigelow does win, she'll be the first woman to take home the Best Director Oscar. She shouldn't win just because she would be the first woman - she should win because she really is the best nominee this year. Cameron's movie may have been more financially successful, but Bigelow's DGA win means people shouldn't write her off just yet.

Will win: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Should win: Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
Should have been nominated: Neill Blomkamp, "District 9"

Best Original Screenplay
Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman, "The Messenger"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy and Bob Peterson, "Up"

Most of the nominees in this category were expected. The nomination for "The Messenger" came as a bit of a surprise, edging out the popular "(500) Days of Summer." Any of the other nominees could have a shot, but "The Hurt Locker" will likely take this category as well.

Will win: Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
Should win: Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
Should have been nominated: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, "(500) Days of Summer"

Best Adapted Screenplay
Neil Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell, "District 9"
Nick Hornby, "An Education"
Jess Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci and Tony Roche, "In the Loop"
Geoffrey Fletcher, "Precious"
Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"

Most of the nominees in this category were also expected, with the exception of the little-seen "In the Loop," which swooped in out of nowhere to steal the fifth slot from "Fantastic Mr. Fox." All of the nominees are solid contenders, but this is probably the one category in which "Up in the Air" will score a win. The film has gained too much recognition at the critics' awards to walk away empty handed, but the competition in the other categories is so stiff, a screenplay trophy might be its best shot.

Will win: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"
Should win: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"
Should have been nominated: Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach, "Fantastic Mr. Fox"

Review: Extraordinary Measures

2010-01-23T16:48:00.000-08:00

"Extraordinary Measures" is a fairly typical tearjerker. It tells a remarkable story, but unfortunately that isn't enough to make it a remarkable film.

Based on a true story, the film follows John and Aileen Crowley (Brendan Fraser and Keri Russell), the parents of two children who have Pompe disease. The rare genetic disorder confines the children to wheelchairs and respirators and causes progressive muscle weakness. The children are not expected to live past 9 years old, and the Crowleys are desperate find a cure.

John researches the disease tirelessly until he comes across the work of Robert Stonehill (Harrison Ford), a Nebraska-based doctor who has found a possible cure for the disease in theory but does not have the funds to test it.

Determined to make Dr. Stonehill's theories a reality, John and Aileen begin raising the money to fund his research, and John quits his job to form a biotechnology company with Stonehill. Together they work to save John's own children and offer other families affected by Pompe disease hope for a brighter future.

"Extraordinary Measures" is essentially a made-for-TV movie with a bigger budget and bigger names. The story is very moving and inspiring, but it isn't enough to carry the film.

The directing and writing are decent, but nothing special. Ford, Fraser and Russell all give solid performances, though Ford and Fraser have a tendency to overact at times.

There is nothing inherently bad about the film, but it just feels a bit bland. It seems like a much more appropriate fit for the Hallmark Channel than the big screen.

But despite the film's flaws, the story is truly inspiring. Audiences will no doubt be moved by the story of a father's fight for his children's lives. The true story behind "Extraordinary Measures" makes it worth watching, but overall the film is far from extraordinary. C

From page to screen: What makes a good adaptation?

2010-01-16T21:23:00.000-08:00

As "The Lovely Bones" went wide last weekend, most critics and audiences seemed to agree that something is missing in this adaptation of Alice Sebold's bestselling novel. With each page-to-screen adaptation that has populated theaters in recent years, it feels like fans of the source material always find something to criticize. So what exactly makes a good big screen adaptation of a beloved book?

To me, the best adaptations are the ones that are faithful enough to the original that the essence of the book is still intact, but the directors aren't afraid to interweave their own artistic vision. The "Harry Potter" movies, at least "Prisoner of Azkaban" through "Half-Blood Prince" immediately spring to mind.

Once Alfonso Cuaron took the reigns from Chris Columbus, the "Potter" films have maintained the books' magical spirit and increasingly darker tone, but the directors haven't produced verbatim reproductions of the books. They don't sacrifice their own creative vision but stay faithful to the spirit of the source material.

