Inglorious Basterds

I am not much of a Quentin Tarantino fan. In fact, I've never seen one of his movies that I really loved - that is of course until I saw Inglorious Basterds. The movie isn't without it's flaws, (and they are many of the same flaws that show up again and again in Tarantino's work) but it does offer something you don't get a lot of at the cinema these days - originality.

You can't walk into the theatre expecting Inglorious Basterds to be completely historically accurate. Hell, you should probably abandon any hope of it being historically accurate at all at the door. Instead look at it as entertainment. There was nothing factual about the story of Saving Private Ryan either. The artistic liberties taken with World War II in that movie just aren't as outrageous as the ones taken here.

Inglorious Basterds is a movie made up of two stories. One is about Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his band of Nazi scalping Jews. You read that right. Tarantino's World War II features the Jews fighting back with great success. The other story is about the young Shoshana Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a Jewish girl from the French country side who is the lone survivor when her family is massacred by the evil Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). One story leaves you wanting more. The other can get a bit tedious at times.

Brad Pitt is amazing as Aldo Raine. He is another triumph for Tarantino - a great actor that works on a whole new level when handed a script full of terrific dialogue. For all of my Tarantino hating, I can admit that he churns out some of the best written scripts. Pitt deserves an Oscar nomination for his work in Inglorious Basterds. Raine's team of young Jewish soldiers out for revenge are almost frightening in how calm they are and how seriously they take their mission. When "the Bear Jew" (director Eli Roth playing a role that believe it or not was written for Adam Sandler) beats a Nazi leader to death with a baseball bat there is enough blood to dull the impact of the violence. Still though, you're watching a man get beat to death with a baseball bat.

The Basterds are a great group of characters. Smithson Utivich (The Office's B.J. Novak) only has two or three lines, but they are so damn funny that he is one of the more memorable characters in the film. I really wish Tarantino had stayed with them longer. And for all of the hype for Nazi killing generated in the movie's marketing campaign, we actually see very little of it. Either the director chose not to show a lot of it and keep the Basterds mysterious and thus a little more effective as characters or someone at the Weinstein Company asked Tarantino to dial down the violence.

Shoshana Dreyfus' story is a lot less entertaining. In fact, it can get down right boring at times. After escaping from Landa in the film's first chapter (Inglorious Basterds is broken into chapters like so many of Tarantino's previous films) Shoshana grows up to run her own cinema with her boyfriend/husband/who knows. All is fine until a young Nazi soldier takes a shine to Shoshana and she is put in the middle of a big night for the Nazi regime. She hatches a plan to burn her cinema to the ground with close to 800 Nazis (Hitler included) locked inside.

Shoshana's story is saved by another Oscar-worthy performance. Christoph Waltz, who until now had done very little work in English, steals every scene he is in. His Hans Landa is one of the best movie villains to come along in a long long time. I have always felt like Hollywood forgot how to write villains for adult films after Hanible Lechter in Silence of the Lambs. Why would a screen writer remember? Everything has been super heroes and live action versions of cartoons for so long. This guy isn't crazy like The Dark Knight's Joker. He's evil plain and simple.

Inglorious Basterds takes a brief detour into England at one point. Is the scene necessary? Yes, but it ends up being more distracting than anything else. Why, you ask? The scene is afterall intrigal to the plot. The problem is Mike Myers.



Yes that Mike Myers.

The thing about Myers is he can't speak with a British accent without your mind going straight to one place...

To say it makes the scene a bit distracting is an understatement.

Am I becoming a Quentin Tarantino fan? No, probably not. I wasn't overly impressed with Pulp Fiction and I hated both Kill Bills. Inglorious Basterds though is a movie I really loved. Sure it got slow at times, but overall the movie was completely enjoyable. I found myself lost in the story most of the time. I have been impressed with this summer's slate of movies. A lot of them have been better than I expected. Inglorious Basterds is right there with the best of them.

The Greek gives it an A-.

Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince

I will admit that as an adult, heterosexual male, the fact that I am a Harry Potter fan makes me a bit of an enigma. Add in the fact the I don't have a kid, I don't still live with my mother, and I have found someone with a respectable job to love me damn near makes me Bigfoot in a world dominated by nerds and fat children.

