He's Just Not That Into You (Theatre) - Both

As romcoms go this wasn’t bad. It did, however, do exactly what it preached it wouldn’t do, but I expected that. We all know the ending of any romcom contains the couple happily living ever after, and while this wasn’t the case for all of our lovelorn losers the majority of these pairings were happily engaged in committed relationships by the end. And, for a movie that espouses that men don’t really like women I feel this film betrayed its message. This American version of Love, Actually (2004) seemed to falter only in its inability to truthfully kill relationships.

The couple that the movie based most of its message on was Gigi and Alex, delightfully played by Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long, respectively. Alex reveals a great truth to Gigi when he sees her crash and burn with his friend Conor, and thus strikes up a friendship with the lovable loser. As she navigates the sea of men in Alex’s bar he steers her around some of the more obvious icebergs that present themselves to her and she eventually falls for Alex. Now, anyone could have seen this coming, but I didn’t mind the obvious nature of this relationship. However, what Gigi took as signs that Alex was into her were figments of her imagination and Alex rebuffs her telling her what he has said all along, to paraphrase, if a guy really likes you he will find a way to let you know.

Conor and Anna make up the second pairing and portray the same message but in a gender reversal, if a girl really likes you she will find a way to let you know. Conor, played by Kevin Connolly, mopes about the screen longing for Anna, his one time partner, but she obviously has no interest in that sort of relationship. She toys with him, calling him up in the middle of the night, hugging him as she leaves each time, and engaging him in conversations about how their relationship should have worked out, but ultimately she likes Ben.

Janine and Ben, skillfully played by Jennifer Connelly and the affable Bradley Cooper, were the only couple to actually be sunk by the choppy waters of love. Ben’s wandering eye got the better of him as he broke his wedding vows with the aforementioned Anna, Scarlett Johansson, and Janine eventually found out. Janine then forgave him, but Ben’s oats got the better of him and he fell back into his cheating ways.

The last couple of note, Beth and Neil, played by Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck, portray a couple who have been dating for seven years but due to Neil’s desires to never get married are stuck in a place that makes Beth feel uncomfortable.

The characters are well played by all the actors with Aniston, Goodwin, and Connelly standing out, and this leads me to pause and say, that when actors take romcoms seriously they can surpass the genre and create an enjoyable viewing experience for all involved. The writing wasn’t amazing, not that it was bad, it just didn’t stand out, but the actors played their roles thoughtfully and it showed.

Alex eventually figures out that he wanted to be with Gigi and lets her know. This to me seemed somewhat weird and against message, but they were a cute couple in the end. Neil eventually learns that if he truly wants to spend the rest of his days with Beth, then they should get married. This, again, goes against message, but it plays to the audience. So again, this film betrays its name, but thanks to the actors taking their jobs seriously it remained watchable.

Just as a side note here at the end, I can’t believe this is directed by the same individual who directed License to Wed (2007), The Beautician and the Beast (1997), and Dunston Checks In (1996). What the hell.

6 out of 10 – a great score for a romcom, but it truly was a well acted and interesting movie. I can’t say that for most in the genre.

Coraline (Theatre) - Both

I’m not sure if Coraline was a good movie, or if when compared with the deluge of tepid children’s movies it at least isn’t bad. When you compare Coraline with works like Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), Beauty and the Beast (1991), or any Pixar film its errant strings and gaps in storytelling become a bit more apparent, but largely Coraline succeeds. My main theory on why this is the case relies solely on the fact that there are consequences in the story.

I think a large reason why most children’s tales these days are somewhat boring and noncommittal hinge on the fact that nothing bad can or will happen. I think the idea comes from the fact that parents want to shield their offspring from bad things happening even if it is in a movie. When is the last time you saw anyone die in a Disney movie? The villains are all misunderstood individuals who just need someone to love them. No one needs to die, they just need a psychologist.

Gaston dies, man. He falls off a tower after fighting the Beast in a bloody battle. It’s a pretty gruesome death. That sort of thing would never happen in a film these days. Too many parents would be up in arms about how their precious little snowflakes learned to fight from the movie.

In Coraline the titular character is being wooed away from her home by a shape shifting witch/spider of sorts. Coraline is shown a world of wonder in which her parents always have time for her and her neighbor-friend is silent but present. This world is reached by traveling through a small hidden doorway in her family’s new living room, but there is a problem with her new play world. The leader of the world wants to take her soul, or eyes, or well, yeah, soul (eyes are the window to the soul right?). Anyways, that situation has consequences. She could end up dead.

The voice acting is well done; I would especially call out John Hodgeman for his wonderfully fun portrayal of Coraline’s dad. And while the story was incredibly predictable, it held fast to a classic fable arc that revealed three tests that the protagonist had to best in order to mature. My one slight, if I had to find one, would involve the parents of the child. They were never shown in any real positive light. In most of these cases the parents are doing what is best for the child and the child just doesn’t see the love that is inherent in the relationship, but in Coraline the parents were mean. They never really had time for her despite both working from home and only after Coraline saved the day did her mother buy her a gift of love.

Oh did I mention this was in 3-D. I’m not sure why, nothing really came of it, but I guess as it is the flare du jour we have a 3-D movie on our hands.

6 out of 10 – An interesting children’s film that delivered a creepy yet satisfying little trip.

My Bloody Valentine 3D (Theatre) - Jennifer

Jennie was unusually amped for this movie. I remember when we were dating I was dragged to Spy Kids 3-D. It seems I married a teenager from the 1950s. Boy, does she love her some 3-D. I’m not sure I get why, but I go and usually enjoy the interesting film experience that the technology can give.

Now, it seems horror is a genre that is perfect for the out-dated technology. Think about it, scary men popping out, items being thrown at you, weapons being brandished in your general direction it’s all ripe for 3-Dedafacation. And this film actually used the technology well.

