THE DUFF

Bianca (Mae Whitman) shines in this hilarious teen comedy.

The DUFF
Directed by Ari Sandel
Written by Josh A. Cagan
Based on the novel "The Duff" by Jody Keplinger
Starring Mae Whitman, Robbie Amell, Bella Thorne, Bianca A. Santos, Allison Janney, Skyler Samuels, Jen Jeong
2015, PG-13, 101 mins.

Flashback a couple years ago, critics and audiences alike were gushing all over EASY A, the Emma Stone-led teen comedy that everyone cited as invoking the relatability, romance, and contemporaryness of those John Hughes movies of the eighties - but, y'know, nowish. I personally never bought a ticket on the EASY A bandwagon of love, although I do admit it's a darn good movie with one beautiful and talented lead actress, but it never really deserved all the kudos it got. 

With THE DUFF, here's a situation where I feel that here's a movie that completely deserves all those accolades - the relatability, the feel-good romance vibe, and firmly reflecting the contemporary culture in which it's set - probably won't get its due from critics and the mass audience, and that's a shame, cos THE DUFF is a gem. 

D.U.F.F. means Designated Ugly Fat Friend - now, the Duff doesn't necessarily have to be ugly or fat, they're just the least desirable member of a group. Compared to her friends Jess (Samuels) and Casey (Santos), Bianca is the DUFF, a fact  brought to her attention by next-door neighbor/long-ago friend Wes (Amell), the football player with abs of steel . Understandably pissed at this new revelation that completely alters Bianca's perspective of her role in her friendships and self worth, Bianca cuts a deal with Wes - help her overcome her DUFFyness to ask out Cute Musician Boy Toby she's crushing on, and she'll help him pass his studies. It's a match made in screwed up heaven.

At the time of this review, I've watched THE DUFF twice, and hope to again before it leaves theaters (although that might not be too far in the future, thanks to rather weak box office receipts). It's that fun and that good. Mae Whitman's vulnerable yet tough performance as Bianca is impressive enough to easily tempt me to check out NBC's PARENTHOOD series, or at the very least, eagerly await whatever projects she has coming up in the pipeline. The script is funny, with great jokes, self-deprecating humor, a bit of a meta edge, and best of all, a tone that doesn't take itself too seriously. Amell is perfect as both encapsulating and then subverting the football jock stereotype, lending a certain charm and nuance to the role that could otherwise have been lost in the hands of another actor. 

Thing is, THE DUFF just works. Right  from the beginning, with its technology saturated opening exposition to a brilliant social media de-friending scene about halfway through the movie, to the hammy but enormously satisfying finale and YouTube-y closing credits, the tone works, and with two irresistibly attractive and endearing leads delivering the scripts sharp jokes, it's easy to get why multiple viewings only help make the viewer love it more (or maybe it's just me; for all I know, I'll convince you to see it, and you, gentle reader, will find it positively rubbish, but I properly don't think so). 

Hell, any movie that makes Ken Jeong sufferable and even prompting a laugh-out-loud moment or two is well worth a recommendation. After five seasons on COMMUNITY trying my patience at every turn, it's a nice, very welcome chang of pace not to hate the guy (see what I did there?). If there's any criticism to be had, the movie does end a wee bit too quickly, culminating at a school dance where Bianca sort of abandons her friends without any exchange between the three parties. It's an off-putting moment that slightly dampers a victorious vibe. Earlier on, there's a hilarious CG-fail involving a lawn mower and clothes that is just so lazily put together, it adds its own layer of laughability.

All in all, THE DUFF, from a structural, storytelling standpoint, doesn't break any new ground, and similar to EASY A, it nails the Lesson We're Trying to Convey Here a bit too heavy on the nose, but the fact the leads are so damn good and funny, and the script barely goes a scene without a clever wit or charm easily makes this one of the more entertaining and fun times at the movies in quite a while. Strongly recommended, cos, y'know, laughing is good. And Mae Whitman is pretty.

Friends With Benefits

Friends With Benefits

Starring Justin Timberlake Mila Kunis Patricia Clarkson Jenna Elfman Bryan Greenberg Richard Jenkins Woody Harrelson
Written by Keith Merryman, David A. Newman, Will Gluck, Harley Peyton
Directed by Will Gluck
Release: 22 July 2011
Screen Gems, 110 mins., Rated R

Plot: Jamie and Dylan engage in a strictly sexual friendship minus the romantic entaglement thing, but of course, those pesky feelin's come out bubblin'....

Chemistry and script. In order for these romantic comedies or dramas to succeed, you absolutely one hundred percent need these two. Of course, every film requires these components: a shit movie would inevitably follow. However, when dealing with this specific genre, there’s certain expectations and troves the film must abide by. 96% of the time (pulled the number out of my ass; not official by any means) girl ends up with boy, the film ends with a kiss and a pop song that reassures the audience that everything will be alright, and the couple presumably live happily ever after. The two leads – er, characters – realizing their attraction for one another, overcoming any hurdles in their way, and ending up together is the genre’s DNA. Watching that same formula repeated infinite number of times can be entertaining for only so long, so there you have it – chemistry and script. Without those two supremely important elements, your romantic comedy or drama is going to fall flat on its face, be a load of utter bullshit, and be excruciatingly difficult to watch.

Earlier this year, the topic of two friends entering a strictly sexual relationship minus all the emotionally touchy-feely lovey-doveyness came out to mixed results. No Strings Attached featured two likable leads, and was actually entertaining despite the gigantic odds against it. And although I enjoyed it, upon further reflection and especially after seeing this, it didn’t quite deliver on its promoted premise. Plus, Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher can’t hold their own against the comedy greatness of Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake.

I don’t say that out of biased love for Kunis who is beyond gorgeous or enjoyment of Timberlake’s music (which I don’t actually like), but because Kunis and Timberlake posess genuine chemistry, and the screen sizzles with energy and excitement when the two are on the screen. Often, the writers/director throws in a scene or two of the characters just sitting around talking about whatever amuses them, and they giggle and laugh and find common ground. It’s meant to be a character building moment, but hardly ever do they come across as anything but contrived moments forcing the audiences to find personality in these cardboard characters. Not the instance here. Maybe it’s the writing, maybe it’s the directing, or maybe it’s simply Mila and Justin, but dialogue and character interaction is one of the many strengths FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS has in its arsenal.

Another great component is that it takes the SCREAM route. The conventions of the romantic comedy are discussed, ripped apart, and mocked more than once in the movie. Hell, you even got Jason Segal and Rashida Jones in a faux romantic comedy (in the world of BENEFITS) that indulges in every cliché imaginable: setting, dialogue, characters, music). Funny aside: I momentarily imagined the Segal/Jones enterprise as another ingenious marketing tool for THE MUPPETS; but different companies and al that sorta doesn’t make that possible….) I don’t think this is going to be a huge spoiler to reveal this little bit, but in the end, Mila and Justin end up together. The finale is a true romantic cliché. But it works. The characters and film acknowledge them, and move on. It’s a part of the story, it doesn’t dictate the story.

That sense of fun is all over the flick. I laughed, chuckled, and grinned often. The chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis is perhaps the strongest and authentic all year. The script is self-referential, crude, dirty, and clever all in one. No, FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS isn’t the embodiment of romantic comedy perfection, but it’s a pretty darn stellar film when all is said and done. I loved these characters, and I didn’t want the ending to come because I didn’t much fancy the idea of parting with them. I don’t know if the characters will stay romantically involved, but hell, it’s guaranteed that the sequel – following the demise of that relationship or the continued growth of it – would be just as entertaining and hilarious as the beginning of it.