The same can be said of "Up in the Air." I haven't read the book upon which the George Clooney-starring film is based, but supposedly the film is vastly different, changing events and adding characters. But despite the differences, the book's author, Walter Kirn, has said he approves of the movie because it still feels like his story and his characters. Director Jason Reitman creates a happy medium between his own vision for the story and Kirn's vision when translating "Up in the Air" from page to screen.

But while these films are more successful adaptations in my book, others fall under two extremes: too faithful to the story or not faithful enough. The "Twilight" films, entertaining as they might be, come to mind as adaptations that suffer from being too faithful to the source material.

The team behind the films seems to think the fans would be up in arms if the movies strayed even in the slightest from the books, but what results is dialogue that comes across as forced and stale. What reads well on the page doesn't always sound right on camera. If the writer and directors exercised more creative freedom, the story would likely flow better onscreen.

Unfortunately, "The Lovely Bones," which I had high hopes for, falls under the second extreme and differs from the book too much. "The Lovely Bones" has in its favor an incredibly talented cast and an Oscar-winning director. But Peter Jackson spends too much time on visual effects and too little time on how the protagonist's death affects the people she left behind. The book has so many rich supporting characters, and most of their storylines were cut so severely that the movie, while still a decent film, did not feel like the book.

At times Jackson delved into the book's raw emotion, then jumped right back to his effects, then tried to lighten the mood with some comedic moments. As a result the film felt disjointed, like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. It contained glimpses of Sebold's rich novel, but ultimately strayed too far and fell flat.

What do you think? What makes a good big-screen adaptation? What are some of your favorites? Sound off in the comments section.

The Best of 2009

2010-01-05T18:39:00.000-08:00

After ringing in the new year, it's time to reflect back on the best movies of 2009. Before I get to my top 10, here are a few honorable mentions, starting with the best:

-Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
-Precious
-The Hangover
-Invictus
-Where the Wild Things Are

Now on to the best movies of the past year:

10. Adventureland

Poorly marketed as a “Superbad”-esque comedy, “Adventureland” is one of the most underrated films of the year. In this nostalgic dramedy, Greg Mottola presents a beautiful coming of age story that is both touching and realistic. He doesn’t sugarcoat the difficulty of the post-collegiate world, but in his subtle yet poignant storytelling, he offers a glimmer of hope for those struggling to find their way.

9. Avatar and Star Trek (tie)

These two films made 2009 an incredible year for sci-fi blockbusters. “Avatar” is possibly the most visually stunning film of all time, its photorealistic CGI and special effects changing the face of 3D technology. J.J. Abrams’ reimagining of the “Star Trek” franchise pays homage to the original series while creating an intriguing universe all its own. “Avatar” soars because its visual appeal creates an epic moviegoing experience, and the originality of “Star Trek’s” storytelling makes it much more than just another remake.

8. (500) Days of Summer

The narrator of this romantic comedy declares upfront that “this is not a love story,” and what results is a refreshingly original take on the genre. Funny and quirky in the best way, the film dares to explore what most romance films ignore: relationships that, while significant, are just not meant to be. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are also perfectly cast in the lead roles.

7. A Serious Man

The Coen brothers’ films are never simple and straightforward in their meaning, but that is precisely what makes them so interesting. Michael Stuhlbarg is superb as a Jewish man watching his life unravel in 1960s Minnesota. Only the Coens could combine dark comedy with themes of faith and life’s unpredictability so seamlessly.

6. An Education

Carey Mulligan’s nuanced portrayal of a 16-year-old girl learning life’s tough lessons through her relationship with an older man carries this beautifully crafted drama. Set against the backdrop of 1960s London, “An Education” tells a clever tale of the balance between what is taught in the classroom and what young people learn outside of it.

5. Fantastic Mr. Fox

Wes Anderson’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s children’s story is as offbeat, funny and oddly charming as Anderson’s live action films, which is precisely what makes it so clever. The beautifully detailed stop-motion animation combined with Anderson and Noah Baumbach’s witty dialogue is a truly fantastic treat for viewers of all ages. In an age of big-budget CGI, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is an old-fashioned breath of fresh air.

4. Up

Pixar adds another hit to its long list of successes with “Up,” a moving film that manages to lift audiences’ spirits and breaks their hearts all at once. The film’s visually dynamic look and well-rounded characters will stay with viewers long after the film’s end. Its opening montage alone is masterfully crafted, telling Carl and his wife’s entire love story in mere minutes with no dialogue yet an abundance of emotion.