I’ll give you some examples. As the killer attacks a helpless victim she throws a bed frame in front of her to block the weapon, then the camera turns and we see things from the victims prospective and we see the weapon lunging out of the screen at us being blocked by the bed frame. It’s all very exciting. Another staple of the horror genre is the naked female that has just had sex, but now is killed for her indiscretion. Well, the director or maybe the writer – well, someone – seemed to love this concept cause they 3-D’ed the hell out of it. I'm not saying that is a good thing. I'm saying it is a ludicrously hammy thing. I’ve got a feeling that this is the first full frontal 3-D ever created, but I could be wrong.

As for the plot itself, it wasn’t bad – well, until the ending. It was classic horror film: killer on the loose in a small town. The players were set up nicely and there were false leads as to the identity of the killer. It was all very exciting. But when it came right down to brass tacks the killer was revealed with a whimper – the old boyfriend who just went crazy and thus was killing people when he didn’t know it. There were no clues, no way to figure it out. Even the killer didn’t know it was himself until it was revealed. The ridiculous nature of this reveal worked against the mediocre horror film that had constructed itself, and the 3-D aspect remained the only support the film had going for it.

I’m not sure what future 3-D has in the world of film, but it seems that it’s making a comeback. I can’t wait for the 3-D remake of The Big Chill (1983)!

3 out of 10 – would have been a solid five if it weren’t for the ending. Coming for the 3-D stay for the… 3-D.

Bride Wars (Theatre) - Jennie

Weddings are amazing. I mean that. Mine was the second happiest day of my life. Only to be surpassed the very next day as my new bride and I drove to our hotel in Maui. So how does Hollywood take the romance, joy, and love out of weddings?! How do Cinema weddings turn into what was displayed by this film?

This film was horrible. It highlighted a rare strain of female that wants so badly to have the perfect wedding that nothing, not even a cardboard cutout of a fiancé will stand in her way. Now, technically I don’t know any woman who has acted like that on their wedding day. So I feel that Hollywood is doing the fairer gender a disservice by producing this schlock. But it was obviously made for females. Not one male of note even graced the cast.

I’m not sure what anyone can get from this movie either. It depicts two wedding hungry girls who happen to be best friends. They both get engaged around the same time as well, one by forcing her boyfriend to ask her and the other by a nonchalant sigh of resignation. After finding that the wedding planner of their dreams booked them on the same day they fight to see who gets to keep the wedding date. No one wins and they both put on their weddings but not before attempting to sabotage the others. Along the way the husbands to be are pushed aside and barely even noticeable except for the occasional quip about how “crazy” girls are about weddings.

Eventually, one’s wedding falls apart on the day of the dual weddings and they make up. They both attend the wedding that is still on– while both of them are in wedding dresses – um, yeah. There is a little wrapper that shows that the two have been playing wedding together since they were children and the final voiceover reads something like this "Sometimes in life there really are bonds formed that can never be broken. Sometimes you really can find that one person who will stand by you no matter what; maybe you'll find it in a spouse and celebrate it with your dream wedding, but there is also the chance that the one person you can count on for a lifetime, the one person who knows you, sometimes better than you know yourself, is the same person who's been standing beside you all along."

Now I don’t know about you. I don’t know about your partner. I don’t know about anything other than my own marriage, and if that last sentence isn’t talking about your partner then you probably shouldn’t be getting married in my opinion. I wanted to start this review of with a remark about how Sex and the City has given woman the courage to say that a good group of friends is really all they need, if a life partner comes along so be it. And I think that is great, but that also means you shouldn’t then get married because it is some rite of passage. I guess what I’m trying to say is you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you can’t give everything to your partner, then why get married, what is the point? Stay dating forever and leave it at that. If you really do want to be there for that person in good or bad times, sickness and health, zit or no zit (thank you Mrs. New!) – do it. But don’t marry someone for the ceremony. It is just rude.

I know I got off on a tangent, but this movie simply pissed me off. Marriages, between men, women, both – who cares – should be held in high regard. If you don’t – don’t get married. This movie simply mocks what it supposedly obsesses over.

1 out of 10 – simply a waste of time. And even somewhat offensive to weddings in general.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Theatre) - Both

David Fincher is known for making dark films – Fight Club (1999), Se7en (1995), Zodiac (2007) these are all rather pessimistic movies that don’t really celebrate the human endeavor – even Panic Room is darker than most cinema fair. However, Fincher’s latest effort is close to the exact opposite. It has the light charm and sullied optimism of Forrest Gump (1994), and that isn’t the last reference to that film I will make here.

Fincher's touch isn’t as heavy handed as it has been in the past, there are no scoping shots parsing rooms out as action takes place, but as the director grows older his touch with the scissors seems to be waning. While Zodiac came to 158 minutes Button runs the marathon of 166 minutes. And there are numerable scenes that could have found a home on the editing room floor.

To give you an example – the wrapper was a waist of emotion, money, and time. We see Daisy, the central female protagonist, as an old woman slowly dying has hurricane Katrina threatens to strike New Orleans. Why Katrina needed to be thrown into this film, I will never know. Her daughter reads to her the diary that Benjamin has left behind as she, Daisy, dies. This mirrors Forrest Gump’s wrapper in that the audience is constantly drawn out of the story by the two individuals telling it to rehash the information learned. Additionally, we get the emotional dead weight of a daughter finding out that her father is clearly not who she thought it was, but as she finds out through the diary, he was a curious man who happens to age backwards. The wrapper could have never been in the story and the film would have been the same.

