Reviews

Let's just put this up front, this show is not good. The writing is lazy and often terrible. All of the characters are so undeveloped that they should have their stock descriptions written on their shirts. The costume design is occasionally as lazy as the writing.

Now these offenses are enough to mark any show as awful, but let's not forget what this show is claiming to be. This is the musical show, which is really what it should be called since it leans on this crutch so forcefully that the basic plot seems secondary to even the creators. So then, how's the music? Oh, it's just like the rest of the show, garbage. The lyrics are possibly worse than the wooden dialogue, not to mention that the songs feel forced even for a musical. Did we really need a song that basically consists of the phrase "going viral" over and over, or, God help us, an entire song about Twitter? If you were unsure, the answer to both those questions is a resounding NO. But I'm sure the music composition is good, right? Nope. Each song sounds like it was composed by a 12-year-old that just discovered GarageBand on his mom's Mac. Although I will acquiesce this one point, all of the singing is pretty good, with some of the actors showing some real vocal talent.

I can only imagine that the creators sat down and thought, "Musical fans are easy to please, I mean look at Glee. Let's just take a boring premise, and we'll just throw some generic songs throughout, and I'm sure they will just be so excited to have a musical show that they will look passed the obvious little care we put into this. Oh, and let's have a bleeped F-bomb in one of the songs, so we can say we're being edgy".

A bad show is a bad show, and throwing a gimmick into it will not make it any better. In the case of browsers, it is possible that the insistence on making this show a musical has taken a lackluster show and made it soul-crushingly terrible. The quicker that Amazon stops producing this show, the better. But hey, it's good to see that Bebe Neuwirth is still alive, so there's that.

It's nothing new for a film to be based on a comic book. With Marvel now having its own studio and Christopher Nolan unable to finish an interview without talk of Batman, I think it is fair to say that we are a society inundated with comics. These films have a pretty developed audience of young fanboys. Red is a comic book film for a different audience. The film is without a doubt enjoyable and features an incredible cast, but it is a comic book film made for those in cardigans not vintage tees.

Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), a former black-ops CIA agent, is having a rough time adjusting to retirement. In his life of boredom, he begins a phone relationship with Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a customer service agent working for his pension office. One night Frank's old life intrudes into his new one as a hit squad descends on his house. After disposing of his would-be killers, he heads to Kansas City to protect Sarah. In order to better assess and deal with his risk of death, Frank decides to get his black-ops team back together. With the help of his old friends, Frank has to figure out who wants him dead and why, all while avoiding CIA agent Cooper (Karl Urban) who is hot on his tails.

In my hometown, there is a small art theater. I always knew of the theater and that it played smaller films that often were looked over by the larger multiplexes, but even after having a bit of a film awakening in my freshman year of college I never took the leap and bought a ticket. That was until two months ago when I plunged into the place I had always eyed skeptically from afar. As I ventured in, I was smacked in the face by the smell of mothballs. I told my nose to relax and pushed forward. My way was now blocked by a group of ladies, bearing a striking similarity to the Golden Girls, on an afternoon out. While walking down the aisle of the theater I noticed that I was being stared down. Eyes from all around locked onto me until I had settled into my seat. The reason: my age. I was easily 35 years younger than every other member of the audience. It was an odd feeling to say the least, a completely unique film-going experience. Nevertheless, it did open my eyes a bit. Previously I had a caricature of the elderly constantly pooh-poohing the films of today. "I miss the real movie stars" "everything is just so loud" "what's with all the colors", the voices would sing in my head. But wait there are actually older folks that still enjoy going to the films of today. Seeing Red bolstered this theory.

I saw this film with my parents and during this time there was but one group that featured individuals younger than 20, the rest of the audience was above 40. It may have been this particular audience that so influenced my experience of the film. Putting that aside I will say that I liked the film, but not as much as the people surrounding me. I was shocked by the collective excitement expressed when Ernest Borgnine appeared on screen. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense. While Red is a comic book film with copious action, featuring gunfire, fistfights, car chases and explosions it is also a discussion of the nature of retirement. Willis' character misses his old life and is grasping for things to fill his now empty life of retirement. He is clearly unhappy and it isn't until his life is threatened that you really see the twinkle come back into his eyes. I can't understand retirement as a threat, so this aspect of the film is somewhat lost on me.

The action is good but not anything special. There aren't really any moments that truly stand out as exceptional action set pieces. One gunfight does feature some pretty great bits from John Malkovich and huge explosions but nothing new. The story at times feels like an afterthought with some third act developments that are a bit forced. You will be entertained but that's all thanks to the cast.

Oh, have I not mentioned the cast? Just writing the cast list is amazing. I don't know about you, but deep down I have always wanted to see Helen Mirren shoot a machine gun. Then you have Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis, John Malkovich adding some insane comedy and Morgan Freeman just kind of hanging out. It's nice to see Mirren and Malkovich so deftly handling the action since I can't remember another time that they have had the opportunity. I could gush over Mary-Louise Parker but I'm not sure how much is her being good and how much is my crush on her. Karl Urban kicks some ass too. If there is a weak member of the cast, I don't remember him.

What if the cast of Cocoon used to be in the CIA? Now I don't know how many people have been asking that question, but Red seeks to answer it. With a mediocre story and generic action set pieces, the cast is the film's saving grace. Without this cast, the film would have sucked. Malkovich is all kinds of funny as the mentally unstable team member, and Mirren's comfort with automatic weapons will leave you wondering why she doesn't do this more often. Red may not be the topic of conversation come awards season but the cast makes sure that you get your money's worth.

There seems to be two camps when it comes to Ben Affleck, those that adore him and those that abhor him. No matter which camp you belong to it is hard to deny that his directorial debut Gone Baby Gone was anything less than terrific. So now comes the moment of truth, is he going to succumb to the sophomore slump or will he cement his status as a talented director? With The Town, Affleck takes on triple duty, as writer, director and lead actor and manages to deliver on every front.

Within the blue-collar town of Charlestown, Massachusetts lays a legend of bank robbery. Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) leads a team of friends and professional bank robbers. During the robbery of a Cambridge bank, the team takes bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) hostage. Following the release of Claire the team discovers that she lives nearby. Hothead Jem Coughlin (Jeremy Renner) offers to confront Claire in order to figure out what she knows. Fearing Jem's penchant for trouble, Doug insists that he approach Claire. After revealing her hostage experience to Doug, the two develop an intimate relationship. Having tired of his life of crime, Doug decides that he wants a change. Unfortunately, getting out won't be easy, he must first face the investigations of FBI agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) and the demands of boss Fergie Colm (Peter Postlethwaite).

There wasn't a bit about this film that I didn't like. The cast is magnificent. With any film set in the Boston area you run the risk of the actor resting too hard on what he thinks is a Boston accent rather than an accurate one. Having been a Boston resident for five years, I believe that I can spot this difference. I can say with all honesty and without reservations that this film nails that accent. Even Blake Lively, easily the weakest link, seems genuine. Obviously, the performance of the actors isn't entirely based on the Boston accent, but I would be remiss if I didn't comment on it.

As for the actual acting, it is damn good. This may be Affleck's most complex and best performance of his career. He is controlled and precise in his actions. In every way, Affleck completely becomes MacRay, and that is saying something. I think it speaks to the quality of the actors when you root for a criminal and against an FBI agent. I have seen some reviewers bashing Blake Lively's performance but I'm going to cry foul. She is easily the weakest actor of the big names involved, but let's look at who she's swimming with, Rebecca Hall, Affleck, Jon Hamm and Jeremy Renner, all working at the top of their game. Lively is completely convincing, in fact I know that I've seen girls just like her character in the sketchier areas of Boston, with the obvious addendum that they aren't nearly as attractive. This film could have easily remained a simple heist film, but the actors involved elevate it to something darker and with many more layers.