3. District 9

Perhaps the year’s most surprising film, Neill Blomkamp’s “District 9” riskily and fearlessly combines science fiction thrills with the drama of social justice issues. Simultaneously a heart-racing action flick and an apartheid allegory, “District 9” sends a message without being preachy and entertains with its documentary-style storytelling. Its star, first-time actor Sharlto Copley, is also a true talent, creating a complex performance opposite his CGI counterparts.

2. Up in the Air

This is Jason Reitman’s most personal film to date and perhaps the best performance of George Clooney’s career. “Up in the Air’s” sharp script and talented cast make it a gem of a movie. The film offers both a timely look at economic suffering and a man’s slow realization that even in the face of that suffering, opening yourself up to those you care about is the real key to happiness. In its insightful examination of downsizing, technology, relationships and loneliness, “Up in the Air” weaves a tragically beautiful tale.

1. The Hurt Locker

Kathryn Bigelow's fierce portrait of a bomb squad's rotation in Iraq is a tense ride, leaving audience's palms sweating and adrenaline rushing as they share the characters’ feelings that in a war zone, no one is ever safe. The film’s lack of a political agenda leaves room for a war story that is gritty and real. Jeremy Renner’s and Anthony Mackie’s strong performances and Bigelow’s detailed direction make “The Hurt Locker” the most accurate fictional depiction of the Iraq War presented onscreen.

2009: At the Movies

2009-12-26T12:33:00.000-08:00

I'm a sucker for YouTube videos that review the year in film. This one wraps up 2007 set to "Falling Slowly" from Once, and this one reviews 2008 to "Hoppipolla" by Sigur Ros from the "Slumdog Millionaire" trailer. Now, a new video examines cinema in 2009 to Arcade Fire's "Wake Up" from the "Where the Wild Things Are" trailer.

The way these videos review some of cinema's greatest moments from the year in the span of a few minutes, set to such beautiful songs, gives me a swell of pride about film. It reminds me why I love film so much, why I find it so magical. In this case I think the music and images are worth a thousand words, so check out "2009: At the Movies" below.

Review: New York, I Love You

2009-12-23T22:47:00.000-08:00

Though I’ve never seen “Paris, Je T’aime,” an anthology of French short films that focuses on finding love and connection in Paris, I’d heard such good things about it that I was excited to see an American version, “New York, I Love You.” While some of the vignettes were moving and beautiful, others missed the mark.

“New York, I Love You” features 11 short films, each helmed by a different director, about relationships that form among people living the city’s five boroughs. Some are sexual and others are romantic. Some are about parents and children and others are about complete strangers. Some are cute, some are haunting, some are heartwarming and some are a bit depressing.

Though the film has several flaws, it also has some positives. The star-studded cast is essentially a who’s who of Hollywood, ranging from older heavyweights like Julie Christie and Chris Cooper to younger talent like Natalie Portman and Bradley Cooper.

The best vignette by far features the film’s oldest cast members, Cloris Leachman and Eli Wallach. It is a subtle and uplifting story about a couple who have been married for several decades, slowly strolling to the beach. Though they may not walk with as brisk of a pace as they once did, their love for each other hasn’t changed.

Surprisingly, one of my other favorite storylines was directed by Brett Ratner, with whom I am usually not impressed. His story of a young man’s first sexual encounter was funny and charming, emphasizing many of New York’s unique quirks and set against the backdrop of Central Park.

But other storylines didn’t flow as well. The opening segment featuring Hayden Christiansen and Rachel Bilson (pictured above) was disjointed and awkward, and the segment featuring Shia LaBeouf and Christie, though beautifully shot and well acted, was confusing and didn’t seem to fit with the tone of the rest of the film.

While reviews I read of the movie made it sound like it would be a literal anthology of short films, one right after the other, the segments were actually interconnected through a filmmaker character, a tactic that ultimately dragged the film down.