The love story in the film also mirrors Gump in its breadth and scope. We are lead to believe that the two main characters fell in love when they were both around the age of ten. This means that we need to believe that a ten year old girl fell for, what looked like, a seventy year old man. An odd concept, I know. And much like Gump, the love isn’t really kindled until much later. They are torn apart and brought together on several occasions, all the while one is growing older and the other younger.

Now, it seems like I’m down on this film. I’m not. In fact, when walking to the car with my wife I exclaimed that I enjoyed this film more than Slumdog Millionaire (2008). But I find that while I thought the film was a subtle epic, which played its cards at just the right moment, it doesn’t stay fresh as I turn its central themes around in my head.

I continue to believe that I loved this film while watching, I love a good epic. They seem so grand. But epics, even Forrest Gump, my favorite, don’t always maintain their luster when taken away from the viewing experience. I’m not sure why. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that you are no longer having to buy each and every coincidence. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that our lives never mirror the majestic highs, lows, or battles that appear in the individual’s life. I’m not sure. But, I can’t think of an epic that stays epic after the theatre.

7 out of 10 – an epic piece of cinema that tries its hardest to maintain the paces it sets for itself.

Slumdog Millionaire (Theatre) - Both

From the opening scene of Danny Boyle’s tale, India is a sight to behold. The bombastic movement that follows the children as they run through their slum depicts a tangible world for his characters to inhabit. Boyle’s cardinal filming techniques are present with quick edits, bright colors, and variable focus lengths. The pinnacle establishing shot jump cuts to a view that shows the children escape through a clearing in the hodgepodge of tin roofs that provide shelter for the slum. And much like Boyle’s last film, the amazing Sunshine, Boyle makes his set piece a character.

But to speak of only Boyle’s filming techniques would be a misstep. The script that Boyle puts to film is a classic tale that brings about thoughts of other old stories from Britain’s great authors. The film’s plot is a mixture of both Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, with a little twenty-first century wrapper that pulls the plot together. The wrapper is truly what makes the plot stand out from a simple rehash of old tales of orphans and unrequited love and gives an easy climax to the old narratives.

Jamal Malik, awkwardly played by Dev Patel, uses Who Wants to be a Millionaire to get in touch with his lost love Latika. However, the police are interrogating him based on the idea that a man from the slums can, in no way, know all of the answers to get as far as he has gotten in the contest. The story of how Jamal came to know and fall in love with Latika is then told through his interrogation as he explains how he knows the answers to the entire list of questions. Each subsequent answer to the twenty or so questions chronologically steps us forward in his relationship with Latika.

And while this is one of the better films I have seen in the last year or so, I do have one major qualm with it. Joel pointed this one out before I had seen the film, and so while watching all I could think was the love between Latika and Jamal wasn’t based on anything really. They met as children, had a few harrowing adventures, but that is it. Are you in love with anyone you met when you were five? While this is not unlike Romeo and Juliet, and I still have problems with this plot device. Why would you love someone whom you’ve had very little contact with?

Boyle’s film gives the viewer a tangible India and a classic tale. It’s an optimistic film in a pessimistic season. I can’t wait to see Boyle’s next trick.

8 out of 10 – a fantastic view of India with a universal story.

Seven Pounds (Theatre) - Both

When the advertisements for a movie are as cryptic as they were for Seven Pounds, I go into the movie looking for some profound puzzle that I work at cracking the whole movie. I watch each scene with prying eyes attempting to see something I’m not really supposed to see. A lingering camera, a focused lens, an audio tell, these are some of the things I look for. Often I’m rewarded for my efforts as I foresee a coming danger, or can tell a plot twist coming before it is revealed. I certainly don’t say this to brag, anyone can do it, Jennie often points things out that I have missed, but the joy I get when I catch these hidden minutia usually makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

Will Smith has taken to doing about one film a year. This means he better make that film he does worth it. I loved I Am Legend (2007), despite its inability to give you the amazing ending the novel had. Hancock (2008) wasn’t horrible, but it certainly wasn’t a once a year film. So Smith gave us Seven Pounds. I don’t question his abilities as an actor, I’ve always loved Smith’s characters and go to see almost anything he is in (I have my limits Bad Boys II (2003)). And Seven Pounds doesn’t disappoint.

In one of the first few scenes we see Smith call a telemarketer. This individual, played by Woody Harrelson, is berated by Smith character in an emotionally awkward way for what appears to be no reason. You aren’t sure if Smith is a horrible person or not simply because of Smith’s abilities as an actor. His conflicted facial and body movements seem to contradict every hurtful word his character spews from his mouth. This scene is somewhat confusing in the context of the film as we are not privy to enough information as of yet but Smith’s abilities in this scene are riveting.

The first hour of the movie continues on in this fashion, and the audience is meant to piece things together. As I stated earlier I love doing this. As the scenes reveal themselves you are treated to a rather mundane, if not uplifting thought. Smith’s character is slowly donating parts of his body to good individuals who deserve the transplants. Smith eventually goes so far as to kill himself so that Rosario Dawson’s character may have his heart and continue living.

Although this is certainly an amazing gesture, it doesn’t make for an enthralling plot. Emotional? Certainly. But, I couldn’t help but think that if the timeline of the film would have been linear then there would be no film. As it was the timeline jumped from scene to scene.

I also had to wrestle with the ultimate resolution to Smith’s relationship with Dawson. What made her character so good? What did she do to deserve such a sacrifice? I found no plot point that made her such a great candidate for Will’s gift. In fact, the whole romance that was spun from the two seemed like a wasted plot point.

It certainly made me and Jennie cry, and it was ultimately an uplifting film of sorts, but I question its conviction. And I ultimately ask - what was the point to deciphering the clues?