The action is fantastic. Every heist is orchestrated beautifully. The audience is brought to the edge of its seat and it is often difficult to figure out just who you are rooting for. Some recent action films, especially following The Bourne Supremacy, have relied on the use of "shaky" hand-held cameras that when used inappropriately make the action difficult to follow. Affleck not only puts away the shaky camera but also shows that a nice steady shot can work even better. The action is always coherent and riveting. It was also nice to see a Boston film that was most definitely shot in Boston. A robbery that takes place in the North End, an area littered with narrow streets, benefits from this attention to detail and loyalty to the area. Affleck doesn't seem content in allowing his film to fade away in the pantheon of heist films; rather he crafts a film that will be remembered as one of the best.

Ben Affleck is one talented guy. Proving that Gone Baby Gone wasn't just a fluke, he returns to the director's chair to produce a film that is one of the year's best. Every part of the film is fantastic. Every member of the cast, yes even Blake Lively, gives everything they have giving performances that are genuine and not bogged down by inauthentic Boston accents. The action is nearly musical in its execution. Each action set piece is gripping and does not let down your expectations. The Town is a well-crafted and complex character study that also happens to be the best heist film since Heat.

Grade: A

There once was a time when the explosion was king; a time when audiences stormed theaters to see fistfights and car chases. During this era of shrapnel and black eyes, three men stood atop Olympus and ruled with clenched fists. The cinematically omnipotent trifecta of Schwarzenegger, Willis and Stallone were all that was the summer blockbuster. With The Expendables, we return to this period of pure testosterone. Oh the 80s, how we've missed you.

The Expendables are a team of mercenaries. Led by Barney Ross the team takes on jobs that others just can't handle. The team's mission coordinator, Tool, is informed of two new missions for the group, one a "walk in the park" and the other "to hell and back"; three guesses which mission they sign on for. The mission involves traveling to Vilena, an island in the Gulf of Mexico, and overthrowing General Garza, an evil dictator. After meeting their contact, Sandra, and assessing the situation Ross decides that it is too complicated for his team. However, after failing to convince Sandra to leave with him Ross is faced with a difficult decision. Does he listen to his research or go with his gut? Again, three guesses.

I have been excited for this film ever since I heard that Stallone was thinking about it. As a 12-year-old, I believed that Rocky Balboa brought unity between the Soviet Union and the United States in his defeat of Ivan Drago. The first Spanish that I knew was followed by the word "baby". Hell, I even saw Over the Top. In short, although I may be a child of the 90s I have a deep love of the action films of 80s. Now I saw Grindhouse and enjoyed every minute of it, but the concept was lost on me. I didn't grow up seeing double features, I grew up with action excess. A film that is an homage to the golden age of action films was what I wanted. However, herein lies the problem. Die Hard and Rocky IV are products of that long lost time, and remain deeply rooted in that. To redo those films now would be akin to a 40-year-old that tries way too hard to adhere to the modern day "cool". No Richard, that is not fresh.

Let us first attack the writing, the god-awful writing. Some would give Stallone a by but I say nay. We know that Stallone is capable of writing some damn good films, even the most recent Rocky Balboa was written well, so I don't know if he tried to write terrible dialogue or if he got drunk to pound it out. As for the other writer, Dave Callaham, whoever you are, please put away your pen. I'm not even going to fault the film for its formulaic and predictable story since its 80s brethren often succumb to this same pit of despair; the problem is the dialogue. Seriously, no one talks like these guys, ever, and the final scene, which sees Jason Statham engaging in poetry that is sickenly awful, is a terrible note to leave on. Then there are the character names. Lee Christmas, Ying Yang, Hale Caesar and Toll Road. The shear act of recounting them is upsetting. I doubt that any cast could have pulled off this dialogue, but that of course brings us to the next problem, the acting.

I hesitate to refer to what goes on in the film as acting, in some cases it is little more than script reading. Randy Couture as the aforementioned Toll Road is absolutely terrible, and I have no problem saying that since I am confident he will never read this. Mr. Couture, you are a great fighter, but there is no Oscar gold in your future. His acting is so terrible that scenes are made worse by every line he delivers. The other members of the cast just barely scrape by as they utter the words that were crapped into the screenplay. Nevertheless, one scene exists as a diamond in the rough. Mickey Rourke injects a short scene in which he recounts his time on the job with such emotion and authenticity that I was shocked to see it in this film.

Do not get the wrong impression; The Expendables is completely worth the price of admission. The film is an action film through and through and my disappointments with it come from a place of heightened expectations. A scene featuring the trio of action deities is delivered with tongue firmly in cheek and will satisfy any fan. The two standouts of the entire film are Dolph Lundgren and Terry Crews. Lundgren knows exactly what he signed up for and is both intimidating and funny. As for Terry Crews, the guy has very little screen time but manages to be one of the best parts of the final action set piece. Then of course, there is the action. Despite an overuse of CGI blood, which does nothing but hurt a film, the action is fantastic. The final set piece, which lasts for at least half an hour, easily increased my rating of the film by half a letter grade.

My expectations of The Expendables were admittedly too high. I went in hoping to see one of the best action films of all time and left underwhelmed. The writing is the film's Achilles' heel. There is little to no character development and dialogue that is unspeakable. Some of the acting especially that of former wrestlers and current fighters is distractingly awful. Nevertheless, the action does not disappoint. The film features action set pieces that are over-the-type and completely awesome. I often had to fight the urge to stand up and cheer during every explosion. The film will not be remembered as a cinematic masterpiece but more likely as the film that brought together Schwarzenegger, Willis and Stallone. The Expendables has some glaring faults but it is complete testosterone entertainment.

Edgar Wright is fanboy gold. Shaun of the Dead proved that he was a director to watch and Hot Fuzz showed that he had a bit more up his sleeve. So what happens when Wright branches out to comic fare without the help of his regulars? We get a film that is nonstop entertainment done in a way that only Wright can. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is unique to its very core, the fact that it's also well done and enjoyable is icing on that one-of-a-kind cake.

Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old Toronto slacker. When he isn't practicing with his band, he is hanging out with his 17-year-old girlfriend Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Everything is business as usual until Scott sees the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). Scott quickly discovers that being with Ramona isn't as easy as he thought. While dealing with an unclear relationship with Knives he must face off against Ramona's seven evil exes.

The casting of this film is inspired. For all those that have grown tired of Michael Cera I urge you to go see this film. At the surface Scott Pilgrim is yet another awkward young man that you've seen Cera do before, but he finds a way to dig deeper into the character. Scott is a flawed individual and Cera is able to communicate these flaws without negating the charm that is at the character's core. It is a tough performance to describe, since it is simultaneously similar to his prior roles while also being quite a bit more complex. Technically Michael Cera is the lead, however very few scenes are all his own. Nearly every supporting actor is able to steal at least one scene. From Kieran Culkin as Wallace to Johnny Simmons as Young Neil, there was not one actor that I tired of. I found myself wishing the film could be longer simply so I could have more time to get to know all of the other characters. Anna Kendrick is sweet and smarmy as Scott's little sister, Aubrey Plaza is endearing as the overworked and unappreciated Julie Powers and Ellen Wong manages to sidestep the chasm of annoyance as Knives Chau. Then there are the seven evil exes who you should hate but just can't. In short, if the saying "you're only as strong as your weakest link" is true, then this cast is a diamond chain.