I should also point out that I have NEVER even picked up a Harry Potter book. I just like the movies. I think the franchise has managed to become reliable, while at the same time each film has it's own style and voice. It's partly because Potter gets a new director seemingly each time out. It's also because the stories are just well written and well written stories are rare during blockbuster season and well written stories that feature plenty of eye candy are rare during the holiday season. The Potter movies have managed to fill each of those voids at various times in the franchise's history on film.

The latest offering, Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince, is a tale of deception, maturity, and despair wrapped up in the usual Hogwarts magic. It's a good movie by summer blockbuster standards. I still walked away a little disappointed, because by franchise standards Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince is middle of the road film. I liked each of the previous three movies more. However, if you haven't read the novel (as I haven't), the movie really leaves you yearning for the two part finale The Deathly Hollows, which will begin in 2010 and finish in 2011.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is the second movie in the franchise for director David Yates. Warner Brothers has decided to ride him to the end too. Yates is working on The Deathly Hollows right now. One thing we learned about Yates in the previous Potter film, is that he knows how to get the most from his actors. Helena Bonham Carter was awesome as the evil Bellatrix Lastrange in Order of the Phoenix. She's even better in The Half Blood Prince.

The three actors at the core of every Potter film are as good as they have ever been. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have become so comfortable with their characters that it's hard to think of them in any other role, and we've become so comfortable with them that we can't imagine those characters any other way. These actors are growing up with these characters and that is good for fans of the franchise. Ron Weasley (Grint) is starting to fall for Hermoine Granger (Watson), just as most of the world is starting to notice that Watson has grown into a beautiful young woman. It makes us root for Ron that much harder.

Yates is also right on the money with the use of CGI and other special effects. They don't over power the movie like they do in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or Terminator Salvation, but come on - the Harry Potter franchise is all about magic! Yates has to impress us. He does. The special effects are great, but they all fit the way they are supposed to. Anything that's supposed to be frightening (The bad guys jump into the scene in frightening clouds of black smoke)is. Anything that is supposed to be amazing (Dumbledor repairing a destroyed muggle house) is. We have seen zombies interpreted a million different ways on film. Yates' zombies for a climactic scene in The Half Blood Prince look like they belong in the Potter universe.

There really isn't much wrong with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. The movie is genuinely exciting and funny. Seriously, I don't have a complaint that I can come up with right off the top of my head. I was a little disappointed with the ending, but The Half Blood Prince is to Harry Potter what The Empire Strikes Back is to Star Wars. The point is to leave you wanting a resolution and I do! Too bad we'll all have to wait until 2010...and then until 2011. I guess I could pick up a copy of The Deathly Hollows, but let's be serious. I'm never gonna read.

My one problem really isn't a fair one. I want less relationship crap. I don't really care about Harry Potter's romance with Ron Weasly's little sister. But then again, the books were written for kids less than half my age. So who is wrong here? Probably me.

The Greek gives it a B.

I Love You Beth Cooper

There is no getting around it. This movie just wasn't made for me. I knew that going in. I knew that the film maker's target demographic was boys age 13 - 18 looking for a laugh after seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for the third time, not 28-year-old men with film degrees. Yet, still I gave I Love You Beth Cooper a chance. Why? Mostly because it was free.

Did I get what I paid for? Yeah, kinda. This isn't so much a movie as it is a collection of one-liners and side boob. I Love You Beth Cooper tells the story of Dennis Cooverman (played by Paul Rust, who I wasn't familiar with but was instantly struck by the size of his nose) and the graduation speech that leads to the greatest night of his young life. Most people would use a valedictory address to impart some wisdom to his class mates. Not Dennis. He uses his time in the spotlight to confess his love for the very beautiful and very popular Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere of Heroes fame).

My problems with the movie are the same as my problems with most teen comedies. The first problem is that director Chris Columbus (how the mighty have fallen, right?) can't seem to decide if this is a comedy or a coming-of-age piece. Most teen comedies straddle that line, but at times you get the impression that Columbus is trying to make something more akin to Stand by Me than American Pie.

The movie also has a very streaky script. Dennis' speech is great, but it happens in the first fifteen minutes of the film. After that it is for the most part down hill. Chase scenes involving Beth Cooper's 'roided up cadet boyfriend, Kevin (Shawn Roberts) , usually start out funny but aside from a locker room towel fight featuring Dennis' best friend Rich Munch (Jack Carpenter) - get it? Richard Munch...Dick Munch - they all go on too long and the fun disappears.