5 out of 10 – Smith worked hard at pulling the heartstrings, and overall he achieves his goal, but that is about it.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (Theatre) - Both

Jennie and I love our “destroy the world” flicks Day After Tomorrow (2004), Independence Day (1996), War of the Worlds (2005). I don’t fully understand why Jennie, in particular, loves these films, but I can say that I enjoy them because they are big, wide screen, Movies (with a capital M). They usher me into a childish fantasy where the world is fragile. I don’t love explosions, but when the head gets torn off the Statue of Liberty in Cloverfield (2008) I get the message that something big happened. I don’t know if I am explaining my love for these films right, but I’ll end it at that.

In this remake of the end of the world Keanu Reeves plays an alien, Klaatu, who has come to earth to decide the fate of humanity. His decision is pretty much made for him when as he exits his ship the shoot-first-ask-questions-later American military attacks his alien form. Only America’s top science type person understands that he isn’t necessarily a threat, played by Jennifer Connelly.

She saves him from being sliced and diced, a constant threat to sentient beings who wander to this planet, and finds out he was sent here to see if the human race could turn things around. The Intergalactic Space Council decided that humans were ruining their planet. A planet with other beings on it – dogs, cats, platypuses, you get the idea. Our wasteful habits have brought the wrath of the Space Pope down on us and humans are to be exterminated.

You see, unlike the film this was derived from, this remake no longer believes war is a destructive human construct, or at least it isn’t as important as picking up our litter. To quote the producer, "the specifics of [how] we now have the capability to destroy ourselves have changed". While I agree that the human effect on the environment is substantial I beg to differ that our effects on the environment are as damning to the human race as war has been.

Keanu plays Klaatu well. Though I’m sure we all knew he would. His deadpan looks of logic are straight from Keanu’s past performances. And as for Connelly, well, she is a grade A actress working in a grade C movie, so her abilities fall flat. Jaden Smith is given a horrible role as a child that just can’t make up his mind. Does he love his step mother? Why is he unevenly angry at the world? His acting abilities aren’t as evident as other child stars, and his pedigree seems to be his ticket in, let’s hope he picks up some lessons.

As for the movie on a whole, I wouldn’t run to the few remaining theatres that are playing it, you will be disappointed. It is simply a quick get-in-and-get-out disaster film that is lacking in plot and character development.

3 out of 10 – This remake replaces our guilt of war with our guilt of recycling. The over handed message could have had some gravitas but the stakes were too low.

Four Christmases (Theatre) - Jennifer

When it comes to Romcoms Vince Vaughn is the king of male leads these days, but ask I you: has Vince Vaughn ever played anything other than a smooth talking, quick witted man’s man? So, I posit that he is actually not an actor, but a man who gets paid to be himself on screen. And in the female lead we have Reese Witherspoon who seems to be coming out of hiding. What was the last movie she was in? After checking IMDB I find that Rendition (2007) has been her last film. And before that we have to go to 2005’s Just Like Heaven, good lord.

But, back to the film at hand, we find Reese and Vince in a perfect relationship. No marriage to, I guess, ruin the fun of being eternally boyfriend and girlfriend, no children to mess up their tidy multimillion dollar pad, and no families to muddle with. This well tailored relationship hinges on honesty and a likeminded view of the future. This future includes blatant lies to get out of the dreaded family Christmas.

I want to stop here and ask: are all of you out there in the same boat? Do you hate your families so much that you would never want to see them? I have no clue what that would be like, I love the time I get to spend with my family during the holidays. That goes for my in-laws as well. I admit that sometimes it is an emotional gauntlet, but I wouldn’t want to miss it if I didn’t have to.

Reese and Vince get caught lying on TV about their whereabouts and are then relegated to visit their four parents. The scene in which they get caught is particularly interesting because for this to happen every one of their parents would have to be watching TV at the same moment, watching the same local news channel. Not only that, but, they must live in the same area meaning that Reese and Vince are complete bastards to their family the rest of the year as well. Who doesn’t visit their family at least once a year when they all live in the same city?

As their journey is played out we meet the unevenly written families that they were looking to avoid. Each character in the family is just a little crazy and then poignant. At points Kristen Chenoweth’s character who played a sister to Reese would be a childish berating little sister and then flip to a caring big sister vibe. I would blame the bumpy writing for this, not Chenoweth. This goes for Mary Steenburgen’s character as well.

The problem here was that the writers had to make the families look horrible in the beginning and then lighten up as they went on so that the viewers and the on screen couple of Vince and Reese could see what they were missing by being so standoffish. This poorly written solution included a father figure for Reese played by Jon Voight who seemed genuine and made Reese’s character seem like a complete asshole for avoiding him all these years.

Voight's character simply helps Reese when her well tailored relationship ship finds a single thread that is pulled and destroys the whole thing. And his thanks? Not being invited to the birth of his grandchild in the last scene of the film.

There were a few laughs to be had. And I have say, I loved seeing King of Kong’s Steve Wiebe in the background of a lot of shots playing Chenoweth’s husband. Go Wiebe! But ultimately this is a very forgettable script with horribly unforgettable characters.

3 out of 10: a watchable Romcom, but ultimately a waste of time.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (Theatre) - Neither

The movie theatre is a barren wasteland recently. High School Musical 3 (2008)? Come on! I’ve never watched a Bond flick. The Changeling (2008)? I hate Angelina Jolie. So, with this in mind and money burning a hole in our pockets Jennie and I begrudgingly went to see this film.

My hatred for children’s flicks these days is well documented. And barring Pixar, I find the bevy of CGI films geared towards children to be a waste of time. Their morals are a wash in friendship themes and the villains are innocuous castrated beings just waiting for their chance to be redeemed. I guess the helicopter parents can’t let their kids see evil in any form.