The film was also hurt by the absence of one particular New York characteristic — diversity. Two segments do feature immigrant characters and one features an African-American character, but otherwise the large cast is almost entirely white. All of the love stories are also heterosexual, though the French original does feature a homosexual storyline. New York is a city with so much cultural, racial and sexual diversity that it felt odd for those elements to be missing.

“New York, I Love You” hits the mark in some segments and misses it in others, and the attempt to make the film flow better by interconnecting the stories actually makes it flow worse. I recommend waiting for the DVD, when viewers can pick and choose the segments they like. C+

Review: Invictus

2009-12-12T12:42:00.000-08:00

Any time the names Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman are attached to a movie, more often than not some sort of Oscar buzz will emerge from it. "Invictus" is no exception, even if the story is unusually optimistic for an Eastwood film.

"Invictus" tells the story of how in his first term as president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela (Freeman) turned to an unlikely source to unite the country - the Springboks South African national rugby team. After spending 27 years in prison for his anti-apartheid activism, Mandela is elected president in South Africa's first fully representative election. South Africa remains racially divided, and Mandela desperately wants to find some way to reconcile the country following apartheid.

At a Springboks rugby match, Mandela notices that the white South Africans are cheering for the Springboks while the black South Africans are cheering for the opposing team. It dawns on him that if he can get the whole country to unite in supporting the Springboks for the 1995 Rugby World Cup, it may drive the country to be united permanently.

He communicates his plan to Springboks captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), and as the team works harder than ever to reach the World Cup, together Mandela and Pienaar attempt to unite South Africa through the power of sport.

The title refers to a poem by William Ernest Henley that Mandela uses as inspiration and references several times throughout the film.

"Invictus" succeeds on many levels, first and foremost in its directing. Eastwood directs the film beautifully, capturing the initial turmoil and rising spirit of South Africa and the blood, sweat and tears the rugby team endures to unite the country with Mandela's help.

Freeman gives a passionate performance as Mandela, cementing his deserved reputation as one of the best actors around. Damon, who I've always thought is very underrated, also gives a great performance as Francois, conveying his seamless transition from a cynic to a caring and proud South African. Michael Stevens and Eastwood's son Kyle also provide a beautiful score.

My only complaint is that the film tends to drag a little in places, but the remarkable story is more than enough to make up for it. It's riveting enough to bring tears of joy to the eyes of sports fans and non-sports fans alike. Overall, "Invictus" is an inspiring story that everyone should make an effort to see. A-

Best movies of the decade

2009-12-08T09:00:00.000-08:00

5. “Almost Famous” (2000): Cameron Crowe’s coming-of-age story about a teenage freelance reporter for Rolling Stone is a brilliant love letter to rock ‘n’ roll of the 1970s, in all its untamed glory. Featuring a killer soundtrack and one of the best movie scenes involving music to date (“Tiny Dancer”), one can feel Crowe’s own love of music reverberating right off the screen.

4. “The Departed” (2006): Martin Scorsese finally won an Oscar for his intricate tale of undercover cops, the Irish mob and the blurred lines between good and evil. Featuring an outstanding ensemble cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson and Mark Wahlberg, Scorsese’s complicated morality tale never slows down and is always surprising, even after multiple viewings.

3. “Once” (2007): Deeply moving in its subtle storytelling and performances, “Once” is everything a great indie should be. This tiny $160,000 Irish import depicts an unnamed man and woman connecting through their love of music, proving more powerful than any big-budget production number. Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova’s magnetic screen chemistry and phenomenal Oscar-winning music make “Once” an instant indie classic.

2. “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (2004): Visually and emotionally beautiful, Charlie Kaufman’s best script to date tells the story of love outlasting memory. Set against the sci-fi backdrop of memory erasing procedures, the rocky relationship between Joel (Jim Carrey) and Clementine (Kate Winslet) unfolds in unexpected ways that will resonate with audiences long after the credits stop rolling.

1. “The Dark Knight” (2008): Christopher Nolan’s epic sequel to “Batman Begins” completely changed the face of comic book movies. Rather than just another effects-driven blockbuster, Nolan’s adaptation is haunting, complex and deeply psychological. The flawed heroes of Nolan’s Batman universe make the story feel much more raw than other comic book flicks, and Heath Ledger’s Joker, rooted in anarchic chaos, is perhaps the decade’s most iconic performance.