The story is fantastic, if a bit simplistic. Bryan Lee O'Malley has created a world that is both ridiculous and relatable. The film is as much a character piece as it is an action film. The writing is able to examine the complications that come with relationships at a young age. Scott is a selfish individual that pays little notice to the effect his decisions have on those around him. Ramona has led a life of regret and is constantly running from a past that will not let her escape. The characters and story are complex enough that you will be surprise to see them following you out of the theater.

The reason the film is able to work is Edgar Wright. I cannot imagine this film in any other director's hands. Some have described Wright's style as customized for the "ADD generation" but I believe this is borderline insulting. While he does utilize several fast cuts and the film has very few moments that do not cruise by, I believe this is necessary. A comic book does not contain several solemn moments of reflection and as such, a film based on a comic book should not either. I was shocked to realize that the film is close to two hours long since it seemed to clip by at such a fast pace. I may be a bit bias since this film seems to be customized to me. I grew up with my Sega Genesis at my side and a television nearby. Due to this, I found all of the video game and television inflections to be a delight. These references are in no way a distraction, simply a fantastic supplement. If the sound of the Sonic the Hedgehog theme brings a big smile to your face, then this film is just for you.

Comic book films have become pretty commonplace. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World may not be a Marvel or DC film, but it manages to feel much more like a comic book than any film since Sin City. Wright shoots for the moon when it comes to staying true to his source and I am glad he did. The screen oozes comic charm and this allows for the intense fights and stylized musical numbers to feel completely authentic. I believe that a comic should only be transitioned to the screen if something more can be added to the experience in the process. I have only read portions of the Scott Pilgrim comic, but when it comes to the film, I would be elated to sit down and experience it all over again.

With this film, Edgar Wright completes a hat trick of memorable fare. Bryan Lee O'Malley has created a story that we've seen before in a way that is completely unique. Wright is able to take O'Malley's fantastic story and transition it beautifully to the screen. Every member of the cast is fantastic; I only wish that each actor had more time on screen. With so many comic book films feeling obligated to be rooted less in the fantastic and more in the real, it is nice to a see a comic book film that embraces its roots. The strong comic book style, coupled with video game accents, results in a film that is never boring. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World will make you laugh and yearn for young love, all while pummeling you with its awesomeness.

Few films this summer have made me want to rush to the theaters. Is it a sign of a struggling cinematic climate, a recession plagued studio system or just a weak summer? Without taking the time to figure out the specific reason let's just agree that there isn't much to get excited about this summer, especially in the comedy genre. Luckily, we live in a world where Will Ferrell and Adam McKay get to make films. The Other Guys stands as a sign that when it comes to ridiculous comedy, this duo continues to set the standard.

Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) and Danson (Dwayne Johnson) are the definition of action hero cops. Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) are not. Gamble is a forensic accountant with no aspirations to leave his desk. His partner, Hoitz, having been shackled to his desk after an incident that involved a discharged weapon and a New York Yankee cannot wait to get back in the field. So, when there is an opening for the new hotshot cops, Hoitz jumps at the opportunity. As the two attempt to prove that they are more than just desk jockeys, they stumble upon quite the case that goes deeper than they could have imagined.

First, let's get the film's missteps out of the way. The acting isn't always the best, and I'm looking at you Mark Wahlberg. Some people may say that I'm expecting too much and that this is just Marky Mark and we should be happy that he is able to survive without the Funky Bunch, but I say nay. I have witnessed Mr. Wahlberg put his best foot forward in the acting realm. I only have to go back to The Departed where he knocked it out of the park and got a well-deserved Academy Award nomination to see just how good he can be. While his acting is much better than it was in The Happening (although I don't think anything could be worse than that) it often seemed like he wasn't trying. The story is a bit unoriginal and formulaic. The credits, which some may not consider part of the film, takes an odd political turn. While the animation is all right and the information is interesting, the material seems out of place and left me confused when I would have rather left smiling. The only other caveat I would have for this film is that it is very much a Ferrell/McKay film. This is the team that brought us Anchorman and Step Brothers and this film is in that same vein. If you don't like their style of comedy, you probably won't be a huge fan of The Other Guys.

Moving on to the good stuff. The cast is strong. Ferrell hits it out of the park. He manages to balance moments of insanity with the ability to also act as a straight man. I don't know that there is another actor that can create a character that is able to bounce across this line as well as Ferrell. Dwayne Johnson (it's tough not to say "The Rock") and Samuel L. Jackson play characters that we've seen before, but don't fail to delight. Then there is Eva Mendes. Obviously, she is all types of beautiful, but the girl has got some comedy chops. I loved the pairing of her and Ferrell and I never doubted that her character had all sorts of love for Ferrell's creating a relationship that is simultaneously sweet and crazy. While the cast is able to elicit huge laughs, without a great script they would have nothing. The script seems to be written to make sure that nearly every line will get some kind of laugh, be it a chuckle or a chortle. The film demands at least a second viewing since I was laughing so hard that I'm sure I missed some jokes.

As I've said before, The Other Guys is first and foremost a comedy, but it holds its own when it comes to action. At first I was surprised how well put together all of the action set pieces were. After all, this is Adam McKay not Michael Bay. It was only after I sat and thought about it that I realized that McKay has been building to an all out action film. There was the multiple news station brawl in Anchorman, then the NASCAR crash in Talladega Nights, and most recently the end credit schoolyard smack down in Step Brothers. After this mini retrospective, I realized that I shouldn't be surprised that the guy handles explosions impressively since he's been eyeing it for so long. In this comedy, the well-choreographed and entertaining action is a sweet bonus treat.

The summer comedy is back. With The Other Guys Ferrell and McKay show how to make a funny film. The story is far from original and occasionally formulaic, but this doesn't stop the film from being all kinds of entertaining. The script is so well written that any cast would be able to get some laughs from it and it is the audience's good fortune that such funny lines get to be delivered by this cast. Although Wahlberg's acting is a bit wooden, he works well with Ferrell. Eva Mendes, as Ferrell's wife, is surprising in just how well she works in this comedy. Even the narration is great, delivered with the steely coolness that is Ice-T. On top of being a laugh riot, McKay is able to put together some great action scenes, allowing the film to stay true to its buddy cop roots. Despite a confusing and oddly political end sequence, the film will make you laugh. It may be too early to call it, but I'm going to anyway, The Other Guys is the funniest film of this summer.

Since the advent of the internet, we have become inundated with film trailers. Like anything on the web, this causes criticism to flow like water. There are shouts of "the trailer gives too much of the film away", "all the good jokes are in the trailer", "the trailer is extremely misleading" as well as any number of "first" or homophobic remarks (isn't anonymity fun). Grown Ups is that increasingly rare case where the trailer pretty well defines the film. It isn't anything special and it sure isn't the funniest film of the year, but it's got Adam Sandler and all his friends so it can't be all bad.

Back in 1978, five friends won the basketball championships. It was the best time of their lives and they were the best of friends. Thirty years later, these guys have grown apart and almost completely lost touch. After the death of their championship basketball coach, Coach "Buzzer" (Blake Clark), the five friends are reunited. To celebrate the life of their beloved coach, Lenny (Adam Sandler) rents their favorite childhood camp for the Fourth of July weekend. Over the weekend, the friends are forced to cope with the changes that have accompanied their long absence and rediscover the friendship they once shared.