I have some nice things to say about the film, indeed. As for negatives, the only thing that I found myself displeased with was the ridiculous-yet-mandatory crux in the relationship. That thing – event or phrase or what have you – that separates our lovers from fully indulging in their romantic notions. Basically, one is pissed off and the other one is stubborn or sad and don’t communicate. In the end, there’s the resolution of happiness. It’s difficult to tackle that annoying clichéd obstacle, but similarly to the whole ‘handling-a-tried-and-true-formula’ it all depends on how the writer(s) tackle the matter that makes the difference. Unfortunately, they aren’t all that successful in delivering a believable, realistic obstacle. It feels very forced, and that’s an immediate pull out.

Of course not all will love FRIENDS. I went in with low expectations. Frankly, the prime motivator here was Mila Kunis. She’s hot, she’s feisty, and she knows how to deliver comedy. It’s just a surprise that not only did Timberlake deliver a great performance and Woody Harrelson was hilarious in his underused role. Low expectations help, and in this case, I probably shouldn’t hype it up too much. Just go in with the hope of a fun, raunchy flick, and you’ll get exactly that.

In the case of FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS versus NO STRINGS ATTACHED, FRIENDS wins. The characters are more real and personable, the script is clever and funny, and most of all, I enjoyed my time more.

Rating: 8/10 – FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS succeeds in presenting two immensely likable characters accomplishing the impossible: making us believe in this scenario, these characters, and their words with absolute conviction. Loads of fun, don’t miss.

No Strings Attached

No Strings Attached

Starring Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Lake Bell, Greta Gerwing, Mindy Kaling
Written by Elizabeth Meriwether
Directed by Ivan Reitman
Release: 21 January 2011
Paramount, 110 mins., Rated R

Plot: Emma and Adam try to engage in casual, non-committal sex without the relationship part tagged on; suuuureeee.

So What Are the Chances They're Gonna Develop Feelings For Each Other?

C'mon, we weren't born yesterday, and this ain't the first romantic comedy we've seen, so the film's endpoint isn't unexpected or original, nor should it be. I'll dish the ending right now: they end up together. Portman's reservations about heading into a relationship gets squashed cos Kutcher is damn charming, and the two become a couple. Duh. But see, the success or doom of any romantic comedy is first and foremost the script. You can have two of the 'best' actors working in the bizz right this second, and you hand 'em a mediocre script, you'll still get a mediocre flick. Secondly, you need good actors, two who have chemistry and you get why they are attracted to each other. The actors chemistry and the screenplay need to work together in harmony to sell this genre, and No Strings Attached - despite the harsh, ridiculing reviews scattered around the blogosphere - accomplishes just that.

There's This Dude, and There's This Girl

Portman is awesome as Emma, the girl who is obviously attracted to Kutcher's Adam but refuses to acknowledge that cos she doesn't believe in that whole relationships-can-work thing so engages in casual sex with him instead. She boasts just the right amount of spunk and initiative to make a strong character, and is restrained when necessary to show Emma's reluctance to give into her feelings for The Kutcher. No complaints here. It's a strong performance that sells the character, and instead of coming across as a cold-hearted bitch - which is entirely possible given the mandates of the story - the audience relates and most importantly digs her. Or, at least I did. Kutcher is notoriously not a film guru favorite [see: Killers], but he's likable here. I became a fan of Adam, honestly: his blunt attitude that mirrors Emma's, his charm and natural charisma, his choice of career (points to you, sir), and his resolution to get the girl. The role doesn't ask for much, granted, but we are expected to like this guy and hope he gets the girl: mission accomplished.

The two leads are joined by some funny co-stars, most notably Lake Bell (What Happens in Vegas, also starring Kutcher) who loves and loves to chitty chat to a obnoxious degree, making all her scenes hilarious to watch, and Emma's flatmates who are quite opinionated and equally frank. There's stuff with Adam's father and ex-girlfriend that's pretty funny, as well, and that subplot alone I would recommend a rental for the flick.

Meriwether's script is full of raunchy jokes and dialogue, with characters that feel genuine and not simply paper cutouts of what she feels is required from this type of movie. There were plenty of opportunities when I laughed and/or chuckled, or dug a particular plot point, etc. Hell, I loved the final line and shot of the movie, which accomplishes the hopeful/happy mandated tone but is simple and nontraditional...in a manner of speaking.

I hope I'm not making it out that No Strings Attached is a maverick romantic comedy by any account. Nay, if you want that I direct you to the quintessential film of that genre, Love Actually (complete and utter perfection, mates). The film is fun and enjoyable, with a nice script that has just enough cleverness and fine dialogue to make the scenario feel a tad fresh, and two actors that are clearly committed to that script. Later this year, we'll be greeted to Friends with Benefits with Mila Kunis (yay!!!) and Justin Timberlake starring. Both Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached have the exact same storyline - can two friends sustain casual sex without turning into something more? - and I dug how the latter film did it, so Kunis and Timberlake have a bit of competition ahead of 'em.

Rating: 8/10 = Raunchy comedy with two funny leads and a great script that nicely balances the romance, jokes, and drama to make an entertaining two hours.

Paul

Paul

Starring Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kristen Wiig, Jason Bateman, Bill Hader, Seth Rogen, Joe Lo Trugilo, Blythe Danner
Written by Simon Pegg & Nick Frost
Directed by Greg Mottola
Release: 18 March 2011
Universal, 104 mins., Rated R

Plot: Two geeks and a alien road-trip comedy with lots of car chases, geek references, and lack of anal probing.

THE WILHELM!

DEVIL'S TOWER!

E.T. & REESE'S PIECES!

VOICE OF STEVEN SPIELBERG!

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK!

DIALOGUE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALIENS, JAWS, AND STAR WARS!!!

That's just a sample of the many science fiction geek haven references in this loving sci-fi comedy from the brilliant British duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who you may just happen to know from Shaun of the Dead (although I still hold that Hot Fuzz is superior), and are responsible for script writing duties on this one. Pegg and Frost craft a story that is many things: a crazy road trip adventure, hilarious comedy, a geekgasm central, movie reference world, and a fun and honest look at friendship (well, bromance, really).

Now, I did quite enjoy Paul, and I won't hesitate to recommend it to anyone (especially fans of the sci-fi genre), but there's something that doesn't sit completely well with the movie. It feels...uneven. Although I love the movie references - I really, truly, honestly do - I think it's there where the movie has some fault. At times, it feels as if the film trends too deeply into the referential moments instead of spending more time on evolving the friendship/bromance of Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost). There are heartfelt scenes spliced between hilarious and action-y scenes, but they don't ultimately have the satisfaction and dimension I was looking for. It's not until the final half when all the elements of the movie come together beautifully, and it flows effortlessly from there. That being said, the friendships that come out of meeting Paul and Ruth are fantastically rendered, with Paul becoming a instantly lovable character [and I mean character, not just fancy CGI work, he really becomes a character instead of impressive pixels] and Ruth's epiphany about the universe is hilarious, as is her consequential flirtation with Graeme and concern for her angry father's well being (who has been following them for some time now).

While on the topic of characters, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio's agents Haggard and O'Reily are awesome and hilarious, particularly Haggard who never fails to bring a laugh. By contrast, usual funny guy Jason Bateman is full on serious as Agent Zoil, hellbent on retrieving Paul for the Big Man Upstairs. Even Seth Rogen is fantastic as the titular Paul, never coming off as obnoxious as he typically does, instead delivering enjoyable and hilarious voice work. Kristen Wiig rocks as the die-hard Christian who gets her faith blown apart by Paul imparting the knowledge of the universe to her, and Ruth's subsequent enjoyment of a care free life is absolutely hilarious, a comedy bit that will be hard to beat this year.

Paul isn't laugh-out-loud funny and it doesn't match the same brilliance of Pegg and Frost's collaborations with Edgar Wright, whose equally zany sense of humor created some truly marvelous films. Still, this is a fun movie, with enough geek references to make a true die-hard fan laugh and chuckle in the movie theater as everyone else in the audience scratches their head puzzled at why you laughed when a character dies driving off a cliff. Pegg and Frost are, as expected, awesome...even their really bad looking hair. The entire cast is committed to making this movie fun, and they succeed. Pegg, Frost, Wiig, Bateman, Hadder, Trugilo, Danner, Rogen - it's a great ensemble cast who deliver the funny. Paul may not be the end-all, true-all awesomest geek comedy of all time, but it's a great start in the right direction.