Honorable mentions: “WALL-E” (2008), “Children of Men” (2006), “Pan’s Labyrinth” (2006), “No Country for Old Men” (2007), “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” (2005), "Lord of the Rings" (2001-2003), "Memento" (2000), "Donnie Darko" (2001), "The Bourne Ultimatum" (2007), "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008)

Review: Brothers

2009-12-05T22:21:00.000-08:00

If you've seen the trailers for the ensemble drama "Brothers," you probably think it's just another tired, melodramatic love triangle story. But this movie is the perfect example of why you shouldn't always judge a film by its trailer.

"Brothers" actually has very little to do with the love triangle aspect that dominates the trailer, but rather explores the tragic effect war can have on families, and how that effect doesn't always go away after the soldier returns home.

Tobey Maguire plays Sam Cahill, a marine who is happily married to his high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman). Sam has always been a do-gooder and is the favorite son of his father (Sam Shepard), an alcoholic and retired military man. As Sam deploys to Afghanistan, his younger brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) is released from jail, where he did time for robbing a bank.

Not long after Sam deploys, two soldiers arrive at Grace's house telling her Sam is dead following a helicopter crash. Feeling lost and alone and unsure of how to raise her two young daughters on her own, Grace develops a friendship with Tommy, who has been hit hard by Sam's death. He changes his bad boy ways and takes it upon himself to care for Grace and the girls, fixing up their house and acting as a father figure.

But, as is revealed in the trailer, Sam actually isn't dead. He and another marine made it out of the crash alive but were taken prisoner. As his family copes with his supposed death at home, the audience sees Sam tortured as a prisoner of war. In order to see his family again he is forced to make an impossible choice, one that haunts him long after he returns home.

Suffering from intense post traumatic stress disorder, Sam becomes increasingly paranoid and is convinced his wife and brother's friendship is actually something more. Destroyed by the trauma of war, Sam clearly isn't the man he once was. His family desperately tries to get him to tell them what happened in Afghanistan, hoping to help him heal as the family unravels around him.

Yes, there is an obvious attraction between Grace and Tommy, and as is shown in the trailer, they do kiss once, though the kiss is mostly out of their shared grief about losing Sam. Sam is paranoid their relationship runs deeper, but it's one of many things Sam is paranoid about as a result of the PTSD.

The studio likely felt people wouldn't want to see a deep and harrowing film about the emotional ramifications of war, so it was marketed as being focused almost entirely on the love triangle angle. But "Brothers" is actually a gripping story featuring outstanding performances from its three leads.

I was most surprised by Maguire, who was unimpressive in his last major role in "Spider-Man 3." In "Brothers," he achieves a performance with much more depth than I've seen from him previously. You can see the pure anguish in his eyes when he is being tortured in Afghanistan and you can feel the mental suffering he feels after he returns home and is traumatized by his experiences during the war. When placed in the hands of director Jim Sheridan, Maguire's acting is at its best.

Bailee Madison and Taylor Geare are also fantastic as Sam and Grace's daughters, desperately wanting their father back but afraid of the tormented man he's become.

"Brothers" isn't easy to watch, but I think exploring PTSD in soldiers and its effects on their families is an important issue to capture on film, and Sheridan and his cast achieve it beautifully. Rather than judging "Brothers" by its trailer, I would definitely recommend giving it a chance. B+

Review: The Twilight Saga: New Moon

2009-11-20T20:04:00.000-08:00

I have never seen a pop culture phenomenon as polarizing as "Twilight," and based on the reviews for the second installment in the series, "New Moon" is no exception. Personally, I enjoy the "Twilight" books. Yes, they're poorly written. Yes, they're extremely cheesy. But to me they are fun, escapist entertainment. That's what "New Moon" sets out to be, and director Chris Weitz's adaptation actually succeeds more than the book.

In "New Moon," human high school student Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are just as in love as in the first installment. But when Edward's brother Jasper (Jackson Rathbone) almost attacks Bella, a guilt-ridden Edward fears being with him is too dangerous for Bella. Determined to keep her safe, Edward leaves town, where a broken-hearted Bella feels the sting of losing her first love.