Madagascar wasn’t the train wreck that some of these post Pixar films are, but it was not a walk in the park to sit through. The cast of big name actors portraying animals did the minimal work to make you believe their characters, as the writing meandered into a past that the second film created for its purposes only.

There was a smattering of the adult humor that Pixar uses to create their masterworks but Dreamwork’s productions never have been able to achieve the finesse that Pixar exhibits in this area. Stiller’s Lion and Rock’s Zebra bicker about race in a thinly veiled argument giving the adults a chuckle cause they get that Rock is black and Stiller isn’t, but this sort of humor is a low blow for Rock who I expect more out of. Stiller on the other hand, I expected this from.

Then there is the father son story line evolving Bernie Mac and Ben Stiller. Mac wants Stiller’s lion character to be a man (manly lion). Stiller can only dance/act - he is weak. Eventually Mac discovers that his son’s talent in dancing is just as good as being a good fighter. I’m not sure if I get/understand what this means, but the moral is so ham-fisted that I grew tired of the two the first scene they shared.

I keep thinking I’m getting too old for these movies, but then I forget, and Jennie and I go, and I realize - I’m too old for these movies.

3 out of 10: Oh children’s movies when will I learn, you offer nothing new.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (Theatre) - Both

Kevin Smith hasn’t been relevant in years. I’m not sure, even when he was relevant, if I even liked him then. Mallrats (1995) was o.k. as was Chasing Amy (1997). Jersey Girl (2004) wasn’t horrible – it wasn’t! Clerks (1994), though it is hailed as… well, something, was horrible in my opinion. The only quality film he has ever made was Dogma (1999), which I loved.

With this smashing intro you’d think I’d be down on Prono, but I’m not. I enjoyed it just fine. Jennie was unmentionably excited about this film as her new actress crush was staring in it. I’m not sure how Elizabeth Banks came to be held in such high regard by my wife, but she was positively giddy about her role in this.

Porno is a romcom at its core, a Harry Met Sally for the millennials. Zack and Miri have been best friends forever and their catalyst for change is that they find themselves in dire straights financially. After what seems like a minute they decide that the only lifeboat to their troubles is making a pornographic film that their high school friends can purchase. They set about casting it, making sets, and writing the script (who knew erotic films needed a script?). But while filming Zack and Miri fight about who gets to knob who, and how many different times this takes place. It appears they each do not want the other to biblically know anyone else. They mate on camera for their first scene and Zack feels a connection. Jealousy rears its head and the porno falls apart. Zack runs, a friend tells him that Miri felt the same way, he comes back and boom, ending.

It’s a romcom, what did you expect.

The acting is great. I have loved Seth Rogan from my virgin viewing of Freaks and Geeks and have wanted nothing but success for him ever since. Elizabeth Banks pulls off some good emotional scenes in a complicated role. I know comedies are never praised for their acting. I know comedy isn’t an actor’s skill according to Oscar, but I don’t think Angelina Jolie could have taken this role, and Elizabeth Banks is great with both the laughs and the tears. Also, Brandon Routh (superman, if you forgot) plays the straight man to Justin Long in a quick scene at a high school reunion and the couple makes some quality laughs with their portrayal as gay porn actors.

I also applaud the fact that this film didn’t reek of Smith. His directing skills were more subtle this time around. His dialog wasn’t as heavy handed. Smith may be lightening his touch, which I appreciate.

5 out of 10: Prono hit’s the romcom wall with quality acting and heavy petting.

RocknRolla (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Guy Ritchie’s film career started at the peek. His first two films were brilliantly shot, fast paced gangsta flicks that left me wanting to move to England. Then he met Madonna. She ruined him. She destroyed everything he touched. First she stared in the laughably bad Swept Away (2002) a remake of a classic that allowed Madonna to “act” like a selfish princess. Then came the train wreck Revolver (2005), a movie that took three years to cross the pond. Revolver was an abolishment that tried to mix Ritchie’s gangstas with Madonna’s kabala philosophies. Then rumblings of a breakup – were they divorced – weren’t they. Who cares.

Fucking Guy Ritchie is back. During the tumultuous times Ritchie wrote and directed his return to greatness and while RocknRolla isn’t Ritchie’s peek it shines a light into the darkened alley that his career had become.

RocknRolla is Ritchie back to his roots: British thugs running scams. While it does returns to the formula - it’s ending isn’t as complicated nor twisting as his first two. The film starts by introducing the main players. This has worked for Guy quite well in the past and when something isn’t broke you shouldn’t try to fix it. The cast is a massive mix of characters that seem eager to go at each other in a mad dash for money.

The fun of Guy’s first two efforts is back as well. Gone are Revolver’s preachy messages; gone are the horrible acting and influence of Guys former wife. In its place is a well made crime thriller that has been Ritchie’s signature.

Is it anything new? Not really. The main villain gets taken to task. The anti-hero is given just rewards. The ragtag group of misfits is certainly something to root for. And I’m not sure I want Guy Ritchie to do anything else. If he gave me a movie like this every two years I would be happy.

Technically there were one or two new additions. For the first time Ritchie has added a well written/acted female to the cast of characters. The gorgeous Thandie Newton certainly responds well to the boys club that has been Guy’s cast. Also the promise of a proper sequel was splashed across the screen at the end of the film, so I guess I might get my wish after Sherlock Holmes (2009).

But I am grateful for Guy’s return. It is a welcomed return for me. Recently I have been lamenting the current state of films, and it could be because I live in Michigan. It could be because I’m growing older and people just don’t make movies for people like me anymore. I’m not sure, but I feel Guy’s return will give me something, even if it isn’t perfect, to look forward to.

6 out of 10: Guy Ritchie returns to what works.