I Love You Beth Cooper suffers from one very common problem that most teen comedies share. The movie was made by a guy who was likely a nerd in high school, so he didn't really know what the parties that the cool kids had were actually like. That means everything the cool kids do in this movie is just ridiculous. I went to high school. I was friends with a lot of people - many of them very cool. No one I know had a threesome. No one I know broke into the school for a co-ed shower. No one I know drove a car through someone else's living room window.

The best thing that I Love You Beth Cooper has going for it is the soundtrack. Is every song used a classic? No, but they all fit perfectly. Dennis is a nerd, so it stands to reason that his graduation night mix tape would feature the hella-lame "School's Out" by Alice Cooper. Also, mega kudos to whoever decided to use Ray Lamontagne's "Let it be Me" for Dennis & Beth's heart to heart in the wilderness.

The movie has it's moments. I certainly laughed more than a few times, and I truly appreciate Hayden Panettiere giving up the side boob. Don't worry guys. She's 20. You can enjoy the show. Overall though, I just don't feel like I would have missed anything if I had never seen I Love You Beth Cooper.

The Greek gives it a C-.

Public Enemies

If you have read some of my more recent posts, you would be able to tell that I was really looking forward to the release of Michael Mann's latest, Public Enemies. I am a huge Johnny Depp fan, and frankly I was ready to see something with a little more depth after sitting through Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Public Enemies isn't a bad movie. It just isn't as good as I was hoping for, and that is my fault. I think I built up how good it was going to be in my mind.

The film as a lot going for it. The acting is great. Johnny Depp is his usual oddball genius. Marion Cotillard is gorgeous and not bad as John Dillinger's love interest. Even Channing Tatum, who is on the screen for all of 15 minutes, is just plain fantastic as Baby Face Nelson.

I was most impressed by Christian Bale, who - and let me make this perfectly clear - I usually can't stand. Did you see The Dark Knight? He nearly ruined a great movie with his "I desperately want to be Clint Eastwood" growl. Plus, he's just a real douche bag. You don't get to be a real douche bag and overrated. You have to pick one or the other. In Public Enemies though, Bale is pitch perfect as FBI Agent Melvin Purvis.

My problem is more with the story telling. The first 30 minutes are just really choppy and don't fit together as well as they need to. The final hour is also tough. I know that everyone wants to see Dillinger's epic death, but if Michael Mann had instead ended the movie with the capture of Marion Cotillard's Billie, you still would have had a good movie. Granted, she is the subject of an intense interrogation scene that would be sorely missed, but something has to give. There is a very good movie somewhere in Public Enemies' two hour and 20 minutes, but someone should have pried it away from Mann for a proper editing job.

Another problem I have is with the casting of Marion Cotillard. Yes, she's beautiful. Yes, she has an Oscar. Yes, she is tremendously talented. She is unfortunately, French. I don't mean that in a "I hate everything French" kind of way. I mean it in that her accent is so thick, that I couldn't get lost in the movie. I never believed she could be a poor girl that grew up on an Indian reservation in Wisconsin.

There really is more good than bad in Public Enemies. My problems are just the type that can really ruin a movie. Would I recommend it to you? Yeah, I think so. I would probably watch it again on DVD, and if you are looking for a movie that has a story and great characters this is a good choice. It's a nice alternative to movies filled with explosions and make believe robots.

The Greek gives it a B-.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Let me start by saying that Salt, who loves Transformers, and my 9-year-old Godson, Austin loved the movie. I, on the other hand, was not impressed by the sequel to a movie that I wasn't

impressed with to begin with.

Salt & I have been having a debate lately about the Transformers franchise and movies like it. Salt says that I am a movie snob and the only reason I hate the movie is because I hate the Transformers. My argument is that, in the age of movies like The Dark Knight and Star Trek, a blockbuster that has no heart or soul is unacceptable. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, and the Harry Potter films are great examples of what a summer blockbuster can be.

Was I expecting too much from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? Maybe. Maybe as I walked into the theatre I should have thought to myself "Oh boy! I'm gonna see Megan Fox and things are gonna explode!" I'm just not that kind of guy though. I want some depth...and therein lies the problem with going to see a Michael Bay movie.