Rating: 7/10 = A damn good road trip comedy with sci-fi references galore and some great performances, just wish it had a bit more in the character department

Banzai! 2010 Catch-Up, Part II

I think I have one more 2010 Catch-Up in me, so expect that before months end. I want to enter April completely anew without thinking of last year releases. Enjoy!

The Fighter

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, Jack McGee
Written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson
Directed by David O. Russell
Release: 10 December 2010
Relativity Media, 115 mins., Rated R

Plot: Mickey Ward is a boxer with a crazy family life that may either be his strength or weakness.

I made a serious error in judgment with choosing not to see The Fighter until yesterday. Can't blame me, really. The trailer, the title, the poster - it all stank of those damn inspirational Disney flicks where a underdog builds himself into a legend, overcoming any and all roadblocks that may confront him and in the end, succeeds and lives his dream. I did not, and still do not, want to see another retelling of that damn story. It's no longer inspirational or 'impossible' (as the trailer for Secretariat likes us to believe), it's just redundant with no value whatsoever.

Luckily The Fighter is not this.

Yes, The Fighter is about a man overcoming obstacles and becoming something and fulfilling an ambition, but it's also about a lot more than that, and with all those elements and the interesting angle the film takes - emphasizing the family dynamic and rounded personality of our protagonist - the movie ended up exceeding my expectations and becoming an completely enjoyable film that I daresay I liked a lot.

Direction by David O. Russell, although not award worthy, is definitely worth recognition: the title shot with the speedy pullback was quite cool, the hand held cinematography (especially in the boxing scenes) worked quite well, despite being overused in films these days. As mentioned a thousand times before, Christian Bale is quite awesome as Micky's troubled brother Dicky, but frankly, I found the real powerhouse performance to be Amy Adams as Micky's love interest (and mine, too!) Charlene. Full of sass, vigor, and ass-whoopin', Charlene is a great character brilliantly brought to life by Adams. And what's more, it's Charlene who knocks some sense into Micky, who makes him take charge of his life more instead of being submissive to what his mother, Melissa Leo, and family want for him. So what it's worth, Adams is amazing in this movie. But that's not to underscore the great job Mark Wahlberg and Bale provided, cementing a brotherly love constantly tried by a crazy family, loads of cocaine use, and other really shitty events that seem to blow up in Micky's face.

I liked the emphasis on family, and Micky's attempt to go down his own path made up by his own choices, not directed by his mother or bazillion sisters who seem to speak in unison. In the end, Micky settles with needing his family involved somehow, but not being overbearing. It's the sort of development I'm not 100% behind - it seems a little backpedaling, really: a few steps forward, one step back - but it's sweet and displayed with unflinching honesty by the screenwriters and director Russell. In fact, it's the blunt honesty of everything onscreen (in addition to the fine performances) that make this movie work well.

The Fighter is not amazing, it's not something you've never seen before, but it works, and it feels fresh and original while you're watching it and never fails to keep your interest. The really odd but good-willing family dynamic and sassy performance from Adams make this movie. It's all in the title: it's not the fights, it's the fighter that's on display here, and for my two cents, it's pretty damn good.

Rating: 8/10 = A fight you can believe in.

How Do You Know

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd, Jack Nicholson
Written and Directed by James L. Brooks
Release: 17 December 2010
Gracie Films, 117 mins., Rated R

The first thing one should know about How Do You Know is that it is not a romantic comedy. Yes, there are moments of funny, but first and foremost, it seems to be a drama. Here we have two characters with dark, depressing lives: an 31-year old athlete (Witherspoon) who is let go from her team, and a business man being investigated for fraud and facing three years in prison (Rudd). The comedy stems from the utter disbelief off Rudd's face and, mostly, Owen Wilson's womanizing millionaire who fancies himself in "love" with Witherspoon's Lisa. But for the most part, the movie isn't funny, it's a bit confusing, and is most definitely does not adhere to expectations. For one, the characters come off extremely unlikable, particularly Lisa who seems like a bitch far more than remotely likable. Were it not for Rudd's George and his ability to sell love-struck puppy magnificently, I wouldn't have one iota of a clue that there was some sort of attraction between these two. If there's one way to sum up How Do You Know, it's unconventional. These characters' lives suck, they're either a bitch, super freaked out, or a clueless stud who is new to the whole relationship thing. And surprisingly, I was at a point where I genuinely didn't know where this story was headed. In retrospect, it's all very obvious now, but the film throws a bunch of elements into the mix that what one is expecting seems like it might not come to pass, which is a good thing. Overall, How Do You Know means well, and the actors do all they can (especially Rudd and Wilson, the true stars of the film), but it isn't successful in conveying its story, making us really fall in love or even care for these characters, and ends up being a mess moreso than an enjoyable movie.

Rating: 4/10 = Most definitely odd, misguided, and not for everyone, and very much "meh"

It's Kind of a Funny Story

Starring Keir Gilchrist, Zach Galifianakis, Emma Roberts, Viola Davis, Lauren Graham, Jim Gaffigan
Written and Directed by Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck
Release: 8 October 2010
Focus Features, 101 mins., Rated PG-13

Plot: Craig feels like he's about to burst, getting to the point where he's contemplating suicide, and checks himself into a hospital for some help in dealing with his issues.

I'm just going to be straight up: I loved It's Kind of a Funny Story, and in fact, I plan on buying it on DVD next paycheck. I don't think it's for everyone - it may seem unoriginal, a bit forced, and at times groan-worthy with the acting (particularly the lead) - but I think it all works from beginning to end, this is a solid movie with a clever script and some damn fine performances. I love this movie, and this is why:

Zack Galifianakis, for the first time ever, was restrained, not obnoxious, and actually delivered one hell of a fine performance. Zack plays Bobby, someone who establishes a friendship with our protagonist Craig (even nicknaming him 'Cool Craig') and plays a sort of mentor for Craig. Galifianakis is all about the acting here, not so much preoccupied with acting like a dumbass and bringing on the laughs - he's completely in character, and thanks to the very cool script, his character becomes just as cool and entirely memorable.

Youngsters Emma Roberts and Keir Gilchrist are great in their respective roles, Keir as Craig the awkward boy who feels boggled down by stress, and Roberts as Noelle, a girl with her own problems and ends up sparking a relationship with Craig. The chemistry and relationship between these two is fantastic, and definitely a highlight. Can't help it, I got all giddy like a girl watching The O.C. or something when these two leads were onscreen and their friendship was building.

The script is superb. Craig has quite the comical personality, full of sarcastic asides and humorous awkward moments. Craig is a teen, falls into the same teen traps: hormones, stress, need for fun, and it's all brought to screen wonderfully. Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck have written and directed a movie that accomplishes so much. It has heart, it has some great characters that are not stereotypes and are very much rounded and completely interesting, it has a nice, fast-paced story worth telling, and loads of comedy and genuine humor. It doesn't get hammy like a bloody Hallmark movie; it does say, 'hey, mental illness sucks', it's simply about a teenage boy who is going through a lot in life to the point where he's contemplating ending it, and he finds help in the friendships and relationship he starts at the hospital. It's a happy story that's told honestly in a non-corny way, and I give kudos to it for that.

Overall, just give it a chance. It's smart, it's funny, it's endearing. At the very least this will be the only time Zack BeardedMan gives a great performance, so that's definitely worth checking out, no?

Rating: 9/10 = It's Kind of a Great Movie.

My Soul to Take

Starring Max Thieriot, Denzel Whitaker, Raul Esparza, Shareeka Epps, Emily Meade, Zena Grey
Written and Directed by Wes Craven
Release: 8 October 2010
Rogue Pics, 107 mins., Rated R

Plot: The soul of a serial killer may just have implanted itself in one of the kids who were born sixteen years ago on the night its original host 'died'.