I am torn whether to be annoyed at Grown Ups or to just let it be. One thing is for sure, the film doesn't try to be anything special. That may be the root of my annoyance, the fact that the film doesn't try. A film with the amount of talent that Grown Ups carries, with the exception of poor old Rob Schneider, has the potential to be damn funny. Unfortunately, it seems like Schneider is trying the hardest out of the bunch and that doesn't work out well for anyone, just look at what happened with The Animal. There were moments in the film where I wondered if an audience was even necessary. Clearly, each and every person involved in the film is enjoying himself. I can only imagine how good a time it was to make this film. These guys are being paid to hang out with some of their best friends and goof around. That sounds awesome. The problem seems to be that there was no one there to remind them that a film was actually being made. Filming the events that take place seems like an afterthought. I'm glad these guys were able to enjoy themselves, but the audience isn't benefiting from their jubilation.

The story is weak. Sure, people reunite but let's be honest, it is rarely smooth. If you haven't seen an old friend for years, are you going to dive right back into the good old joking times? I think not. I don't doubt that eventually everything would be back to the way it used to be, but it's going to take longer than 2 minutes. Hell, even that first time you see your friends after going to college is awkward, and we're only talking about months at that point. All I ask is that a film offers me a bit of believability and Grown Ups seems almost shocked that a viewer would ask for such a thing.

If you were to stop reading at this point, it would seem like I despised this film, but I didn't. There are plenty of laughs in the film, and even more if you have no problem surrendering your intellect for 102 minutes. Most of the children in the film are as annoying as the day is long, but there is one bright spot in Becky Feder (Alexys Nycole Sanchez) the youngest daughter of Sandler's character. The girl oozes cute and is the sweetest character in the whole film. She is so sweet that it verges on making your teeth hurt and you will have to fight a strong urge to say "awww" anytime she's on screen. Some jokes outstay their welcome (I'm looking at you, joke about the pool water changing color, you weren't funny the first time) but there are enough jokes that land to make the film watchable.

I will admit to being bias to pretty much anything Adam Sandler does. My love of Sandler can be traced back to a place of deep immaturity and my discovery of Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. I've grown up with the films of Adam Sandler, Big Daddy remaining one of my favorites to this day, and to dislike one of his films almost feels sacrilegious (I like to pretend that Little Nicky never happened). If this wasn't a Happy Madison production the film's grade would probably be a letter lower, but the middle-schooler in me just couldn't do it. If you choose to cry foul, that is just fine, it's a generational thing.

Grown Ups is a film that seems perfectly happy just being itself. The entire film seems cobbled together just so a bunch of friends can get a chance to hang out. My best guess is that the atmosphere of the entire production was extremely fun and filled with quite a bit of hilarity. The problem is that only a little bit of that hilarity found its way on screen. Despite all of the faults, it isn't a total waste of time. It's hard to keep from at least chuckling throughout the film, but that's just a compliment to the comedians. The film also proves that Colin Quinn is actually still alive, which is a nice little surprise. There is no reason to rush to the theaters to see Grown Ups but whenever you get around to it, I'm sure you'll walk away smiling.

Christopher Nolan is a genius. Yeah, I said it and I mean it. Nolan is producing the most consistently great films and in the current world, he is one of the best directors out there. In a summer film season that has generated little excitement, with the exception of Toy Story 3, Inception is a reason to head to the theater.

Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an Extractor. That means he slips into your dreams and steals your secrets. Having developed a reputation as the best at what he does, Cobb is approached by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to accomplish a rare feat, planting an idea in someone's mind, or inception. Normally I give a little more detail in these summaries, while always remaining spoiler-free, but this is all I'm offering up. If you want to see Inception, and you should, I suggest avoiding learning as much as you can about the film's story. There are great articles all over the internet about Inception but resist temptation. Going into the film, I planned on knowing as little as possible. I avoided articles like the plague and limited myself to the first teaser trailer and the unavoidable television commercials. This film deserves your full attention and going in with as blank a slate as possible is the best way to view it.

Just take a second to look at the cast list. Leonardo DiCaprio is the lead and emotional center of the entire film. If you don't believe that DiCaprio is one of the greatest actors working today then there is something wrong with you. He gets better with every film he makes and with Shutter Island and now this film offering his two best performances of his career, with the possible exception of What's Eating Gilbert Grape, the guy deserves all sorts of Oscar gold. The film rides on his shoulders and DiCaprio carries it regally. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is thankfully developing quite the film career, is great as Arthur, the Point Man. His acting is spot-on and he shines in the action role. By doing a great deal of his own stunts there is an authenticity to his performance that doesn't go unnoticed. I could write an entire column on the cast alone. Tom Hardy, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and a short treat of an appearance by Michael Caine, there isn't a weak performance in all of Inception. Every actor brings his A-game. With a film concept that is quite abstract any misstep by the cast could result in nothing less than a distraction. Each character is infused with a believability and honesty that surrendering yourself to the world of the film is done without a second thought.

Before discussing the brilliant direction of Christopher Nolan, I think it is just as important to give credit to the people that helped to create the world of Inception. First, is cinematographer Wally Pfister. The film literally takes place in a dream world and Pfister captures it beautifully. Pfister is a longtime Nolan collaborator and the two have found a way to bring the images of the mind to the screen, sucking you in with such ease. I found myself thinking that the film was so visually appealing that it could work silently, but I quickly stopped as Hans Zimmer's score wrapped me in its warm arms. Amazingly, Zimmer composed the entire score without seeing the film, yet thanks to some cinematic god, he appears to have shared the same vision as Nolan. The score elevates the film to such an extent that it is hard to imagine one without the other.

The current film climate is crowded with unoriginality. I cringe as film's based on board games are green-lit or another parody film comes to fruition. Often I find myself, like an old man, yearning for the originality of yesterday. This is why I am thankful for Christopher Nolan. He is able to create a world that is both fantastic and tangible. It is difficult to compare Inception to another film since there is nothing else like it. The film's story and structure is complex, however under the direction of Christopher Nolan every component works.

There are few directors currently making films that are consistently as brilliant as Christopher Nolan. With Inception, he offers up his best and most satisfying to date. I cannot find a flaw in the film. The acting is superb. The score is engaged in a beautifully symbiotic relationship with the film itself and the cinematography is breathtaking. The most important aspect of any film is the story and Inception delivers. It is safe to say that the film's story is one of the most original and fascinating of any film in the past decade. This film is what others should aspire to be. To find a film that is thought provoking, exciting and aesthetically pleasing is rare. The film is the result of every cinematic puzzle piece falling into the right place. Inception is a shining beacon of originality and excellence.

There seems to be a curse when it comes to the third film of a trilogy. It doesn't take long to realize that these tertiary films tend to be pretty crappy, just look at Alien 3, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Spider-Man 3, and Back to the Future Part III. The Toy Story franchise proved itself when it produced Toy Story 2, a sequel that was at least on par with its predecessor, but that alone does not a hit make, let's not forget that The Godfather Part II was followed by Part III. OK, enough teasing, Toy Story 3 is one of the best trilogy end caps of all time. The film is nearly perfect in every way and is the most enjoyable film of the summer, so far.

Ten years have passed when Toy Story 3 picks up (pretty close to the actual time between this film and Toy Story 2). Andy is now seventeen and heading off to college. Lying, untouched, in his toy box are Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye, Slink, Rex, Hamm, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head and their children (three aliens from Pizza Planet). Our favorite toys have seen their friends go and now only look forward to being placed in the attic. After being forced to do something with his toys, Andy takes all but Woody and places them in a bag destined for the attic. After leaving the bag of toys, Andy's mom, always known for misunderstanding her son's intentions places the bag on the curb. Eventually the toys escape the bag and make for a donation box headed to Sunnyside Daycare. The toys must then decide if they want to return to Andy for a life of retirement or remain at Sunnyside and fulfill their purpose.