The man might as well just film fireworks displays. Think about his past movies - Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Island, etc. They have no script (at least not one that makes any sense). He puts no effort into getting good performances out of his actors. His movies are bridges between explosions.

I am sorry this has turned into a rant about Michael Bay and the state of the summer blockbuster, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is exhibit A in this argument!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's greatest flaw is it's script. There are jokes. Not good ones. Salt says the first twenty minutes are hilarious. I thought the first twenty minutes were ridiculously unfocused - not nearly as unfocused as the final hour though. That's another flaw! Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen does not need to be two and a half hours long, but I digress. The final hour may have about twenty lines. I honestly had no idea what was going on other than things were blowing up and Megan Fox was running in slow motion.

There are a few other complaints I have about the movie, so I'll give you a quick run down.

• If you're favorite character dies, don't worry, they're going to come back to life (they all do)
• Michael Bay is making a movie about giant space robots and there is so much cussing and humping that I felt uncomfortable being in the theatre with a nine-year-old.
• The special effects weren't even all that impressive.

My greatest complaint though is the two characters Skids and Mudflap.

These are the two most racist things I have ever seen! Look at the green one. Yes, that's a gold tooth. Yes, he has big ears and a big nose. Hello, stereotype! And just wait till you hear them talk...then read the credits and see that Tom Kenny provides their voices. He looks like this. Now it seems a lot more racist.

There is so much wrong with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that it is easy to overlook the fact that the basic framework of the story isn't bad, and in the hands of a more capable writer and director it could be on par with Star Trek. Plus, with all of those explosions, the two and a half hour run time flies by, so the pain won't last too long if you are dragged along by your kids, friends, or significant other(s). And I would be lying if I didn't say that I laughed a few times.

The Greek gives it a C-.

Land of the Lost

You can't go into the theatre with great expectations for Will Ferrell's latest film.  I mean look at the trailer.

The problem with Land of the Lost is...okay, there are a lot of them, but the biggest one is that the movie can't decide what it is supposed to be.  A movie about time travelers that befriend a monkey and fight lizard people clearly isn't aimed at adults.  Land of the Lost can't possibly be meant for kids either.  There is graphic language, sex, and one very funny scene involving hallucinogenic drugs.

Should I appreciate that in this age of CGI everything that Land of the Lost paid tribute to the very amature original series by dressing actors in rubber suits to play the evil slee staks or should I be confused?  I mean there was no CGI available to Sid & Marty Croft in the 1970s.  I know that the film is meant as a send up of the original series, but it does make it a little tough to get lost in the story.

Then we get to the acting.  Really, we get to the lack of acting.  Will Ferrell is credited with playing Dr. Rick Marshall, but really he just plays Ricky Bobby, Ron Burgandy and Frank the Tank in a fishing vest.  Danny McBride is playing Danny McBride and Anna Friel is just awful in this movie.  Land of the Lost doesn't even show off Anna's usual talents.  And then there's Chaka.  You know the prehistoric manbeast is going to be in the movie, because he figured so prominently into the TV show.  What you don't know is he could be the most annoying character in cinema history.

Is there anything redeeming about Land of the Lost?  Look, it's a Will Ferrell movie, so you know there are some quotable lines.  Danny McBride is one of the funniest actors around right now.  So there are some things to laugh at.  There is also the sight of Will Ferrell riding a dinosaur, which is rivaled in awesomeness only by Robocop riding a unicorn.

Overall Land of the Lost isn't really worth your time - especially in a summer that has already featured Star Trek, Up, and Wolverine and still has Funny People and Public Enemies on the way.  There may be a reason to pick up the DVD.  Will Ferrell and Danny McBride may help deliver a solid outtakes real.

The Greek gives it a D.

Up

I love Pixar movies.  That probably doesn't surprise you. If you listen to the show, you already know that I am a Disney buff.  I think Pixar has released the most creative and unique family movies of the last 15 years.  I actually know in what order I would rank each of the movies...Okay, here we go.

1. The Incredibles
2. Ratatouille
3. Finding Nemo
4. Wall*E
5. Toy Story
6. A Bug's Life
7. Monster's Inc.
8. Cars
9. Toy Story 2

So how does the company's latest, Up, compare to its predecessors? 