My Soul to Take is something special. It's written and directed by Wes Craven, one of the true masters of horror, and one of the directors in that field I super respect thanks to the Scream trilogy. And honestly, that's quite puzzling, cos Craven is known for some really great cinematic ventures. This is not one of them. In fact, My Soul to Take is special because it's so damn weird, so damn horribly written and acted and completely messed up, it therefore enables me to say this:

What the FRAK?

Just a word of caution: this review is going to be all over the place, because even hours later, I'm still in a state of disbelief of what I just watched. I went in expecting badness, knowing full well I would get that in spades, but what I got in addition to that is rather surprising. I went in with the expectation of something like David S. Goyer's The Invisible mixed in with a serial killer which isn't actually a serial killer but one of the kids. Well, I was sorta right, but mostly wrong. Yes, the killer does end up being a bit obvious, but whereas The Invisible but a coherent script that knew full well what it was, what direction to go, and wrote logical, dare I say dimensional characters, My Soul to Take boasts characters that I feel were written by a kid in sixth grade.

Let's take, for example, the character of Leah, or as she's known around campus "Fang". Firstly, her character comes across as a complete cartoon throughout most of the film, and it's not until the last act where she is given greater depth. Well, it just so happens that she has a sordid past that has made her act out and be generally crazy. One case that particularly left me smiling wondering what the frak was going on was when she flat out beats the shit out of her brother, Bug. And not just a bunch here or there, but something from a less spectacular kung fu movie, as she knees him in the stomach, punches him in the face, pushes him to the ground, etc., and the real kicker is Bug has no friggin' idea why the hell she's doing this or why he even bloody deserves it! Sure, it may stay in character considering Leah is a bit of a hardass, but the whole affair comes off as a hugely comical skit from a satire.

Actually, to keep with that line of thinking, I firmly believe My Soul to Take was intended as a comedy. There's no way writer/director Craven could think audiences would suck up the lame characters and lazily written 'foreshadowing' and kills and...well, just about everything that makes up a horror movie. Hell, y'know, these characters aren't bad because they're cliches - cos there's plenty of those [e.g., religious redhead nut] - but exactly because they scream of fakeyness and jocularity. Take another example: the jock of the movie gets killed by the Ripper (surprise), and as the Ripper gets his knife on he asks the jock if he wants to say goodbye to someone, and the jock replies, "my unborn child", and the Ripper says as the jock falls: "fuck you and fuck your unborn child."

This cannot be anything other than a comedy, right?

And the kills. Oh, the kills! This is a horror/slasher movie, so at the very VERY least, the kills should be the highlight, no? The moment where all the viewers in unison watch with delight as the special effects guys come up with some cool deaths with plenty of blood spraying all over the place. Well, sadly, that ain't this movie. It's as if the deaths were an afterthought. 'Oh, wait, we gotta kill this person, right?' So we have the Ripper come out of nowhere sometimes (and at one point comically yells, 'Fear yee the Ripper!' or something like that) and just slice someone's throat or knife them in the gut a whole bunch of times. It's not brutal like, say, the Scream franchise, it instead just comes across as lazy. I would be a bit more okay with that if we at the very least cared about the characters, had one iota of connection to them. Instead, they literally are just cardboard things to be killed and taken off the board.

And let's talk about the lead. Max Thieriot is Bug, the protagonist, who the Ripper is primarily targeting because of who he is. I know that's vague, but Bug's past is one of the very few things the movie has going for it, so I'll conceal that little bit here. Thieriot delivers his lines so, so horribly. Imagine a braindead zombie, or a teenage boy who had his brain liquefied or lobotomized, and that's exactly how Thieriot sounds. The thing is, Thieriot is actually pretty damn good at mimicking the voices of his deceased co-stars (apparently their souls are apart of him, now, for some reason or another), so it's odd that he's impressive in that regard, but absolutely lacks any acting talent when it comes to his solo lines. Bloody hell, y'know?

One last note: I can't fathom how on earth 3-D would have helped this movie. At no point did it appear that Craven made a effort to show off the 3-D technique, with no special camera angles or somethingorrather heading straight towards the lens. Nada. Zilch. It was a regular 2D movie with 2D visuals, and I have very little doubt those who chose the 3-D option were a tad disappointed by the lack of 'awe' factor.

In conclusion, My Soul to Take is a train wreck of a movie (hehe, train wreck; and the next review is about a train...that wrecks...hehehe), but miraculously, it was fun. Everything is written so horribly, from the characters and plot to the dialogue, it's all one big mess, and definitely a black spot in Craven's resume (here's hoping Scream 4 kicks ass). So if you're in the mood for a wickedly bad time and some laughs on the side, My Soul to Take is for you!

Rating: 4.5/10 = I'm appalled and yet can't look away.

Unstoppable

Starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson, Ethan Suplee
Written by Mark Bomback
Directed by Tony Scott
Release: 12 November 2010
Telecino Cinema, 98 mins., Rated PG-13

Let's be honest here: the real star of Unstoppable is the train. After all, that's what people came to see, and in that regard, Tony Scott delivers. The train zooms, the train BOOMs, and the train causes a look of ruckus and chaos. The characters Denzel Washington and Chris Pine play are just there to be the saving grace at the end of the day, but really, they're one-dimensional puppets placed here and there in order to bring the desired outcome into fruition. Attempts at creating character is given in-between Scott's trademark quick cuts and circling shots, but they don't overall add up to anything substantial. But like I said, we're not here for characters, we're here to experience this motherfrakking train be motherfrakking unstoppable. And oh yes, it does do that. Thanks to Tony Scott, the only director who could have pulled off this "missile the size of the Chrysler building" story, the visuals of the train are spectacular, the scenes of Denzel and Chris racing to save the day intense (especially in the third act), and the enjoyment factor major high.

Rating: 5/10 = Look at things go BOOM! Wait, hold it, character moment for a sec. Okay, good, time for more BOOM! Did you see that BOOM!? There was a BOOM!

Killers

Killers

Starring Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, Tom Selleck, Catherine O'Hara, Rob Riggle. Written by Bob DeRosa & Ted Griffin. Directed by Robert Luketic. Release: 4 June 2010. Lionsgate, 96 mins., Rated R

Plot: Jen finds out husband Spencer is actually a ex-spy, a little something he left out during the whole relationship thing, when their neighbors begin shooting at them to collect a bounty.

Ah, KILLERS. Universally regarded as a suckier MR. & MRS. SMITH, it's a belief that isn't entirely justified. Yes, there is that whole married spy angle thing, but it doesn't really follow the above mentioned title at all, nor resemble it. First, the small little technicalities: Ashton's Spencer chooses to get out of the spy life, and does so for the three years he and Jen (Heige) are married until his old boss continually makes attempts to contact him. Second, Jen isn't a spy, but she does have raging mood swings that makes her amazingly complacent with the whole scenario. And third, none of the action scenes or the comedy come close to achieving the pitch perfect tone of the Doug Liman movie. Oh, and a fourth note: although Katherine Heigl actually doesn't come off nearly as annoying as she does in the trailer, Ashton is entirely miscast as the Brad Pitt-like character, lacking in the charm and brutality of Mr. Smith.

The news that KILLERS isn't MR. & MRS. SMITH PART II is actually a good thing, and it means that the title can be reviewed on its own merits now. Ultimately, however, the underwhelming and all around below average production doesn't lend itself to much of a review aside from simply saying the often made comparison isn't quite necessary, and Heigl doesn't entirely ruin the picture. There are surprisingly some funny parts from a expectantly low-laugh film with the revelation that their neighbors are trying to kill them. The performances of Heigl's parents, provided by Tom Selleck and Catherine O'Hara, is hilarious, and the family talk in the final act was just the right amount of awkward and crazy. I can see where both main actors would be attracted to their roles: for Heigl, she can step out of the romantic comedy lead she has often been playing and become more of a wild card character who changes moods rapidly and doesn't just stay on the sidelines as a damsel in distress - her character has opinions and isn't afraid to share them, nor is she afraid to point a gun. For Ashton, Spencer allows him to pretty much be Brad Pitt, the dark and brooding assassin who doesn't want that life anymore, doesn't want the burden on his shoulders. Plus: action sequences, which as far as I know Ashton hasn't had a lot of, and I'm sure that alone was appealing for him.