Saw V (Theatre) - Both

The yearly output of Saw is an interesting feat. Is it impressive? Not really, they aren’t great movies. Is it sad? Not really, people still enjoy the films. Is it necessary? Not really, I’m not sure anyone would care if they stop. I have a feeling that it is coming to an end with the much-hyped sixth edition that has a role cast by an MTV show. So the fact that the killer has been dead for three movies might actually finally kill the Halloween juggernaut.

This particular iteration brings us up to date with Jigsaw’s secret apprentice. Supposedly this man had been with Jigsaw after his second or third killing. But not wanting to simply rehash old set pieces there is a new batch of young actors to slaughter in inventive ways. The apprentice is simply carrying out Jigsaws dying wish, and Jigsaw reveals that the apprentice will not fully understand the implications of this particular action until later. I have a feeling this means the sixth movie will reveal some master plan of Jigsaws to eliminate the apprentice. We shall see.

Jennie and I are driven to these films by little more than tradition, and I think we stopped enjoying ourselves in the middle of the second film, but on we trudge. The reason this particular Saw outing was so disappointing was the ending montage.

As most Saw fans have come to expect the last ten minutes are a solid reveal orchestrated to some steady drum and base revealing that which we thought we knew, but were wrong about. The first Saw was the only one to truly do this with any lasting effect, and the fifth Saw does this with the least amount of surprise. They reveal everything we already knew, and nothing we didn’t, a subpar reveal at best.

The acting is straight-to-dvd as well as the directing. Any innovation has since fled the theatre in search for children’s fantasy (a booming genre right now). Maybe in a year or two we will have a horror film that redefines the genre and sends Hollywood running to make a quick buck, but for now Saw will have to do.

By now most have grown weary of this durable brand and are surprised by the yearly treatments. Maybe one day we will live in a land without Saw, but if they are released it looks like Jennie and I will be there. Reboot in 2010?

2 out of 10 - Barely watchable. Not even much to say about it. Beat that dead horse!

Choke (Theatre) - Ashleigh

I would have loved this movie at the turn of the century. I was always in the mode for nihilistic mood altering cinema. I would have found a message to carry away with me. But, since we are no longer in the glory days of pre-millennial film where apocalyptic views were the norm I feel this film misses the mark. Is this because I no longer think that way? Or could it be because the landscape of cinema is so different now that this type of film can’t be given the budget or the creative time that it takes to truly sculpt the nuances of the plot?

I vote the latter.

While the only other attempt to repackage Chuck Palahniuk’s work gleamed in its perfected anarchic dogma, Choke seems to wallow in nothingness. Was there a message for me to take away from the film? I’m not sure. When I read the novel I seem to remember the same empty moral. So perhaps the film did succeed in giving me nothing.

Victor Mancini, played masterfully by one of my favorite actors Sam Rockwell, is a sex addict. And similarly to Palahniuk’s previous protagonist, Victor attends meetings in dingy churches and VFW halls to cauterize his psychological wounds with other similarly afflicted individuals.

Many of Victor’s psychological scars were inflicted by his mother who is willowing away her remaining years in a pysch-ward. As her time approaches Victor attempts to ferret out his true origins from his mother and through this process begins to believe that he is the illegitimate child of Jesus. After reflecting on his life as a devious man he is lead to a revelation of sorts that he can be saved.

Being saved is a major theme in this work as Victor’s other main source of income is from victims of his con. Victor fakes that he is choking in an expensive restaurant and finds a sap to save his life. This sap then is given an overinflated since of power and importance and in turn they send Victor money every month to refresh the act of saving a life in their mind.

Victor reflects after his revelation of his birthright that Jesus didn’t start his good works till he was thirty-three – so why can’t he turn it all around? Though, as the delusion comes crashing down and Victor discovers he was actually abducted from his true family by his now dying mother Victor faces the dilemma of change. He may not be the child of the Christ, but that doesn’t mean he can’t remain a decent human.

The plot seems rather tame as I write it out. And while Palahniuk’s signature oversaturated themes of sex and grit abound the plot does seem that simple. Was I looking for too much from Palahniuk? Was this simply a story of self redemption? Possibly. But I could do with more of Palahniuk’s work.

5 out of 10: Palahniuk’s story is told with marginal success. But it isn’t something I would rush out to see.

Baby Mama (Dvd) - Both

Tina Fey churns out a horribly predictable comedy. It is hard to believe that someone who has the ability to make television incredibly watchable can put out a movie that is so uninspired. I have to admit I laughed a couple of times, and I didn’t hate it. But, my aversion for this conventional tired story line leads me to hate it more and more as I turn this thing over in my head.

The story sets up Tina Fey as a successful business woman who contracts a dangerous strain of baby fever. However, since Tina Fey’s reproductive organs are broken she decides to hire a surrogate. Amy Poehler was often relegated to play the dumb version of Tina Fey on SNL, and her role here is no different as she plays the hillbilly woman carrying Fey’s baby making ingredients. I find this relationship between the two stars growing old. Poehler has the chops to play many different characters both smart and dimwitted, but I feel the comedy team grasps what is comfortable and rely on this relationship too much.

The moment Tina Fey impregnates Poehler we are introduced to a male lead played by Greg Kinnear. If you are at all a fan of movies then you know what will happen with this revelation. The second I saw Kinnear on screen I knew Fey’s character, who previous to meeting Kinnear had a one in a million shot at getting pregnant, would be infected with child by Kinnear’s doing. True to form this was the case. The baby in Poehler is explained away and wacky romcom plot points are hit. Kinnear finds out about Fey’s baby mama, Kinnear runs and is mad, Fey finds out she is pregnant – tells Kinnear, happy endings all around!

Despite the tired formula, Steve Martin’s overacted C.E.O., and my politically incorrect views on single female surrogating/implantations I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. I had a few laughs and is not that the goal of a comedy?