As far as family films go, no one can tell a story like Pixar. The company has produced 11 films now and all of them have been hits. Even Cars, without a doubt the weakest member of the pack, still managed to debut at number one. Since the creation of the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature in 2001, if Pixar has had a film in the running it has won all but two times, those two losses are for the films Cars and Monsters, Inc. Pixar produces animated greatness. Sure, I am fawning all over Pixar, but they so deserve it. Toy Story 3 just further proves that Pixar does not make a film unless they expect it to be great.

The animation is beautiful. The opening segment alone, a heavily detailed Wild West adventure that sees Andy's imagination brought to life. The film is able to combine the world of toys with that of the grand sweeping western. It is possible to forget that the landscapes are digitally created since they so fully capture the beauty of the desert rivaling the cinematography of The Searchers. Although the opening is slightly removed from the rest of the film, the animation never falters. The animators have obviously grown since the creation of Toy Story. In the first film, the human characters flirted with the "uncanny valley". I remember thinking that Molly specifically looked a bit creepy. Now all of the characters strike that comfortable balance of animation and real life. The easiest comparison is that of Toy Story's Molly and Toy Story 3's Bonnie. Bonnie is always cute and never gives you the eerie feeling that The Polar Express tends to elicit.

The story and writing is fantastic. The creators know how to strike the proper balance between adult and child humor. The femininity of Ken is a running joke that continues all the way through the ending credits and I personally never grew tired of it. Sure, the film is funny, but it wouldn't be a Pixar film if it didn't tug at your heartstrings. My mom may not have cried the way she did in the first ten minutes of Up but my sister had the pleasure of sitting next to a pregnant woman who bawled her eyes out during this film's last ten minutes. The film is able to work because it does not pander to the five-year-old in the audience. Toy Story 3 will bring smiles to both adults and children, and is an example of great film-making.

Toy Story 3 is damn close to perfect. The only thing that I can possibly say negatively about the film is the similarities between this film and Toy Story 2, in particular the villain. Lotso and Stinky Pete are characters that are extremely similar (it was very hard for me to keep a straight face while typing this sentence). They are both presented in the same manner, a seemingly nice and fatherly character that has a dark side that comes from a place of loss, and meet similar fates. The similarities may have been unintentional but they are there nonetheless. In no way does this comparison hurt the film or take away from the overall enjoyment, but it is there and it would be unfair of me not to point it out.

Pixar is unparalleled in its level of film-making and Toy Story 3 is another jewel in the company's crown. Toy Story 3's story is the perfect ending to the Toy Story franchise with writing that has not lost its spark. I have grown with the franchise, seeing Toy Story in theaters at the age of nine, and now Toy Story 3 at the age of 23 and the characters resonate with me just as much now as they did then. Despite some sneaking similarities to Toy Story 2, the film is able to work both on its own and as the third member of a trilogy. Toy Story 3 is not a great animated film, or a great child's film, it is simply a great film.

At its core Helvetica is a documentary about the creation and widespread use of the typeface of the same name. If that sounds boring to you, well guess what, it often is.

The film, directed by Gary Hustwit, begins with the birth of the typeface. It was created in 1957 by the Swiss with the hope to create a "perfect" sans-serif typeface. As a side note, a serif is apparently the little "feet" type accents that are on letters of certain typefaces, for example Times New Roman is a serif typeface. The film speaks with several type designers, a profession that I was unaware of, including the designer of Helvetica. Once the viewer has been given an adequate background on the typeface itself, the film begins to change. It wanders away from the typeface itself and becomes a documentary about graphic design. Graphic designers express both their love and hatred for the typeface as well as its effects on the larger world of design, becoming more of a film about modernism and post-modernism as it applies to this world.

Throughout the film, the director goes out into the world to shoot different signs and postings that utilize Helvetica. At the beginning, this is intriguing, often surprising the viewer with just how often this single typeface is used. However, as the director employs this technique more and more often, to the point where it seems built into the transitions, it becomes annoying. By the end, I felt like I was just being shown the same images in a film that no longer was truly just about the typeface itself.

If I were a graphic designer I may have found this film more intriguing and interesting, but sadly, this is not the case. It is shot well and the interviews seem to give a balanced opinion on the use of the typeface, but as a film, it is stretched thin, feeling overlong at its lean 80 minutes.

French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet marks his return to the film world this weekend with Micmacs. For those of you unfamiliar with Jeunet's previous works, he is probably most known for his sugary goodness of a film that is Amélie. With Micmacs, Jeunet proves that he has not lost his touch.

We begin the film with a group of men in the desert. Each man is dressed in his best bomb-squad attire and is combing a strip of sand for landmines to diffuse. We focus on one man as he carefully locates and unearths a single mine. Just as he begins to diffuse it we are treated to a long shot of all of the men working as our friend blows up. The film zips away from this scene to the wife and son of the departed as they are informed of his death. Through several jump cuts, we are able to see that this event will affect the young boy's entire life. We then fast-forward to a small video rental store in modern day France. Bazil (Dany Boon), the young boy we previously met, is now fully grown and works at the video store. Bazil is presented as a simple and somewhat happy man with a love of film. He amorously recites the lines of the film he watches matching the cadence perfectly. At the same time, a high-speed car chase spills over into his world. As the chase passes by the video store, Bazil runs out to see the commotion. Just as he exits the store, a stray bullet flies out from the action movie taking place outside and catches him in the head, wounding, but not killing him. He is transported to a hospital where the doctor decides that he does not feel like chancing the surgery and leaves the bullet in Bazil's head.

As Bazil attempts to return to his life, he finds that everything has moved on without him. His apartment has been rented to someone new and his job has been giving to a cute young girl who gives him the bullet casing that was found in the street, remnants of the moment that changed everything. Bazil attempts to live a normal life, panhandling in order to get by. He is soon taken in by a group of eccentrics that will act as his family. While gathering junk he notices a building that bears the same symbol that was on the bullet casing. He then looks across the street and sees the symbol that was on the landmine that killed his father. The rest of the film then follows Bazil and his group as they seek to take down both companies.

The first thing that must be said about this film is how beautiful it is. Jeunet proves that a great filmmaker truly is an artist as each shot is more beautiful than the next. The viewer is never aware of just how fast the film often moves. Despite numerous jump cuts, a signature of Jeunet, the film feels very smooth, somehow avoiding the feeling that the film was edited by a child with ADD on a sugar high that often occurs with this technique. However, the film does have its flaws.

There is little character development throughout the film. The most well developed character, no surprise, is Bazil. The peripheral characters all seem to be one note jokes that are simply there to help both the story and Bazil move forward. I can honestly say that I cannot name any of the other characters in the movie, often referring to them as The Mother Figure, The Bendy Chick and That Human Cannonball Guy just to name a few. Of the eccentric group that Bazil runs with, each one has his own quirk with little to no development past that. The viewer is expected to accept these quirks and not dig any deeper into the characters. There truly is no fully three-dimensional character in the film.

Micmacs is consistently funny and ends in a way that will leave you smiling. The film is a feast for the eyes despite its lack of character development. If you like Amélie, you will like Micmacs. After five long years, it is great to be able to reenter Jeunet's world of whimsy.

With (500) Days of Summer, first time director Marc Webb makes a film for a new generation. Channeling an honesty and charm, to define (500) Days of Summer as a romantic-comedy feels like an injustice. At the very least, it proves that not all romantic-comedies are created equal.