Overall, the best thing that can be said about KILLERS is that the hearts of everyone involved were in the right place, it's simply the result of misfortune that the movie itself is far too underwhelming and just not good enough to give credit to their goal. Therefore, KILLERS falls into the category of "if you're interested, give it a rent [no blind buys], but otherwise, you're not missing anything noteworthy."

Vampires Suck

Vampires Suck

Starring Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Christopher N. Riggi. Written and directed by ason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Release date: 18 August 2010. Fox, 88 mins., Rated R

Plot: The guys who eliminated brain cells with EPIC MOVIE, MEET THE SPARTANS, and DISASTER MOVIE are back to riff the TWILIGHT SAGA, meshing elements (read: scenes) from TWILIGHT and NEW MOON [in addition to random ALICE IN WONDERLAND and JERSEY SHORE cameos].

The beautiful thing about THE TWILIGHT SAGA is that we don't necessarily need a movie to poke fun at it; they're bad enough as is, and the audience can deliver the punchlines themselves MST3K-style. It's in this environment I watched VAMPIRES SUCK, the latest Oscar contender from EPIC MOVIE and MEET THE SPARTANS writers/directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. A get together with some friends, loads of Dr. Pepper, and a few Little Ceasers pizzas (the best) is the perfect way to watch a incredibly bad 'satire' and make it somewhat less bad. By no means by the end of this will I say VAMPIRES SUCK is worth your time - although I reckon there just might be something akin to chuckle-worthy 'jokes' (e.g., "cat!") - but if you were to indulge in your curiosity of the title, a friend-rich atmosphere is recommended. And pizza.

As for 'reviewing' VAMPIRES SUCK, I truly believe it's a impossible feat. Besides, there's a few thousand reviews circulating on movie review websites blasting the flick a bazillion different ways with some quite inventive disses (BTW, kudos folks!). The thing is, most of us have seen DATE MOVIE way back when, before we realized exactly what type of filmmakers we were dealing with. And then in 2008 the appropriately titled DISASTER MOVIE which only the really, really unintelligent teenagers of my time found utterly hilarious. We know what Friedberg and Seltzer produce, and if the idea of getting a few nags at the TWILIGHT SAGA (which you could do on your own, entirely for free, and would most likely far surpass anything this film had to offer in the hilarity department) tempts you, than it's a moderately sufferable enterprise. Just be warned, there's the familiar farting, falling-out-a-window, and running-into-something gags that are a Friedzer staple [see what I did there? I mixed their names together! Like a 'ship'!]. Oh, and on occasion the [point] 'Look! It's [insert current fad here]!'.

It sorta sucks, too. I enjoy dissing THE TWILIGHT SAGA as much as the next moderately intelligent bloke, so it would have been pleasing to actually have a comedy that executes its premise well. No matter, there's still two movies left to go. In that time frame, who knows what super clever and outrageously hilarious vampire satire will grace our screens. I wager it's too much to hope for something of a SHAUN OF THE DEAD-type quality. Gasp! I invoked the Wright/Pegg/Frost dynamic in a VAMPIRES SUCK review...what's wrong with me?

Week of Horror 2010: Day 01

Monster Island

Starring Carmen Electra, Daniel Letterl, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Adam West, Nick Carter. Written and directed by Jack Perez. Transmission Date: 2004. MTV Studios, 92 mins. Unrated

"Bad day to be famous."

"Due to unforeseen ingenious animal attack, Carmen Electra won't be performing tonight."

MTV's MONSTER ISLAND is a multi-layered film, going far beyond the conventions of a 'homage' or teen comedy and becoming something that delves into great themes of our times: fighting the good fight, facing fear head on and conquering it, the hero origin story, plus subplots of destiny and (possibly) reincarnation. It's a truly amazing display of masterpiece writing and directing, with a ensemble cast that appears unlikely to head on a movie of this magnitude. But alas, here we are.

...

Anyone believe that? If you did, shame on you. Sure, MONSTER ISLAND is - well, endurable, but it isn't a good or enjoyable movie by any means. There are some chuckling parts, to be sure, but the majority of the time, MONSTER ISLAND is just bad. Sadly, despite the potential for a fun teen-oriented sci-fi movie, MONSTER ISLAND doesn't really fall under the category of 'homage' or 'good', but instead is simply a bad movie that utilizes old tools to accomplish visual effects (and that, apparently, passes as 'homage' enough). The script is poor, the acting unbelievably bad, although Emmy worthy when compared to productions chummed out by the Asylum.

When Carmen Electra and Adam West provide the best performances in your movie, as a filmmaker, you should sorta guess you're in trouble. I do get that the movie's target audience is teenagers who'll chuckle at some of the dumb dialogue (look above), cameos (Nick Carter arriving in the film's closing moments to save the day), and humorous sequences, such as praying mantis sex. Regrettably, those moments just didn't clink with me. Although, kudos to the writers for naming West's character Doctor Harryhausen. Anyone who respects the master of visual effects gets a nod from me - and please, let's not engage in a Harryhausen vs. O'Brien debate.

Here we got a movie that climaxes with cave people fighting giant ants, which, y'know, on paper sounds alright, and quite right what with the whole homage thing going on. But execution wise - super poor, and super embarrassing. There's a big difference between lovingly paying homage to your genre and making a shitty movie for the hell of it and calling it a homage. Take 2009's SyFy Original Picture LOCH NESS TERROR for a good example of a loving homage. By no means is it a great film, but it's true beauty lies in how it respects its genre, embraces it, and simultaneously not only enjoys it but attempts to even stretch its legs. Y'know, add some fresh elements. 2004's THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA is another good example of this type of homage. This is one of 'em badder flicks, purposefully making things 'eck' for the hell of it.

On a brighter side, a starring role worth noting is Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Why? Well, I love her and her work, from GRINDHOUSE to SCOTT PILGRIM. But not even Ms. Winstead can get away with this ridiculous dialogue, and her character comes off barley any more likable than a JERSEY SHORE mate.

I can't in good conscious recommend MONSTER ISLAND. A while ago, when a Hollywood Video was closing up, they were selling the DVD of it for a buck. It was in its last days, and everything was a buck. But I skipped on it, unsure if it was even worth a buck. Dunno how wise of a decision maker I am, granted, taking into account I deemed KVC: KOMODO VS. COBRA worthy of purchase, but whatev. Point is: I'm glad I waited for a free stream. Is it worth that? Nah, not to the casual viewer, nor to any hardcore B-movie fans, or any fan of Harryhausen, O'Brien, Cooper, or the rest of 'em. It's just bad. Teens - well, to clarify - high teens, will quite enjoy this flick, no doubt. Otherwise, just skip it.

Grown Ups

Grown Ups

Starring Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade, Rob Schneider, Maria Bellow, Maya Rudolph, Salma Hayek, Steve Buscemi. Written by Adam Sandler & Fred Wolf, directed by Dennis Dugan. Release: 25 June 2010, Columbia Pictures, 102 mins., Rated R

Plot: A death reunites old high school friends (and family) to a cabin in the woods, providing them a reason to have some fun and rekindling their 'ol immature selves.

Entering a movie with the lowest of expectations can often be a good thing, as is the case of GROWN UPS. Here's a comedy that I was absolutely dreading, firmly believing that not a ounce of funny was going to come out of it. And here there I was at the nearby movie theater, laughing surprisingly often. Of course I'm not going to write down that GROWN UPS is a must-see comedy and the a true great of the 2010 summer season, but with not much else to see or do this year, you could definitely do a lot worse than this.