I was very impressed.  Pixar has always been great at the technical side of things.  The animation is breath taking. The detail is stunning.  The other aspects seem to get better each time out.  Pixar movies have gotten funnier.  The stories have gotten better with each time release and Up is no exception.  

Storywise, this might be Pixar's most creative effort.  Carl Fredrickson is an old man that has lost his wife and is dealing with the prospect of losing his home.  He decides to give up on the world around him and follow his and his wife's dream of traveling to Paradise Falls in Venezuela by attaching helium filled balloons to his house.  Minutes into his journey he discovers Russell, a pudgy little stow away.

It's a Disney movie, so I don't need to tell you that the two become friends and learn from one another.  Up isn't about the destination though.  The movie is all about the journey.  After all, early on we're introduced to explorer Charles Muntz, Carl's boyhood idol whose motto is "Adventure is out there."

The film is filled with great characters - a giant bird named Kevin 

a talking dog named Doug 

and even an older, sinister version of Muntz.  

These characters all have stories that tug at your heart strings.  Even the evil Muntz draws some sympathy.

That's what I liked about Up.  The year's other big animated hit, Monsters vs. Aliens 3D, was all about cheap 3D tricks and showing off what could be done in the 3D medium.  What was the result?  A loud, annoying, painfully unfunny movie.  Up is Pixar's first venture in 3D and rather than show off what they could do visually, the company turned a quality, deep script into a great movie.  It's funny.  It's uplifting (no pun intended).  It's even a little sad at times.

So what does my Pixar ranking look like now that film number ten has been delivered?  It's gonna take some time for me to be sure, but my initial impression has it looking like this.

1. The Incredibles
2. Ratatouille
3. Finding Nemo
4. Wall*E
5. Up
6. Toy Story
7. A Bug's Life
8. Monsters, Inc.
9. Cars
10. Toy Story 2

Top half.  Not bad when you're talking about a company that has put out as many great movies as Pixar has. 

The Greek gives it an A-.

Star Trek

HOLY CRAP THIS MOVIE WAS AWESOME!

J.J. Abram's reboot of the classic sci fi franchise was even better than I expected and I expected a lot!  How could I not?  Every trailer has made this look like the greatest action movie ever made.  Star Trek didn't disappoint.  Every actor fit into their role nicely.  The movie is a perfect blend of familiar characters, sets and catchphrases thrown into a great new story.  Star Trek is really everything that a franchise reboot should be.

The casting is spot on.  Chris Pine, who honest to God I had never heard of, is great as the young James T. Kirk.  His performance combined with a strong script really make William Shattner's older Kirk seem a little more human.  Captain Kirk was a rugged, arrogant jerk on the original TV show.  Pine plays Kirk as kind of a dumb kid.  A "too big for his britches" type that gets smacked down over and over before he gets the strength and knowledge to back up his bravado. 

Zoe Saldana is a pleasant surprise.  She is barely in the movie (which is weird considering the amount of press photos and Burger King glasses she is on), but her Uhura comes across like a female version of the young Kirk.  It's easy to see why she and the Captain butt heads and why she and Spock work so well as a couple.

Speaking of Spock, writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman took a real chance writing a part in for Leonard Nimoy when they had already cast Zach Quinto to play the young Spock.  The two Spocks work.  The script keeps them apart for long enough to make their meeting something we look forward to rather than something we know has to happen, but expect will suck.

Oh and speaking of Zach Quinto, how perfect is he to play Spock?  We know from watching Heroes that he is a master of the emotionless, deadpan delivery.  And it's creepy how much he looks like a young Leonard Nimoy.

And by the way, Leonard Nimoy looks like hell these days.

Star Trek is the perfect summer movie.  You really don't get new, original scripts these days.  The summer movie slate has become littered with sequels, reboots, and superheroes.  Star Trek is good enough to turn haters into fans and casual fans to Trekkies.  

There's plenty of humor in the script.  Look, it would be ridiculous to make a Star Trek movie and not acknowledge how campy the original series seems now.  That's what Tim Burton did with his first Batman film.  Like that movie, J.J. Abrams has created a movie that is funny enough for people that can take a joke, but not derogatory in a way that pisses off the hardcore fans.