Completely numb for months, Bella finally starts to heal when she grows closer to her friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner), who quickly makes it clear he's interested in more than just friendship with her. But just when Bella is getting used to supernatural beings not being in her life, Jacob discovers the legends that his Quileute tribe is descended from wolves are actually true (spoiler alert unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months) - Jacob is a werewolf, sworn to protect the tribe's land from vampires.

The change in Jacob sets in when Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre), one of the nomadic vampires from the first film, returns to Forks, Wash., in search of Bella, who she's determined to kill. Bella has to adjust to her friend's new-found identity, avoid crossing paths with Victoria and try to forget the Cullens, who re-enter her life in a dramatic way.

From a filmmaking standpoint, "New Moon" improves on "Twilight" in every way, largely thanks to Weitz's direction. Catherine Hardwicke's directing in the first film was uneven and the story very disjointed. The script borderlined on over-the-top cheesy even for "Twilight" fans, and the acting was wooden for the most part.

But with Weitz in the director's chair, the story is much more cohesive and the directing is solid. Gone are Hardwicke's unnecessary extra shots and the first film's odd blue tint. The book's trademark teen angst is still present, but screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg inserts enough extra humor to counterbalance it. The story moves at a slow and steady pace, but that's the way the books are set up.

Though the dialogue is still a bit cheesy, the actors seem much more comfortable in their roles this time around. The two standouts in the film are the hilarious Billy Burke, who plays Bella's dad Charlie and also stole the show in the first film, and the always wonderful Michael Sheen, who plays the creepy leader who enforces the vampire laws.

The special effects are also a huge step above those of the first film. While they're nowhere close to the quality of the effects of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," for example, they suit the film's needs. I was satisfied with the werewolf transformations, and the other effects look much less fake than in the first film.

Alexandre Desplat's score is a little odd at times but is solid overall, and the rest of the film's soundtrack is strong, featuring bands like Death Cab for Cutie, The Killers, OK Go and Muse.

In a nutshell, "Twilight" fans should find "New Moon" to be a huge improvement from the first film, while people who hate "Twilight" will probably hate this movie too. If you're one of the few people not on either extreme who was indifferent to the first film, I'd suggest giving "New Moon" a shot. Fans will be satisfied while the haters will continue to hate. B

Review: Pirate Radio

2009-11-14T18:55:00.000-08:00

The U.S. release of "Pirate Radio" has been delayed for months, and when it was finally released Nov. 13, it was dumped quietly at the beginning of awards season. So given its release date issues, I was worried the second film from director Richard Curtis (after 2003's "Love Actually") would be a disappointment. But though the film has its flaws, it's actually quite enjoyable.

"Pirate Radio," originally titled "The Boat that Rocked," is a period comedy set against the backdrop of 1960s rock n' roll. Mainstream British radio stations refuse to play rock music, and pirate stations like Radio Rock broadcast 24 hours a day from boats. When young, inquisitive Carl (Tom Sturridge) gets expelled from school, his mother (Emma Thompson) sends him aboard the Radio Rock ship to stay with his godfather Quentin (Bill Nighy).

Aboard the ship, Carl meets the station's popular DJs like flamboyant Gavin (Rhys Ifans), flirtatious Dr. Dave (Nick Frost) and rebellious American broadcaster The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Along with the rest of the station's crew, the men introduce Carl to the rock n' roll lifestyle.

The movie chronicles Carl's coming of age experience on the ship and the eclectic gang's day-to-day misadventures. All the while a conservative government official, Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), tries desperately to shut down Radio Rock.

Overall, I really liked this film. The music in fantastic (ranging from The Who to Dusty Springfield), and Curtis captures the rock n' roll atmosphere of the 1960s very well.

Everyone involved gives great comedic performances, but the standout of the bunch is Hoffman, who, since "Capote," has quickly become recognized as one of the best actors around. He could sit in front of a camera for two hours with a paper bag over his head and I would still watch it. But the entire ensemble works well together, each character hilariously unique as individuals and as a group.