On a side note: For some reason, I can’t wrap my head around, I dislike the idea of single woman choosing to get pregnant on purpose just to fulfill a somewhat selfish need to be a mother. I’m not saying I think each family has to have at least two non-gender specific adults in it. Single mothers/fathers have a difficult and noble task. But for someone to choose that path is selfish, in my mind, and that is all. Additionally, think about this – a single man hiring a surrogate to create a baby. Is that not weird? Do you really think noble thoughts of this man? Any thoughts blog ‘o sphere?

3 out of 10 – Laughed a couple of times, but the lack of creativity stifled this romcom’s mojo.

Burn After Reading (Theatre) - Both

About halfway through this Coen brothers farce we are presented with a scene depicting a C.I.A. agent talking to his boss. He tells a tale of five idiots who engage each other in a convoluted saga that destroys their lives. By the end of the scene the superior asks if they know anything. The subordinate informs him that they know nothing, and don’t truly understand what is going on. The superior asks to be informed when they understand what is going on.

This scene was put in place, I thought, to inform the patrons in the theatre who were lost where they should be in the story, and set up the ending. But I now believe the Coen brothers inserted this scene so it could bookended with the last scene and assure the audience that this tale of the idiotic was simply that - nothing more.

John Malkovich plays an ex-C.I.A. agent on the bad end of a failing marriage to Tilda Swinton who is having an affair with the lascivious Harry Pfarrer, played by George Clooney. After burning her husband’s financials onto a disc for her attorney, Swinton’s character initiates a divorce. This disc ends up in the hands of the self-involved Linda Litzke, played artfully by Joel Coen’s wife Francis McDormand, who with the help of her co-worker at Hard Bodies attempts to blackmail the ex-C.I.A. agent. Linda and Chad, played with hysterical accuracy by Brad Pitt, believe this disc contains C.I.A. secrets and play spy until Chad is killed. Pitt is marvelous as a foulmouthed moron and provides the movie with its biggest laughs. He skillfully delivers his line, “Osbourne Cox? I thought you might be worried about the security of your shit,” with such passion and well timed pauses that I found myself wishing Pitt played for humor more often.

In what can only be a screenplay coincidence Linda and Harry meet each other for a tryst tying the whole gang together in a nice little knot. Harry shoots Chad and runs to Linda. Harry then believes that Linda is in league with the ex-C.I.A. agent and gets arrested. The ex-C.I.A. agent murders the manager of Hard Bodies and promptly gets shot. And Linda gets cosmetic surgery.

As the film ends we return to the two C.I.A. agents discussing these events. The superior asks if all the loose ends are tied up. The subordinate informs him all but one. Linda needs her cosmetic surgery paid for. The superior oks the payment and states that he just wishes he knew what the hell just went on.

6 out of 10: I enjoyed the return to whimsy for the Coen Brothers, but I feel the stakes were so low that it made it impossible to enjoy fully.

Tropic Thunder (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Ben Stiller doesn’t need to continue making films. His lack of acting ability is quite evident in that he plays the same exact character in every movie he has ever been in. If his character had been in Tropic Thunder another five minutes it may have tanked this movie. This, thankfully, isn’t the case and we are left with a pretty descent comedy spoofing the acting community in general and their immature desire for acclaim in their jobs.

The movie opens with a bevy of metamedia including several fake movie trailers and an ad. I doubt if anyone was fooled by these add-ons but I don’t think that was the point. They did add several laughs and introduced you relatively quickly to the main characters. After this metamedia the movie depicts a scene of a war movie that is being made staring the actors from the fake previews. The scene is confusing and drawn out to the point that it annoyed me. Stiller’s character, Tugg Speedman and Robert Downey Jr.’s character, Kirk Lazarus, battle with each other as actors about how the scene should be played out and end up missing an effects cue that wastes a lot of money. This initiates an intervention by the studio head, Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise in a fat suit, who busts the director’s balls for wasting so much money.

The director, forced to do something drastic, then turns to the “war hero” screen writer who offers the crazy idea of taking the five actors out of their comfortable hotels and beds and dropping them into an effects laden forest to “get the real experience” of being a soldier in Vietnam. The director informs his actors that he is doing this to get gorilla style footage and promptly gets blown up accidently when he steps on an old land mine. Most of the actors believe this is part of the immersion and start their scenes. It is quickly discovered that this is not the case and all but Stiller’s character stop acting and attempt to get back to civilization. A delusional Stiller treks on through the jungle and the movie script till he is captured by drug lords, realizes it is no longer a script, and needs to be rescued by the crew of actors that knew something had gone wrong initially.

The meat of the film, and some of the funniest moments are created with the gang of actors as they make their way to save Stiller. Robert Downey Jr. takes on an unimaginable role as a white actor who plays a black man for the film. I can’t imagine a single actor who could actually pull this off without offending everyone, but Downey seems to walk the line splendidly. Downey has truly come into his own this summer with his role in Iron Man (2008) and this. Here’s to hoping this is the permanent return to greatness that he deserves. Jack Black is almost a none-issue here as he is neither a distraction nor a service to the movie as a whole. Brandon T. Jackson plays a black rapper who is attempting to spread his revenue stream to films, but, in a twist everyone in the theatre saw coming, reveals his homosexual leanings that juxtapose his “pimp” persona he displays as a rapper.

While this crew attempts to rescue Stiller, Matthew McConaughey, Stiller’s agent, attempts to get him a Tivo on set. McConaughey brings his trademark drawl and good looks to a relatively small part, boosting the role from a nonentity to a rather humorous addition. As Stiller is rescued and the crew takes off McConaughey inexplicably shows up to save the day with a Tivo box set, a great scene for McConaughey.