The summer of 2009 is off to a good start.  I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine and I loved Star Trek.  We're two weeks in and I have already seen as many blockbusters that I like at this point as I did all of last summer.  

The Greek gives it an A+. 

The Soloist

I really didn't expect to like this movie at all. I saw the trailer for The Soloist and thought it looked kinda hokey - like it was supposed to tug at my heart strings and make me remember everything that is right about humanity.

Then there is the fact that the movie was supposed to be released in November to contend for an Oscar, but then was pushed back for some mysterious reason. I have to admit, I assumed the movie must suck.

I was wrong. I truly enjoyed The Soloist. The acting was terrific, but the acting didn't steal the show. The real star here is the film making. The audio effects and flashbacks used to show Jamie Foxx's Nathanial Ayers Jr. is trapped in a bout of schizophrenia are very effective.

Also, director Joe Wright gives a nice nod to all of Disney's Silly Symphony cartoons. How did most of us first hear an orchestra as a kid? We heard it on the Disney Channel as colors flashed on the screen. That same technique is used here. At times it can get a little tedious, but it is a nice tip of the hat.

The acting is as good as advertised. Robert Downey Jr. has always been underrated in my opinion. He plays Steve Lopez as a down-on-his-luck smart ass. Even in the end his heart doesn't entirely melt, which is nice, because it isn't what you would expect from a movie like this.

Jamie Foxx is just plain brilliant. He is an actor that took his Oscar and made smart choices to build a great reputation. His character William Ayers Jr. is a crazy person. He spends most of his time dressed like Chuck Berry or Don King, but Foxx never lets you laugh at Ayers.

The movie did have its short comings. It starts waaaaaaaay too slow. I was bored for the first 20 minutes or so. The movie also goes for too many cheap laughs. For a drama, Robert Downey Jr. got doused in urine an awful lot.

Also, there is an unnecessary shot that pans across the top of a row of bathroom stalls, where we see a guy taking a dump. Why? For the love of God, why did we need that?

The Soloist is absolutely worth your time! I was thoroughly entertained by both the acting and the film making. So many movies are filmed in LA. This is the first one I have seen in a while that makes great use of the city as a character. The Soloist can seem a little preachy on issues of poverty and care for the mentally ill, but there is nothing gratuitous that isn't essential to the story.

The Greek gives it a B+.

I Love You, Man.

Good comedies aren't hard to come by. You just have to know what to look for. And lately what to look for has been Paul Rudd. Who would have thought the creepy step brother from Clueless would become one of comedy's surest things nearly 15 years later? Jason Segel is great, but of the two leads it is Rudd that steals the show in I Love You, Man.

It's another in a series of films about children in adult bodies, and while this one is in no way Judd Apatow related, it does so many of the same things right that Apatow does. Chief among those is awkwardness. No one plays awkward like Paul Rudd. He perfectly captures the difference between asking a woman on a date and asking a guy to hang out. He also does a great job with awkward pauses and trying so hard to be cool when you are really just the world's biggest nerd.

Jason Segel isn't half bad either. For a guy that has made a career out of playing the good guy (How I Met Your Mother and Forgetting Sarah Marshall) he plays the jerk well too. And his character Sydney isn't really a jerk. He just has the confidence that Segel's past characters have lacked. A role in I Love You, Man may not seem like a stretch for an Apatow veteran, and I guess it isn't for Segel. I mean Sydney is just a more developed version of his character in Knocked Up, but it is nice to see Jason Segel doing something so different from what he does each week on TV.

The real gold in the movie comes from two angles. First, the range in emotion in Paul Rudd's Peter is priceless. (Boy, I didn't mean that to read the way it does.) Peter is a completely different person around his co-workers, his family, even his fiancee than he is around Sydney.

The greatest thing about the movie is the number and quality of cameos. Plenty of faces you know pop up in the movie. Jamie Pressley and Jon Favreau play a great married couple. J.K. Simmons has become Hollywood's go-to dad. Joe Lo Truglio and Thomas Lennon are each amazing in their scenes as potential best friends for Peter.

Finally, Lou Farigno does a great job just playing himself. This kind of stunt casting could have really hurt the movie, but Farigno is hilarious and the filmmakers did a great job of making him central to the plot without relying on him - something the minds behind Will Ferrell's Kicking & Screaming clearly didn't get when they decided they needed Mike Ditka for their movie.