That above list with all those 'starring' actors? Well, I'm not too grand of a fan of plenty of them. Chris Rock is a hit 'n miss type actor, where he makes some really good productions and chums out plenty of awful ones. Luckily, this is one of his good roles. Sad part: his character isn't given the appropriate time to really be anything other than another actor on the payroll. Sandler is a cool guy, but he desperately needs to think over his movie choices much more carefully. His character in GROWN UPS is possibly the one with the most problems, being rather bland, not having a arsenal of moderately funny jokes, and boasting the lamest subplot involving his 'nanny'. David Spade has been funny in only two instances: as the voice of the emperor in THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE and starring in that TV sitcom JUST SHOOT ME. Otherwise, deadly obnoxious. Turns out Spade ain't bad here, either. Kevin James, I don't have anything against the guy other than PAUL BLART, but that's just because it was a annoying movie no matter which way you shake the dice. Rob Schneider, though - not often I have a strong dislike for a actor, but he most definitely fits the bill. The humorous part is that it's Schneider's messed up character that elicits the most laughs.

Actually, scratch the last. The best actor in GROWN UPS by far - with the exception of the two bikini girls who just happen to be Schneider's 'daughters' - Steve Buscemi. I would recommend GROWN UPS for the sole purpose of one being able to experience the hilarity that is Buscemi in this role, especially on the basketball court near the films end. Frakkin' hilarious.

In review: Schenider and Buscemi conjure the best laughs. I wager there would be more, but despite the 102 minute running time, there feels like a lot of scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Things move to quick, conflicts are introduced in a rather forced manner, but are nicely resolved in the end. The weird thing is, either I wasn't paying too much attention, but when the whole 'moment of growth' speech happened, I was taken aback because I didn't even know that was a problem in the film. The whole tagging on grown up problems for our characters wasn't really necessary, the movie would have worked just fine if the set-up was just a bunch of guys enjoying a relaxing weekend off after the death of a high school role model. Simple, effective, and plenty of room for laughs.

Not the best comedy of the year, but more likely than not it satisfies ones movie desire.

She's Out of My League

She's Out of My League
Cast: Jay Baruchel, Alice Eve, Krystan Ritter, T.J. Miller, Mike Vogel, Lindsay Sloane Writer(s): Sam Anders, John Morris
Director: Jim Field Smith
Release: 12 March 2010
DreamWorks, 104 mins., Rated R

Plot: Dweeb Kirk goes on a date with a extremely hot girl named Molly, and becomes so paranoid over how dweeby he is he basically sabotages the relationship until he comes to his senses and realizes he really wants the relationship to work regardless of their diverse hotness levels.

It takes about 30 minutes for She's Out of My League to find its footing and become a rather entertaining film. Before that point, though, I was in a bit of agony over how obnoxious basically everything was. But hey - the flick's 1 hr and 44 minutes, so 30 minutes out of all that isn't too bad, right? The overall experience was superior than, say, Miss March (2009). I think although the movie may not be all that great or good, I like the script and I like what it was trying to be, even though it hit a few too many cliched plot points. Let me explain:

The main point of the movie is that this socially awkward guy in his twenties - a dude who isn't sporting a six pack or a bunch of Schwarzenegger-like muscles - somehow grabs the attention of a beautiful girl who qualifies as a solid '10' in the hotness scale. Alright, fine - decent, sorta condescending set-up that's sure to have some comedic gold. The aspect of this storyline I liked the most was, in fact, Molly. Heading in, I was expecting a stuck-up bitchy blond who was the encapsulation of wickedness, and our protagonist would deal with it because, hey, she's hot and she's giving him a second of her time. Turns out, Molly is a pretty reasonably fleshed out and dimensional character. She goes out with Kirk because she actually, genuinely likes him (dunno why, but she does). Although her initial reason for going out with him was that he was, in a way, 'safe' and not a jackass like her cheating ex, by the halfway point of the film, you can tell she's into the guy, and that's she serious about it. It's Kirk who messes everything up; it's Kirk who says all the dumb things and acts like a drama Queen. So what I like about the script - they wrote a mostly intelligent, dimensional character as the love interest. For the most part, she was honest and straightforward - it was Kirk who was passive aggressive (staying in tune with his socially awkwardness, I guess).


Other workable elements of the script: Kirk's really messed up family (including That 70's Show's favorite TV mum Kitty, who is more hyper in her scenes than her entire run on that show), Kirk's friends who actually give him a not-half-bad suggestion every once and a while, and Molly's BFF Patty.

What doesn't work with this movie is quite simple: Jay Baruchel and his character of Kirk. 1) I propose a drinking game - go out and rent the DVD, watch it once, and then the second time, buy a bunch of drinks and take a shot each and every time Jay says either "uh" or "um." Seriously, Jay's socially awkward character makes what Michael Cera has accomplished Oscar worthy. I mean no real bad will against Jay; there are scenes where he's a really good actor, but his nasally "um"ness creeps up far too often to make his work enjoyable. 2) In what reality does it make sense that Kirk would throw a chance to sleep with Molly? They're literally right in the seconds before doing it, and she's more than willing to shag the guy, but he freakin' loses it - he goes on a tangent about how he's a "5" and she's a "10" and they can't possibly work out. This is the epitome of a horrible plot contrivance. There was nothing that set this up. It was established that Molly and Kirk went on something like six or eight dates before their second attempt at shagging, and there was no drama. Zero. Zippo. No 'nah, I dunno if I really truly like you.' The relationship was working, and she was into him, and he stupidly without any warrant does what he does? Makes zero sense, and was just irritating as hell. So in a nutshell: not complainin' about the not sleeping with Molly part, just complainin' how so unnecessary and illogical that event came about. 3) Something I did like - in one of two moments where Kirk actually stands up for himself, he walks right up to Molly and refuses to leave before he says what he needs to say. Well damn, that's one of the best parts of the script, and the first sign that perhaps the screenwriters had some overall purpose or point to this story.


Sorry, my apologies. It really, really sounds like I hate this movie, which I really don't. I have problems with certain aspects of the script and actors - aspects that have been used repeatedly in comedies, and I just feel that it should be retired. But the overall movie - it's alright. The obnoxious aspect I mentioned in the opening paragraph: that was primarily Kirk and his usage of "um" as a conversation piece and the utter stupidity of his dialogue, and how a good amount of the jokes just fell flat on their face. But as I said, the flick got better. There were some genuinely humorous parts, and moments where the movie was pretty fun to watch. Errors were made, and I guess I'm just stuck on those points more-so than acknowledging the films finer elements.

A co-worker of mine absolutely had a blast with She's Out of My League; my girlfriend mostly shared the same opinion of the film as me. So, obviously, opinions of the film vary. Overall, I would recommend a rental, based on Kirk's cool assortment of friends and his Arrested Development-like family situation.

Shrek, Splice, MacGruber, Persia, Greek

The television world has basically sucked up my existence as of late - catching up with Fringe (Season 1), True Blood (Season 2), Lost (Season 6 - rewatch), 24 (season 8 - rewatch for assessment), Justified (Season 1), Greek (Season 1), Reaper (Season 2), and Stargate Universe (Season 1) - so movie reviewin' hasn't been exactly top priority. Besides, I'm thinking I just might do without movie reviews and simply do some sort of in-depth analysis once a week on a carefully selected movie; make it unique, y'know? Or I could just post a bunch of TV and book related stuff with a small portion of movie reviews thrown in for good measure? Maybe more editorials?

Anyway, 2010 movies have generally been in the category of it's alright, but nothing great. It's strange that January-April had more awesome releases than the big blockbuster summer season. At least we still have The Last Airbender to decide the fate of the 2010 blockbusters.