Overall I quite enjoyed this comedy. I wouldn’t really want to see it again, but I think one viewing would be warranted for most comedy fans. The addition of my new favorite bit part player, Danny R. McBride, made me quite happy. And it’s always nice to see an actor rise from self-imposed ashes as Tom Cruise does here and restore a tiny bit of faith that one day I could enjoy a movie with him as a lead. But Tom, don’t test this newly minted trust – it is tenuous at best.

6 out of 10 – Stiller has helped his directorial resume with this quality outing, but stay behind the camera, friend. No one wants to see you in front of it.

Pineapple Express (Theatre) - Both

Pineapple Express has had large quantities of press and almost every word of it has to do with pot. What kind of research did they do (the reporters ask this with a giggle usually associated with tweens and the latest Disney pop group), did they actually use the product in the movie (more giggles). These reports and interviewers then usually discuss this film with comparisons to stoner movies like Cheech and Chong or Harold and Kumar. I don’t see the reference at all. This film certainly has pot being smoked and drugs being referenced, but little to know drug influenced scenes. Harold and Kumar rode a cheetah. Ultimately, Pineapple Express was an action buddy flick more in the vein of Nothing to Lose (1997) but funnier.

Seth Rogan, again, plays himself. I’m fine with that. I’m not looking for Rogan to win any awards. He is a process server whose only distinction is his love of pot and his high school girlfriend. His dealer, affably played by James Franco, seems to like Rogan more than their current dealer/customer relationship allows. Franco gives Rogan his top stash while dealing the twigs and roots to his other customers; however Rogan simply views the two as business relations. When Rogan witnesses a murder while smoking Franco’s top stuff called Pineapple Express he throws the spliff out the window and drives off. The murderers know that someone was watching them and find the spliff with the rare weed. They then track the weed down to get rid of the witness. Illogically Rogan runs to Franco’s apartment informing him about what he witnessed and the two then run. I couldn’t find any motivation for Franco’s character to run with Rogan. He wasn’t really in any sort of trouble, but I guess that was Franco’s character’s personality. Just a friendly guy.

The film garners the most laughs in the beginning with subtle off camera adlibs, but as Saul, Fraco’s character, and Dale, Rogan’s character, reach Saul’s hook-up, Red, to find out if the murderers know who witnessed the killing the laughs come from well written dialog and physical comedy as well. Red, who is played by the fantastic new comer, Danny R. McBride, steals the show. His dialogue and delivery lend the movie its top laughs and his invincibility, which brings to mind Monty Pythonesc humor, keeps his character thankfully on screen.

Saul eventually gets caught after Dale informs them they are not friends and they part ways. Dale then figures out Saul was truly his best friend, and enlists Red to come and help him save Saul. They fail, yet succeed in a mundane action scene that ends with Red crawling out of the rubble of demolished building and the three go to a diner to cheer their friendship and react to each others wounds. This last scene goes on for a minute longer than it needs to, but has some fantastic dialogue from Red.

This movie certainly wasn’t a stoner movie. If anything I believe it would be worse when stoned, but being as I’m a square and have never hit the ganja, I’m not sure. I also believe that the scenes with his girlfriend were rather unnecessary. She was a cut out character. There were a few lines of dialogue that sprung from these scenes that were funny, but ultimately she didn’t need to be in the film. I also think the Asian gang was a little to stereotypical for my tastes. I got no humor from them.

7 out of 10: Not the best form the Apatow gang, but certainly better than the worst. I actually think this one is worth multiple viewings.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

The Dark Knight (Theatre) - Both

Many people have been talking about Heath Ledgers performance as the Joker. The internet has been hot with debate discussing if it will be the definitive version of what Wizard magazine once called the most horrific villain in comic books. The Joker has had many iterations throughout the years; he has been a childish prankster, a mastermind of Gotham’s criminal underworld, and even in one deranged moment of glee killed one of the many Robins floating around. I begin this review of the Batman movie by talking about the Joker because to put it simply this is not a Batman movie. It is a movie about the Joker and Batman is only a side character.

Remarkably, the writer/director Christopher Nolan allows the Joker to be a visitor dropped into Gotham with no back story. I applaud this open ended origin. I feared an origin story that granted humanity to the Joker. I feel that is one of the downfalls of Tim Burton's Joker. The Joker is twisted and foul, amusing and dangerous – extremes. There is no beginning. One of the beautiful little nuances of this character is the Joker’s story about how he obtained his scarred grin. Was it an abusive father? Did he do it to himself because of his disfigured wife? The mirror that the Joker provides in this film to his nemesis propels the action and the drama. The point I’m trying to make is that while Ledger’s performance is fantastic, the writing and story is equally artistic.

This film makes art out of a blockbuster. It still has blockbuster elements that degrade some of the more subtle moments, like the Batpod, or whatever it is called, whipping through the streets of Gotham taking out trucks and generally being ridiculous, but in that same sequence we see the Joker in all his sadistic glory simply climb out of the broken truck and maniacally approach the deadly vehicle in quite defiance. The film is almost all climax.

There is one glaring chink in the Bat armor. One thing that picks at my brain and makes me want to take the perfect rating from this almost perfect film. When Christian Bale dons the cowl and cape he brashly lowers his voice and whisper/screams his dialog rendering every scene with Batman conversing unintentionally comedic. It could be argued that Christian Bale is the best Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is certainly the worst.

Despite this glaring problem Nolan has done what very few, if any, could do – make art out of a commercial product. Much like Alan Moore did with the comic book itself, Nolan has achieved here – an example that a blockbuster could be both artistic and crowd pleasing.

10 out of 10: Near perfect film, with the acting and writing that can top most films, I fear a superhero movie will never be made that can better this.