One of my biggest complaints actually has little to do with the film itself and more to do with its U.S. marketing campaign. The poster and trailers prominently state "inspired by true events." Elements are loosely based on actual pirate radio stations that existed in 1960s Britain, but other than that, the story is completely fictional. It's a great story, but it shouldn't be marketed as fact when most of it is fiction.

Another complaint is the film's running time, which at 2 hours and 15 minutes is a bit lengthy, especially for a comedy. It's bearable because the characters are all so much fun to watch, but it nevertheless feels too lengthy at times. The story is also a bit incoherent sometimes, but overall it's a fun time at the movies. B

Review: The Box

2009-11-07T18:11:00.000-08:00

What happens when you open the box? In the case of Richard Kelly's new film, you get a talented cast wasted in an uneven movie.

The latest sci-fi thriller from the writer-director of "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales" centers on Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden), a married couple who are experiencing financial difficulties. One day Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), an ominous man who is missing half of his face, stops by their house to deliver a box with a single red button inside.

If Norma and Arthur push the button, two things will happen: They'll receive a cash payment of $1 million and someone who they don't know will die. Arlington tells Norma they have 24 hours to decide before he will retrieve the box, reprogram it and make the offer to someone else.

As Norma and Arthur try to decide if they could live with being responsible for someone's death in order to provide for their family, they begin meeting a number of strange characters who appear to be in a trance-like state, flashing them the peace sign with blood trickling from their noses. They discover nothing with the box is as simple as it seems as they investigate Arlington's mysterious employers.

My biggest problem with "The Box" is that it felt like two different movies. The first half is more what I expected from the trailer. The box is introduced almost immediately, so there is instantly a sense of foreboding and dread. There is a slow yet suspenseful build to the moment when Norma and Arthur decide whether or not to push the button, but that's when the movie takes a turn for the worse.

I expected more of an understated brand of suspense, more reminiscent of Hitchcock or "The Twilight Zone" (the same urban legend that inspired this movie was used in an episode of the series). It started out promising, but halfway through the film the story transforms into over-the-top gimmicks. The story gets progressively weirder and veers further and further from the more subtle tone established earlier in the film. People in the audience at my screening actually laughed out loud at the film's increasing absurdity.

Kelly showed such promise with the cult classic "Donnie Darko," which although it was extremely convoluted was also fresh and creative. Audiences go into that movie knowing it will be bizarre. But "The Box's" out-there second half feels out of place because the story isn't set up for such outrageously excessive twists. Its offbeat tangents come as a complete surprise, and as a result the story feels uneven.

Kelly seems to be turning into the M. Night Shyamalan of sci-fi - he had one brilliant film before heading progressively downhill with his follow-up efforts. Only time will tell if Kelly's next project will be more promising.

There were a few positives to the film in addition to its stronger first half. Marsden and Langella turn in strong performances as usual, while Diaz is decent except for her attempt at a Southern accent. The film also has a wonderfully eerie score courtesy of Win Butler, Regine Chassagne and Owen Pallett of Arcade Fire. And even though the film ends poorly, it does raise some interesting moral questions.

So what do you think about "The Box?" Would you press the button? Sound off in the comments section. C-

Not just for kids

2009-10-26T23:11:00.000-07:00

Whether you love it or hate it, most people seem to agree that “Where the Wild Things Are,” Spike Jonze’s adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book, isn’t really for kids. Rather than making a cute family film about love and friendship, Jonze’s adaptation is a deeply psychological look at what it feels like to be a 9-year-old, specifically the more tumultuous emotions a 9-year-old experiences rather than the joy of being a kid.

Max, played by newcomer Max Records, feels isolated, different and lonesome, and the performances and script convey these emotions so vividly that the audience feels them right along with him. And once he gets to the land of the Wild Things, life doesn’t get any easier. He has companionship with his cuddly new friends, but the dysfunctional group has just as many problems as he does.

Carol (James Gandolfini) is jealous of KW’s (Lauren Ambrose) new friends and wants desperately to keep their current group together without the intrusion of any newcomers while KW longs to explore something new. Judith (Catherine O’Hara) is constantly skeptical of what’s going on around her, and Alexander (Paul Dano) is frustrated and sad that no one ever listens to him.