There are very few flaws in I Love You, Man - kind of hard to believe considering it comes from one of the writers of Eddie Murpy's Dr. Doolittle series. I Love You, Man does everything it sets out to right. My only complaint is that it is a little predictable, but then again most light hearted comedies are.

It's the funniest movie of the year so far, and while I am optimistic about Apatow's Funny People (due out at the end of July), I have been let down before. Plus, it stars Adam Sandler, so that one could go either way.

As for I Love You, Man, the Greek gives it an A.

Fanboys

Is it possible to give a movie a D+ and still have enjoyed yourself? I hate to telegraph my pass like that, but that is my final grade for Fanboys, and if it weren't for Kristin Bell rocking Princess Leia's gold slave bikini...


I may have given this thing a flat out F.

Fanboys is the story of four friends that decide to make a road trip to San Francisco to break into the Skywalker Ranch (George Lucas' home and studio) and steal a print of Episode I: The Phantom Menace before one of them dies. The concept is funny and as something of a Star Wars fan myself, I have been looking forward to seeing this movie for a long time. I really had no expectations though. I did not know what to think going in.

The casting isn't exceptional. The movie's producers clearly blew most of their casting budget on Kristin Bell. Sam Huntingdon's(Jimmy Olsen in Superman Returns) face has one emotion: disappointingly surprised. Chris Marquette and Jay Baruchel are so wrapped up in playing nerds that all they can muster are some stereotypes without any depth. And Dan Fogler - that f***ing guy - is a poor (very very poor) man's Jack Black.

The cameos are all kind of dumb too. There is a reason that Ray Park plays characters like Toad in X-Men or Darth Maul in Episode I. He can't act! He can wear make up and do kung fu. Sadly, his appearance in Fanboys involves neither. Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith show up as a very odd version of Jay & Silent Bob. It did not make me laugh.

There are three MVC's (Most Valuable Cameos) in the movie - Seth Rogen in duel roles as a violent Star Trek lover and as a Star Wars loving pimp, Danny McBride doing his best douche bag as George Lucas' head of security, and William Shattner as (what else?) William Shattner.




My biggest complaint is in a movie that revolves around five Star Wars super fans' quest to see The Phantom Menace there is no acknowledgement that the movie is a piece of crap! If director Kyle Newman did one thing right it was capture the anticipation that so many of us felt leading up to that movie. Why no pay off? Why didn't he also choose to capture the disappointment (and I'll admit it) anger that most of us have for the prequels?


There were some laughs to be had in Fanboys, but they are too few and far between. The Star Wars jokes (which are most of the jokes) aren't too inside they just aren't funny. The movie almost isn't worth your time, but it does redeem itself in the final few minutes (Kristin Bell as Leia the Slave Girl). Here's one more look at sweet redemption!



The Greek gives it a D+.

Push

This movie was a helluva lot better than I expected. That's not to say the movie is a classic - it just isn't a piece of crap. The movie has it's share of problems, but it is balanced nicely by a good story, a decent (not great) script, gritty sets and solid casting.

Push is the story of a group of American ex-patriots, all with super powers, living in Hong Kong. Governments around the world have set up divisions to try and harness these powers and use the people as weapons. It's not an original story, but then again neither is anything about a "group of super heroes."

The powers and back stories of the characters all seem very similar to fans of super hero stories. Dakota Fanning's character Cassie sketches out her visions of the future (a la Isaac Mendez). Cliff Curtis' Hook can make you see whatever he wants you to see (Mirage from The Incredibles). Chris Evans' Nick is a young man struggling with being a hero and learning how to use his own powers (Spider-Man).

I saw this movie with Salt & his girlfriend Sarah. She pointed out how important setting the movie in Hong Kong actually is. The gritty urban markets make great battle ground scenes, while Nick's shabby apartment makes you believe that this really is a guy trying to stay off the radar. Even the city's unique architecture and nightlife serve as important factors in the plot's development and eventual climax.

Push also makes great use of it's relatively small budget when it comes to casting. Camilla Belle isn't a great actress, but she is very believable as Kira, a girl who has spent most of her life drugged up or just plain tired. Conversely the use of great actors like Cliff Curtis and Djimon Hounsou helps breathe life into a couple of characters that are nothing more than action/super hero movie stereotypes.