(500) Days of Summer chronicles the full relationship of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). Tom, a trained architect, works at a greeting card company in Los Angeles. He is a hopeless romantic raised on The Graduate with the belief that he is destined to meet his perfect girl and future wife. Summer arrives to the office as the new assistant of Tom's boss. She is a free spirit without a true belief in romantic love. Tom immediately falls for Summer. The rest of the film tells their story from start to finish, covering all of the ups and downs that occur in their relationship.

The film uses a non-linear style to tell its story, hopping from each important day of the relationship, often juxtaposing the feelings of a young relationship with those of a dying one. From the first time this is employed I fully expected to hate this style. Following Pulp Fiction, this non-linear style of storytelling could be seen left and right. While Pulp Fiction is able to use this style quite effectively, crafting a film that cannot be imagined in any other way, other films felt more kitsch than functional in their attempts to make something "edgy". Imagine my surprise when I found myself fully enjoying the way the technique is used in (500) Days of Summer. At no point is the style distracting, rather it feels necessary. The film is a chance for Tom to consider his relationship with Summer, and we feel more as voyeurs to his experience. When reminiscing on a past relationship, you do not revisit linearly and in this way, it makes sense for the film to hop from moment to moment.

The success of the film derives from its honesty. In a time where Hollywood is spewing out fantastical ideas of the modern romance with films like Twilight and Dear John, (500) Days of Summer is a breath of fresh air. The writers, Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, put together scenes that are so authentic that it makes you wonder why they aren't put on screen more often. The relationship starts awkwardly, with Tom expressing a curious shyness and fear of destruction that accompanies those first conversations with a new love. The degradation of the relationship never feels forced or sudden; rather Summer drifts from Tom organically making Tom's ultimate heartbreak all the more realistic.

The film does however, still prescribe to some romantic-comedy clichés. Summer at times, comes across as your typical "manic pixie dream girl", with such a desire to simply remain "free" that often lacks believability. Tom's quirky friend McKenzie (Geoffrey Arend) and his best friend Paul (Matthew Gray Gubler) feel incomplete as characters and seem to exist simply to allow Tom to communicate his feelings vocally. However, the character of Rachel (Chloë Moretz), Tom's sassy and wise beyond her years little sister, manages to overcome her cliché and remain rooted in the real, something that should be attributed to the chemistry between Gordon-Levitt and Moretz.

The film deserves credit for reveling in its indie quirkiness. With a "voice of God" narration by Richard McGonagle, that gives the film an occasional fairytale quality, there is a freshness that doesn't go unnoticed. At the very least, the film deserves credit for being the first on screen presence of the oft played by adolescents "penis game", and the admission that on their best day, every guy can feel like Han Solo. It does rest on the occasional cliché, but (500) Days of Summer succeeds in being an honest romantic-comedy for a new generation.

Nancy Meyers is a writer/director who seems perfectly happy in her niche. It's Complicated is nothing new or special, being a retread of typical Meyers fare. Despite its uninspired story, the casting gods smile upon the film, with Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin and surprise, John Krasinski collectively keeping the comedic ship afloat.

The story centers on Jane (Streep), owner of a successful bakery in California. Jane has been divorced from her ex-husband Jake (Baldwin), an attorney, for 10 years. Having raised their three children, Jake and Jane have finally achieved a good relationship between each other. While in New York City for her son's graduation, Jane goes to the bar to have a drink. Also at the bar is Jake, who is flying solo since his wife Agness (Lake Bell) has decided to stay home. The two have several drinks together and eventually wind up in Jake's hotel room. The night of debauchery reignites the passion the two once had, and they continue their affair upon their return to California. To make matters worse, Jane has started to become interested in an architect, Adam (Martin) who is working on the addition to her home. The rest of the film follows this love triangle through all of its twists and turns.

The film's biggest problems are in its generalities. At this point, it seems like Meyers is getting lazily and repeating herself. There are many scenes that feel like rip-offs of her earlier films The Parent Trap, The Holiday and quite often, Something's Gotta Give. There is one point in which a moment of foreplay between Jake and Jane results in Jake collapsing due in what looks like a heart attack. If this sounds like something you've seen before, trust me you have. In Something's Gotta Give, a moment of foreplay results in a heart attack for Jack Nicholson's character.

I don't know if Meyers was ever wronged by a man, but her films often feature the infidelity of a male character despite being in a relationship with an uber-successful woman. Even though the man is the reason for the woman's unrest, he finds joy while she continues to suffer. It feels trite. Another theme that is often seen in Meyers's films is the older man's desire to be with younger women. I know that it happens in real life, but it feels tired, especially in the case of Meyers's work. Also, everyone is professionally successful. Jake is an attorney who is now partner at his law firm, Jane runs an upscale bakery and Adam is some prodigy of architecture. Is it necessary for them to be great successes? Probably not, but Meyers takes such care to ensure that the audience is aware of their successes. Professional success is something that Meyers seems to feel obligated to give to her characters and I'm not entirely sure why.

With all its problems, the film still manages to be fairly funny. I attribute the moments of humor to the cast. The dialogue they have to work with is nothing special, but they manage to do as much as they can with the little they are given. I'm not even giving all the credit to the trio of Baldwin, Streep and Martin. My favorite character in the film was Harley (Krasinski), the husband of Jane and Jake's oldest daughter. Krasinski gets the best lines and has the most entertaining story. I knew that if Krasinski was in the scene somehow it was going to be better. Moreover, he is probably the best representation of a good guy in the whole film. Don't get me wrong, Baldwin, Streep and Martin all have their moments but Krasinski steals the show.

It's Complicated is perfectly happy being a middling romantic comedy. The writing is mediocre and the story is predictable, but the acting isn't half-bad. The actors are able to save characters that easily could disappear into nothingness. The premise would make for a good 90-minute film, unfortunately, at 2 hours it is overlong. Occasionally boring, It's Complicated is entertaining and occasionally funny, but overall is nothing special.

Do not let the trailers fool you, Adventureland is not Superbad, but this isn't a bad thing. Written and directed by Greg Mottola, the director of Superbad shows that he is great when it comes to directing comedy, but only OK when writing it. Although the story is often predictable, the film is enjoyable and succeeds with moments that actually made me laugh.

Set in the summer of 1987, Adventureland shows James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) who has just graduated college with a degree in comparative literature. James has plans to tour Europe with his college friends, something that his parents have agreed to help pay for as his graduation gift. Unfortunately, his father has recently hit a snag in his career and they can no longer afford the trip. With his summer plans ruined, and his future as a Columbia grad student in jeopardy, James is forced to go on the hunt for a summer job. Being deemed unqualified for everything, including manual labor, James is forced to take a job at nearby amusement park, Adventureland, where his "in" is a friend with a love of punching him in the balls. The rest of the film follows his summer as a games operator, as he finds friendship and love in the company of stuffed bananas and pandas.

Adventureland is funny, but it's that muted underplayed humor that elicits gentle chuckles rather than a hearty guffaw. Certain repeating jokes, the aforementioned ball punching, tend to overstay their welcome, although the ball punching joke does have a funny final moment. The film seems to be trying to get us to laugh, but the moments just aren't there. The directing and acting sets up moments that with better writing would be hilarious, but you can't squeeze water from a stone.