Though they all clearly care about the friendship that binds them together, their problems often overpower it. These interactions are so intense and powerful that at times I felt uncomfortable watching it. Rarely is anything in this movie wrapped up neatly in a Disney-esque bow. The Wild Things all look to Max to make their lives better, but sometimes he just doesn’t know how to fix it – a realization that ultimately brings him closer to his mother, as in the land of the Wild Things, he has had to take on a role similar to hers.

This movie is pretty dark for a children’s film, and though the kids in the audience at my screening seemed entertained enough by the fuzzy title creatures, the movie’s complexity went way over their heads. Most of the audience for “Where the Wild Things Are” its opening weekend were adults and, in particular, college students.

This movie wasn’t even really marketed as children’s fare. Jonze’s past films include “Adaptation” and “Being John Malkovich,” intricate R-rated indies, and the offbeat indie vibe of those movies is definitely present in “Where the Wild Things Are.” But Jonze isn’t the only traditionally adult director tackling children’s stories.

Wes Anderson, also known for offbeat R-rated dramedies about dysfunctional people like “Rushmore,” “The Royal Tenenbaums” and “The Life Aquatic,” is tackling Roald Dahl’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox” this Thanksgiving. Like “Where the Wild Things Are,” this is a movie I’m not sure will resonate with kids as much as it will with Anderson’s typical audience.

The trailer for the stop motion animation film about Mr. Fox (George Clooney), his ragtag family and friends and their plan to escape from an evil trio of farmers feels like any other Wes Anderson movie. The dry humor and the interactions between the characters are definitely reminiscent of something like “The Royal Tenenbaums,” if that film were animated and about animals. It seems marketed toward Anderson’s usual target audience, and his fans will likely be curious about this new project, but it’s hard to say whether children will be entertained by his trademark style.

Tim Burton’s adaptation of “Alice in Wonderland” (due in theaters March 5) also looks as dark and fantastical as any other Burton film. Though he’s no stranger to children’s movies, having directed films like “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” in the past, Burton always puts his own unique spin on the material and his movies always appeal to just as many adults, maybe even to more adults, than children.

So what do you think? Why are directors like Jonze, Anderson and Burton so attracted to children’s stories right now? What other children’s movies can you think of that actually appeal more to adults?

Review: Couples Retreat

2009-10-10T11:39:00.000-07:00

With a cast including funny men Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau and Jason Bateman, I expected “Couples Retreat” to offer plenty of laughs. But as far as romantic comedies go, this one fell a little flat.

The film focuses on four couples: Dave (Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman), a stable and happy couple with excessively busy lives, Jason (Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell), an anal retentive couple who are having trouble conceiving a child, Joey (Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis), who married after getting pregnant in high school and both have wandering eyes and Shane (Faizon Love) and Trudy (Kali Hawk), whose May-December romance is a product of Shane’s recent divorce.

Jason and Cynthia tell the others they are considering getting a divorce, and they want to travel to a tropical couples resort called Eden to attempt to save their marriage. They can’t afford the cost of the trip themselves, though, so they invite their friends to accompany them and get a discounted group rate. While the other couples are only looking for fun in the sun rather than therapy, the trip forces all of them to reevaluate their relationships.

The film was written by Vaughn and Favreau, both of whom have proven funny in the past in films like “Swingers.” But for the majority of the film, the audience only let out a few half-hearted chuckles and the occasional laugh.

The concept for “Couples Retreat” had potential, but it failed in its execution. The film was cheesy and predictable in all the wrong ways. I love cheesy and predictable romantic comedies as much as the next person, as long as they’re funny. But the jokes in this film were just few and far between, with only a handful of laugh-out-loud scenes.

The movie did have a terrific ensemble cast, which is part of the reason I was so disappointed with it. With the names attached to the project, I just expected more. All of the actors did a great job in their individual roles and as a group, and with a less talented cast, this movie would have completely missed the mark. The actors all seemed to be having fun together, which is part of what made the film bearable.

“Couples Retreat” did have some cute and funny moments, and the actors are all enjoyable to watch. It’s by no means the worst rom-com out there, but the fact that this romantic comedy isn’t all that funny takes away from the experience. “Couples Retreat” ends up being more of a lackluster trip than an enjoyable getaway. C-