Get Him to the Greek
Starring Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, Elisabeth Moss, Sean Combs
Written by Nicholas Stoller
Based on the characters created by Jason Segel
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Release: 04 June 2010
Universal, 109 mins., Rated R

Plot: Aaron Green needs to get drugged up Aldous Snow to the Greek Theater in Los Angeles, and the fact that Aldous is on every possible drug and toxin known to man doesn't make this any easy task.

Much to my happy surprise, Get Him to the Greek was actually funny. I laughed out loud on several occasions, had a stupid grin on my face more than twice, and I honestly would buy the film on DVD (at a discounted price, of course) and rewatch multiple times. And what's even more flabbergasting about this fact is that I'm saying this about a movie with Jonah Hill as a lead. Jonah Hill. The single most annoying aspect of any Judd Apatow-related production. And yet here he is, being genuinely funny and not at all irritating. In fact, I'd say this is his best work as a actor yet. And Russel Brand is just as fantastic as Aldous Snow as he was in '08's Forgetting Sarah Marshall, though I am curious how much is Aldous Snow and how much is Russel Brand.

The great thing about these two films - Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek - is that they offer three-dimensional characters that we give a damn for mixed with complete hilarity, which, mind you, is a formula that isn't often achieved. There's Aldous Snow and his decline back into addiction of every toxin imaginable and has father issues - elements that serve as the basis of the comedy; and then there's Aaron Green, who just wants to get ahead in the music corporate business and live a good life with the girlfriend - and in this case, the comedy comes from his desire to achieve both with grade A flying marks.

Oh! And look for a pretty funny continuation of Sarah Marshall's storyline. It's a quick scene that just makes you feel bad about both Ms. Marshall and the state of outrageous popular television these days.

It's quotable, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and it's well paced with the exception of only a few sequences that could use some trimming. Since I'm rather bad at writing stuff of any consequence about comedy films, I'm simply leave it that Get Him to the Greek was very (surprisingly) funny, and I'd definitely recommend it to folks who enjoyed I Love You, Man or Forgetting Sarah Marshall (although Sarah Marshall isn't a prerequisite viewing to dig this flick).

MacGruber
Starring Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillippe, Val Kilmer, Maya Rudolph
Written by Will Forte, John Solomon, Jorma Taccone
Based on the characters in "MacGruber" by Saturday Night Live
Directed by Jorma Taccone
Release: 21 May 2010
Rogue Pictures, 89 mins., Rated R

Plot: MacGruber is called upon by the CIA to save the day against Dieter Von Cunth who plans on nuking a lot of people.

Now here's a movie that excels in stupidity - it immerses itself in it - and ends up being mildly chuckle worthy. I'm not quite sure if the laughs that came out of it were a result of it being genuinely funny or me being in utter bewilderment that what I was seeing was actually happening. Y'know, that some big studio actually endorsed this gag by putting money behind it. Plenty of other reviewers are marketing it as the "funniest SNL movie since WAYNE'S WORLD." Well, since I haven't had the luxury of seeing that Mike Meyers vehicle, I'll judge MACGRUBER on its own right.

MACGRUBER wants to be HOT FUZZ, essentially; the movie immerses itself in the cliches of police/special agent procedurals and pokes fun at 'em. However, HOT FUZZ was successful at this - it poked fun, sure, but also saluted those films, respecting them and immersing itself in what made those '80s films memorable. MACGRUBER just wants to riff on those flicks and inject loads of dick and fart jokes.

Eh, Not Too Bad, Not Too Bad: Sure, a majority of the funny stuff's in the trailer, like the "I'm more of a three wire type of guy" line, but there's some other smirk-worthy moments: MacGruber's insistence to suck anyone's cock as long as they don't kick him off the mission; MacGruber using Ryan Phillipe has a human shield; MacGruber and Kristen Wiig's "love" scene; and of course his first assembled team of testosterone-filled macho men gettin' blown up by MacGruber. By now, Will Forte totally owns this role inside and out, Ryan Phillippe surprises by going all-out (truthfully), Kristen Wiig is her adorable self, and Val Kilmer does his best role since Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever (a long time). Actually, truth be told, Kilmer was pretty damn good as the antagonist.

A world of Negatory: Of course, there's still a bunch of material that makes up its running time that's just simply stupid. Sadly, I can't recall any particulars (it has been about four weeks since I saw the flick - damn my lazy movie reviewin' write-up skills!!!), but there's a bunch of scenes that truthfully made me turn away from disgust or just shake my head in shame. A little over a year ago, Nick at Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob felt shameful walking out of Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li; well, this is my Chun-Li.

The Shiz: Entirely skippable, unless you really need some sort of comedy. But really, I had a funner time watching Steve Martin's The Pink Panther 2, and that I definitely didn't have much love for.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kinglsey, Alfred Molina
Written by Jordan Mechner, Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard
Based on the characters in "The Prince of Persia" video game series
Directed by Mike Newell
Release: 28 May 2010
Disney, 116 mins, Rated PG-13

Plot: Prince Dastan is accused of being a baddie and sets out on a journey to clear his name and save the kingdom from villainy !!! - with a gorgeous (yet annoying) lady at his side.

The new Pirates of the Caribbean franchise of the new decade, headlined by Jerry Bruckheimer! A good concept and decent presentation, except Prince of Persia lacks the excitement, awesomeness, cleverness, talentful, and jaw-dropping coolness of the Pirates franchise. That trilogy was fantastic because of more than just Johnny Depp's Captain Sparrow, but its duo of unrivaled creative writers: Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio. Those two can't seem to make a bad movie. Even with four people on the payroll, Persia's script isn't coherent and isn't nearly as brilliant as the franchise the movie's trying to replicate.

Alright, now that's out of the way, how is The Sands of Time? Overall, it's a decent film. Time has always been a fascinating aspect of any storyline, even if it's somewhat overused (especially in sci-fi stories, a la Star Trek). So the very notion of this special dagger that, through the use of some very, very special sand, could reverse time is sorta nifty and a cool enough set-up for a big-time summer blockbuster. From a story standpoint, though, it's a little disappointing that the villain's main purpose for wanting this special dagger isn't all that captivating. Understandable, sure, but I wasn't exactly itching in my seat in anxiety of what's going to happen. Speaking about that, there's not much surprise in how the story will unfold, or when the dagger will be used.

Perhaps that's what Prince of Persia lacks - a freshness element.

Jake Gyyllenhaal (Donnie Darko) works just fine as Prince Dastan. He's got the charming element working for him, and even though it may be a stunt double for 87% of his aerobic work, watching him jump around the city and easily sliding into a window 10 feet away is spectacular to watch, and perhaps the most amount of fun I got from the flick. To fill in the role of love interest and hot gal, Gemma Arterton of Clash of the Titans (2010) fame definitely fits the bill in the beautiful category, but her lazily written character borderlines obnoxious in nearly every scene. Oh! And Ben Kinglsey just totally rocks as Dastan's uncle who has more going on that he's letting on. Alfred Molina shows up at sporadic times during the narrative and works as a deux ex machina and the joke machine, which he does quite well.

Something that works against The Sands of Time I wish to point out is Dastan's "destiny". Repeatedly, in the trailer and movie, it's referred that Dastan has some sort of destined role to play, and that it's his 'destiny' to do this and that, blah, blah, blah. But unless I wasn't watching or listening closely enough (which could entirely be possible), where does this whole destiny thing fit in? It's some lazy phrase that gets thrown out there on several occasions, but there's no evidence of said destiny. Dastan just rolls around the desert trying to evade capture.

On the bright side, though, Mike Newell totally kicked butt directorially speaking, nearly making up for his lazy direction in Goblet of Fire. Alright, done with the semi-insults.

The Sands of Time is good action fodder, and if you hit the cheap seats or wait for a DVD rental, you won't mind the painfully average finished product. But if a franchise is gonna stem from this...please get someone else penning it?