The acting is pretty strong throughout. Eisenberg seems to be doing his best Michael Cera impression. It may not seem fresh, but he manages to make it work. I wanted to hate him as the bumbling intellectual youngster, but he is honest enough in his work that I found myself believing him. The main love interest is played by Ms. will-never-live-down-Twilight Kristen Stewart and she plays the typical Kristen Stewart role, brooding, complicated, deep, so damn emo and yet still cute. You've seen it before, and chances are you'll see it some more, since she has become a bit of a hot commodity. While at first I was down with Stewart, liking her in Panic Room and Into the Wild, I've grown tired of her constant lip biting and nervous hair touching. I don't think she's necessarily a bad actor, but she is so deep into her pigeonhole that I just want to see her do something different. The best parts of the film aren't in it enough. SNL members Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig play the owners of the park and are absolutely hilarious. The two have so little screen time but bring so much to the characters that they become fully developed. They have moments that are so subtle, but when noticed, bring so much, I don't know whether to credit the actors or the director, either way it is great.

By setting a film in any time other than modern day, especially the 80s, some end up shoving the period down our throats. This film manages to fit its period but not leave the audience screaming, "I get it, people dressed horrible then". The setting and the story are also treated with enough care, that despite their faults it's hard to hate them. It's no surprise that Mottola wrote the script based on his time working at the actually Adventureland in New York. This isn't just a script that's written to be funny, rather it's written to reminisce on the experiences of yesterday.

For some reason Adventureland was marketed as a raucous coming of age comedy, most likely to capitalize on the success of Superbad, and that is too bad. The film is not a crazy comedy, but it is a good one. Mottola does create a believable and often humorous film that is understated while being a bit more serious. At the very least, it is worth seeing just for Ryan Reynolds as an unlikeable character. The story is predictable and not always funny, but Adventureland is still a good time.

Nine has all of the components that should make for a great film. The cast list is a who's who of award winners, it is from the director of Chicago Rob Marshall and co-written by Anthony Minghella; what could possibly go wrong? The film plays like a lost child, wandering around hoping to find its mommy while being distracted by every shiny thing along the way. Despite its pedigree, Nine misses the mark.

Nine follows Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis), a successful Italian director, as he attempts to create his latest film. Contini is going though a midlife crisis, which is causing a creative block. If this stress isn't enough, he is also dealing with the multiple women that populate his life. And...That's pretty much the whole film, just Contini dealing with writer's block and too many ladies.

Let's first lay out the film's entire back-story. Nine is based on the musical of the same name, which is in turn based on the classic Federico Fellini film 8 1/2. I know, it's a mouthful, but this isn't a new idea, the same happened with The Producers and Hairspray. Nevertheless, the problem is in the source. 8 1/2 is not Hairspray. The original film was a semi-autobiographical film done by one of the greatest directors of all time. The story was obviously very close to the director, so the fact that there was little to it didn't really matter. The director was able to flesh out this rather simple idea into a complex and intriguing film. I have not seen the musical Nine but I have to believe that something has been lost in its translation to the screen. A quick search will reveal plenty of songs that were cut, and new songs that have been created for the film. The idea of cutting songs to shorten a musical isn't something new, but it seems odd when you notice some of the songs that were cut. The one that really grabbed my attention is the song Nine. I can't help but think that the song that shares its name with the title has to have some importance. Moreover, there is the fact that Kate Hudson's character has been added for the film. She plays an American fashion journalist and the only reason I can imagine that she is there is that the producers thought that an American audience would want to see at least one American character. It all seems unnecessary. Translating 8 1/2 to the stage was successful, but in the process of trimming down the show for a film, something was lost.

Marshall successfully adapted Chicago to the big screen. The method in which he adapted, by taking the songs out of the film itself and placing them into cabaret sections that were then intermingled with the rest of the film, worked for Chicago. Unfortunately, Marshall tries to employ the same method for Nine and it just doesn't work. The cuts to large dance numbers are distracting and at times feel almost unnecessary. Nine isn't catered to this style and is being forced to do things that are unnatural. Musicals live in their own world. We know that in the real world, people do not spontaneously break out into song, but in the world of musicals, we suspend this belief. Marshall should recognize that a musical does not have to be so rooted in the real. He refuses to allow the song and dance to coexist with the spoken word, and in the case of Nine this is a mistake.

Despite its many flaws Nine is beautifully acted. Every actor turns in a great performance. The standouts are Penelope Cruz and Marion Cotillard. Although they are given very little screen time, they are able to do so much with their characters. I found myself really enjoying Cotillard's performance as Contini's wife Luisa. While her role could be viewed as milquetoast, the standard jilted wife, every move she makes is honest and captivating. A scene in which Luisa realizes that a moment she believed to be special in her marriage is nothing more than a standard screen test is heartbreaking. In addition to the acting, the film is exquisitely shot. While I do not agree with Marshall's format, he does know how to craft a beautiful film.

Nine has a lot to live up to and slips up before it reaches the finish line. Marshall tries to shove the film into the same hole that Chicago fit so nicely. The format causes the film to feel scatterbrained. While it may falter in its format, the acting is exceptional. Every actor is catered perfectly to his role. In addition, the film is a feast for the eyes. Put together with the best of intentions, Nine is messy and falls short of its predecessors.

Joe Carnahan, of Smokin' Aces fame, returned to the big screen this weekend with The A-Team reminding us all too well that this guy can do action. Entertaining in all the right ways, the film is in no way perfect but it earns every cent of your admission. Recent reports have said that Mr. T isn't a fan of the film; well, Mr. T, you are the fool, The A-Team is awesome.

The film opens with an extended credit sequence that introduces the future members of the A-team. Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith (Liam Neeson) is being beaten for information by a couple of corrupt Mexican officers. The officers have gotten what they need and leave Hannibal to be devoured by a couple of dogs. Yeah, that's not happening. The credits play out and each character is given his due time. Hannibal meets up with Bosco B.A. Baracus (Quinton Jackson) and the two rescue Lieutenant Templeton "Faceman" Peck (Bradley Cooper) from a group of Mexicans. As the three look to finish their escape, they are partnered with H.M. Murdock (Sharlto Copley) who acts as their pilot. After an extended helicopter chase, the film fast-forwards 8 years to Iraq. The group has been working together and is the best at what they do. Information has surfaced that a group of Iraqis are in possession of U.S. treasury plates. CIA Agent Lynch (Patrick Wilson) comes to Hannibal to ask him to get those plates back. Going against the advice of his commanding officer, General Morrison, Hannibal takes the team on a covert mission to get the plates back. The mission is a success but following their return, everything goes wrong. The plates are stolen, the General is murdered and the A-team is blamed. They are each stripped of their rank, dishonorably discharged and sent to separate prisons. The rest of the film follows them as they attempt to clear their names.

As a fan of the original series, I had my reservations. I watched this film as it passed hands in development with ridiculous casting rumors, including Mr. T returning to play B.A., running amok. When it landed in the hands of Joe Carnahan, I was equal parts excited and skeptical. I was a fan of Smokin' Aces. Don't get me wrong; Smokin' Aces has its major flaws, including a story that tries a bit too hard. Nevertheless, I saw the potential for a great new action director. I didn't want Carnahan simply testing out his ideas on a franchise that I viewed as sacred. Now, I don't know if Carnahan is a fan of the original series or not, but from watching The A-Team my guess is that he is. Carnahan treats his source with the reverence that it is due.

A major problem with many remakes is the compulsion to stay too close to the source. The thought is that audiences have a love of the original and that they should just redo that making sure not to ruffle too many feathers along the way. Look, you are never going to be the original. The original is loved because it was great when it came out. We know that the original isn't perfect, but we don't care. The worst thing that could be done is to try to redo what has already been done. It is better to take the ideas, themes and great parts of the original and make it into something new. This is why The A-Team works. Carnahan recognizes that it isn't the 1980s anymore and that in the present things are done differently. He strikes the right balance between the world of today and the world the series lived in.