My biggest complaint with Push is that the script feels a little uneven at times. Dakota Fanning just shows up without much introduction or explanation. And here is this girl that we have seen up til now almost exclusively in roles as sweet, scared little kids - in Push she has pink hair. She curses a lot. She drinks. She goes to clubs and she wears an uncomfortably short skirt. Plus her feelings towards Chris Evans' Nick aren't really clear until Camilla Belle shows up. After that happens Nick and Cassie have a brother/sister relationship. Before that, all we see is this 13 year-old clinging to a guy that is 20 - 23 years-old and doesn't really want her around. Frankly, for me as a viewer it was creepy.



I have a lot more positive to say about Push than I do negative, and that surprises me. I am a little over super heroes after a summer full of them with only one and a half that were worth a damn. Push, though is exactly what you would expect from a movie this time of year - not garbage, but nothing you that will change your life.

The Greek gives it a B.

Revolutionary Road

From the outset, Revolutionary Road looks like a can't miss. Sam Mendes is behind the camera. His wife, the lovely Kate Winslet, won a Golden Globe for her work in the film. She is reunited with her Titanic co-star Leonardo DiCaprio, who for my money is one of the best actors around. And lest we forget the script focuses on an unsatisfied spouse something Mendes has done beautifully in the past.

Unfortunately the movie isn't enjoyable for the average movie goer. Sure, there are some solid performances in the movie. Winslet is great and relative unknown Michael Shannon is awesome (more on that later), but the film moves so slow.

Revolutionary Road centers around April (Winslet) and Frank (Leo) Wheeler. They're a couple that used to love each other. They used to love life. Now they have kids, they're in their 30s, they live in the suburbs, and they're both sure there has to be more to life than that. Their lives change when April convinces Frank to move to Paris, but rather than be the spark to their marriage the move seems to be, it starts to cause a major division between them that eventually turns their love to hate...or at least an epiphany that they may have never really loved each other to begin with.

So there's the story. Here are my problems with the movie. Let me start by saying that I am not one to poo poo free nudity, but the less than 2 seconds that we see Zoe Kazan topless are unnecessary.



Also, she has the most unattractive breasts I have ever seen. The whole thing is really horrifying.

My next problem is that Leonardo DiCaprio, who can be great - I mean truly amazing, is just sleep walking through this movie. I don't believe him as a loving husband. I don't believe him as a jerk. I just couldn't get behind the guy in this one.

My biggest complaint though has to do with the film's ending. First, let me say that I was relieved that the film didn't end with Frank and April simply having breakfast, as it appears it's going to. That breakfast does lead to a more satisfying resolution, but we close the film on a character that we have absolutely no connection to.

What did I like about Revolutionary Road? Well, I did like the two odes to Titanic. It was a nice way for the filmmakers to acknowledge to the audience that, yes we saw that movie too. It also kind of showed you that just maybe, it was best that Jack drowned in that movie. That way he and Rose never had the chance to hate each other.

I also like Kate Winslet. Not just her acting, but the way her character was presented. Let's be honest, she is a beautiful woman.



In the early stages of the movie, Sam Mendes shoots her and dresses her in a way that makes her seem like any other girl. It isn't until April makes the decision to move to Paris that she really looks beautiful. After she realizes she wants nothing to do with Frank, we notice another change in April. Watch Winslet's dance scene with David Harbour's "Shep," and try to tell me that April hasn't changed into something of a sex pot.

Kate Winslet won a Golden Globe for her role in this movie, and it was much deserved. I hope she wins the Oscar too, but if I have to pick one actor that was compelling every second he was on screen it was Michael Shannon as the Wheeler's neighbor's uninhibited, socially unaware son. Shannon's character, John, is recently released from a mental institution and is a mix of crazy, insightful and fearless - the complete opposite from Frank and April. Where the hell is his Oscar buzz?!

Revolutionary Road isn't bad. It just isn't for a casual movie fan. I don't say that to appear snobbish or hammer home that I have a film degree (University of Alabama class of 2003). It is just that most of the enjoyable stuff is technical - choices made by director Sam Mendes rather than plot points or great performances. Also, you should know, you are going to walk out of the theatre really, really, I mean really depressed.

The Greek gives it a C.