Shrek Forever After
Starring Mike Meyers (V), Cameron Diaz (V), Antonio Banderas (V), Eddie Murphy (V)
Written by William Steig, Josh Klausner, Daren Lemke
Directed by Mike Mitchell
Release: 21 May 2010
Paramount Pictures, 94 mins., Rated PG

Plot: Shrek's overworked and not happy he's no longer the feared ogre he once was, and makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin for a single day of being his old brute self - but of course, something goes wrong and needs correcting "It's a Wonderful Life"-style.

The Shrek sequels have never been as good as the original, but they still retain enough good jokes and funny enough scenarios they're at least worth seeing. Same holds true for this fourth and supposedly last (money talks better than words) installment of the hit DreamWorks animated series.

Ogre Of a Good Time: The bigger sized version of Puss 'n Boots. Perfect, awesome, basically won my ticket and totally delivered. Plus, there were actually a few jokes that I found funny. And I surprisingly didn't mind the Rumpelstillstkin character, although I can't lie and say there weren't times when the actor's voice was utterly annoying.

Smell Yah Later: Just some of the dialogue - ugh, cringe worthy. I'm thinking particularly the exchanges between Shrek and Fiona in the alternate reality where he's trying desperately to get her to kiss him ('cuz it's "true love's kiss!" of course). The theme of the movie...? Be thankful for what you got? Be weary of what you wish for? Eh, alright. Coulda fleshed it out a bit more, make elements of the characters and script work a bit better.

To Go Or Not To Go: By now Shrek Forever After is about ready to exit theaters, so anyone who wants to see it already has. It's by no means a horrible film, but it's not entirely all that good. It's serviceable, and gets the story across fine (but the theme? Not so much). As a concluding chapter, it works. Shrek has faced all he needs to and has overcome his many, many obstacles, so now he can be a happy go lucky ogre content with his rather abnormal lifestyle. Rental or cheap seats recommendation. The family will enjoy themselves.

Splice
Starring Adrian Brody, Sarah Polley
Written by Vincenzo Natali, Doug Taylor, Antoinette Terry Bryant
Directed by Vincenzo Natali
Release: 04 June 2010
Dark Castle Entertainment, 104 mins., Rated R

Plot: Two DNA scientist lovers frak up with nature and create some species hybird thingy that ends up being a lot of trouble.

The odd thing about Splice is that nothing really surprised me or wowed me. I knew the direction of the story with every new bit of information, and the only thing that left me puzzled was the shift in character attitudes halfway through the picture. Indeed, it's extremely pleasing to have a film like Splice - a very unconventional production to receive such publicity - be widely released in chain theaters, but at the same time, I do feel like the story and boundaries could have been pushed more. I think Splice simply suffered from what the marketing teams job was - publicity. The word on the street was that the film would be unlike other similarly plotted productions of the same vain, and to that point it didn't deliver.

Alright, my thoughts in a nutshell: entertaining, but not thrilling. Decently scripted, but lost in its own potential. Edgy-ish, but not pushing the boundaries enough. Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley were just fine in their respective roles, although their character progression from beginning to end changes rather abruptly and without any apparent reason. The gal playing the hybird was phenomenal, and beautifully able to make freaky creature y sounds and convey a sense of child-esque innocence.

Rent Splice if you feel so inclined to see it, but I'd recommend waiting for a production that delves a little deeper into the story it presents.

A Couple of Dicks

A COUPLE OF DICKS

Starring Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Rashida Jones, Sean William Scott, Adam Brody, Jason Lee
Written by Mark Cullen & Rob Cullen
Directed by Kevin Smith
Release: 26 February 2010
Warner Bros., 110 mins., Rated R

Plot: Two longtime NYPD partners clumsily fight the Mexican mob while trying to sort through their own family issues - financing a daughter's wedding, finding out if the wife's cheating on you, all with bullets flying around. Fun times.

Once Kevin Smith's name was attached to the project, my ticket was instantly sold. For some, that basically was the deal breaker. For me, the biggest 'ahh, shit' moment was the news that Tracy Morgan, who I find to be one of the most obnoxious human beings on the planet (although I have no doubt his 30 Rock co-stars would vehemently disagree with me), was co-starring opposite the awesome Bruce Willis in this buddy cop flick. 'Ahh, shit' is right.

For Smith's first outing directing a script that's not his own, he couldn't have selected a better project. The script is reminiscent to something Smith would write - random conversations, 'interesting' characters, and a helluva lot of swearing - but not nearly at the caliber of his skills (yes, I say he has skills). There's the true-and-tried/tired plot of a Mexican gang going all Punisher on folks all because they need to get to something the main baddie lost. And speaking of the baddie, he's your typical one-note character. To the Cullens credit, they do try to craft both humanity and menace into Poh Boy, but actor Guillermo Diaz just ain't good enough to pull it off. Not only is the familiar Mexican gang device used, but there's also the two familiar storylines that are central to this: a father unable to pay some big fee of some sort for a family member (estranged wife, daughter, mother), and a man unsure of his wife's fidelity. I'd be more ticked at the script's unoriginality if it wasn't for the dialogue, which is undoubtedly the movie's strong-point.

The characters, Jimmy (Bruce) and Paul (Morgan), and the dialogue they have is what makes or breaks this movie. Luckily, it's some damn good dialogue.

Bruce Willis is fine, absolutely fine in his role, because he knows this type of character backwards and forwards. He could literally have sleepwalked through it. But he appears to be having a blast; there seems to be a genuine smile with his banters between him, Morgan, and Dave (Scott). And of course, he looks completely at ease with his gun. Willis stars opposite Tracy Morgan, who I can't find any reason to enjoy. His voice is annoying, you could barely understand what he says sometimes, and his idea of a punchline is raising his voice 10 vocals high. But somehow, someway, Willis and Morgan come across as a fully functional, nine-year time/friendship duo. So, fine, I'll accept it, but damn if I don't dislike Morgan.

It's great to see Sean William Scott onscreen again. As to be expected, I enjoyed all of his scenes. Same said for Adam Brody, who I haven't seen much of since The O.C. concluded - which is weird, 'cuz he has the acting chops, he just doesn't seem to really wanna do anything beyond small independent flicks and thus, less notoriety. Brody is a strong comedic force, and it's saddening he's not in more projects. Surprising stars to show up: Jason Lee (Mallrats), a Kevin Smith regular, who didn't even look like himself without some sort of ruggedly beard, and Michelle Trachtenberg (Buffy, the Vampire Slayer), who shows up in two scenes as Willis' daughter. Rashida Jones is simply beautiful. No other word to describe her.

A Couple of Dicks isn't receiving generally positive reviews, and I get that. There's the Kevin Smith haters, there's the folks who just find this a sub-par 'homage' or uninspired throwback to the 1980's buddy cop comedies/dramas, and there's those who just don't like it period for whatever reason. It's possible that if it wasn't for my Smith bias (if I wasn't clear: I love the guy), perhaps my judgment of Dicks wouldn't be so favorable. But honestly, there's some good material in this film, and it deserves to be recognized.

Is it a really good movie? No. Is it decent as a homage to said '80s films? Yeah, sure. Is it Kevin Smith's best work? Nope.

But it has a above average script, a (mostly) likable cast, and I can honestly say I enjoyed my time watching the movie, and after it was done, I had a nice 'ol smile on my face and satisfied with my comedy and bullety action craving for the week.

It's difficult to recommend A Couple of Dicks. The best option I can present is provide you with the suggestion to check out the Red Band trailer for the film, as it gives you more of a clue as to what type of a movie it is moreso than the rather underwhelming theatrical trailer. If it seems halfway funny or interesting, than yeah, go see it. The trailers don't do the film justice. Plus, if you're any fan of Bruce Willis...c'mon, yah gotta.

Note: I am firmly aware that the title is officially known as Cop Out, as directed by Warner Bros. and Kevin Smith, but I've decided to use the original script title, A Couple of Dicks. Really, I just dig it better, although I do have love towards the new title - it should, and always shall be, known as A Couple of Dicks