The key to the success of this film truly lies with its casting. The casting is inspired. Each actor is the embodiment of the character. I personally wasn't in the majority of fans that were screaming that Mr. T could not be replaced. I was worried about "Howling Mad" Murdock. Dwight Schulz was crazy and hilarious on the original and as a kid, he was my favorite character. Sharlto Copley is perfect in the role. He balances humor, intelligence and a believability that he is insane that is essential to the character. The majority of the laughs come about because of his performance. Neeson is badass as Hannibal, Cooper is charming as Face and Jackson is all B.A., but at the end of the film, I was still all about Murdock.

As I said before, the film is not perfect. The story is ridiculous. Carnahan seems to think that every good film needs a twist and in this film, they abound. Sometimes the twists seem unnecessary and usually they are predictable. The final action set piece requires the viewer to forget all common sense and just accept it. You would give yourself a headache if you insist on focusing on the moments that just wouldn't happen in the real world. There is some horribly annoying CGI and the villain's insistence on monologuing is frustrating. The film doesn't try to be something it isn't but its subscription to many action clichés is to its detriment.

The A-Team does not embarrass its source. The film captures the spirit of the show and that is what is most important. The casting of the A-team itself is absolutely fantastic. Each of the central four actors breathes new life into characters that I grew up loving. Despite a ridiculous story and a devotion to some unfortunate action clichés, the film is consistently entertaining. Made with an obvious love of its source, it may not be an award winner, but The A-Team does the original show right.

You may not yet be familiar with Mark and Jay Duplass but I see that unfamiliarity ending soon with the duo's latest film. Cyrus showcases great writing and acting that is simultaneously hilarious and painful. Advancing their typical mumblecore comedy to Hollywood levels while never sacrificing intelligence, Cyrus is the Duplass brothers' most enjoyable film to date.

Sad sack John (John C. Reilly) is letting life pass him by. Unable to get over the divorce from his wife Jamie (Catherine Keener), several years later he is still trying to adjust. Jamie urges John to attend a party in hopes that it adds some zest to his life. While sulking through the party and downing copious amounts of alcohol John runs into Molly (Marisa Tomei). The two hit it off right away and after an impromptu dance, continue to share the rest of the evening. John believes that he has found something special in Molly and hopes to continue their relationship. Molly and John continue to date, but Molly's need to keep John at a distance perplexes him. Molly has a little secret, she has a 21-year-old son Cyrus (Jonah Hill), and he still lives at home. John must now contend with Cyrus's constant interference into his budding relationship.

Mark and Jay Duplass have been indie darlings for some time now. Marching in the parade of mumblecore, the Duplass brothers have a style that is distinctly their own. The duo has been gathering experience with their two earlier films, The Puffy Chair and Baghead. With dialogue that borders on neorealism, and a shooting style that feels hand-held their previous films have relied on the use of unknown actors. Cyrus marks the brothers' first use of actors that we've actually heard of, so the worry that the two may be selling out is warranted. I can honestly say that the Duplass brothers sacrifice nothing. Ignoring the presence of "name actors", the film is in every way the brothers' own. While the occasionally out of focus camera work was at times distracting in their earlier work, they have now learned how to use it effectively. The heart and soul of the film is in the writing. The brothers have a style that is true-to-life. The writing works well with the shooting style giving the film a feeling of authenticity that draws the viewer in.

The casting director for Cyrus deserves some praise. Every actor fits his role well, but the men are the real standouts. John C. Reilly has fantastic comedic timing. He is able to milk laughs from the simplest of moments and make every scene he is in interesting. Jonah Hill is no slouch either. Hill is given quite the task of making the character of Cyrus, one that is wholly ridiculous and unbelievable, not only feel honest but vulnerable. His performance may not be flawless, but it works. When the two interact on screen, it is comedic gold. The scene where John finally confronts Cyrus is played so well that you forget that the actors are communicating entirely through whispers. The women are good, but nothing special. Catherine Keener plays the same role she's been playing for some years now. She's good at it, but it's nothing new. Marisa Tomei is sweet and likable as Molly; nevertheless, her character is the most predictable of the bunch.

The third act of the film is its weak point. The ending of the film is a bit rushed and completely predictable. It seems like the writers have crafted a good story and then just didn't know how best to end it. The film has a deliberate pacing that works well for the first two acts. The plethora of humor allows the viewer to become enthralled and time to fly. Unfortunately, when the laughs become less frequent, the pacing starts to feel slow. If the third act were to go on any longer it could push the viewer into boredom. The boredom line is flirted with, but never crossed.

In a market that is flooded with comedy it can be hard for a comedic film to feel fresh. Offering a different style of comedy, Cyrus is able to stand out. The Duplass brothers have a great script that when put in the hands of John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill becomes fantastic. Advancing mumblecore, the Duplass brothers get better with each outing, refusing to sacrifice their style for Hollywood. Cyrus is nicely made and one of the funniest films of the year.

In his directorial debut, Robert Siegel shows that his true talent still lies in his writing. The tone of Big Fan feels very similar to Siegel's past writing venture, The Wrestler. In both films Siegel proves that he is able to craft a story that feels so rooted in the real world that at times it can feel as if you are simply a fly on the wall watching these events unfold. The only problem with this is that the real world can be boring, and without the direction of Darren Aronofsky to help bolster it, Big Fan occasionally slips into this category.

Big Fan follows the life of Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt), a devout New York Giants fan, and parking garage attendant. Paul plods along through his life, living with his mother (Marcia Jean Kurtz) in Staten Island, working nights at the parking garage, and finishing everyday by cranking one out before he falls asleep. We soon see that the only thing that Paul really cares about is football, or more specifically, the New York Giants. Paul meticulously crafts rants about why his Giants are "destined" for glory and calls in to a local late-night sports radio show where he is a known contributor and enemy of Philadelphia Eagles fan, Philadelphia Phil. Paul seems happy with this life and only asks that come Sunday he can put down another win for the Giants. Things then take a turn for Paul as a night out with his best friend Sal (Kevin Corrigan) results in a sighting of his favorite player Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm). The two follow Bishop through Staten Island eventually coming to a Manhattan strip club. In the club Paul finally builds up the guts to go over and talk to Bishop and in a drunken state Bishop misinterprets something Paul says and beats him to a pulp. The rest of the film follows Paul and his struggle to figure out his life as everyone around him tries to get him to sue, and imprison his hero, all while his Giants stumble and fall from their path to "destiny".

The acting in this film is its true saving grace. Oswalt proves that he is so much more than the voice of the rat in Ratatouille. He becomes Paul, leaving the audience completely convinced that the Giants truly are this man's reason for living. Also of note is Kevin Corrigan. Corrigan is continuing to be "that guy" in movies. He is probably best known as Eddie on TV series Grounded for Life, but he has also popped up in movies like True Romance, Goodfellas, The Departed, and more recently Superbad and Pineapple Express. The guy is a great actor and really deserves a lot more credit than he gets. With the character of Sal, he really is the only character to stick by Paul throughout the entire film, and he is completely believable the entire time. Not once is the audience left to wonder why Sal is supporting every decision Paul makes. Corrigan never makes us feel that he is just the token best friend in the movie. Sal supports Paul because that is who he is and we never doubt that. Corrigan truly deserves to get a lead role in a film so that he can really show people what he can do.

The comparisons between Big Fan and The Wrestler are unavoidable. Both were made on a small budget, take place in lower middle class urban neighborhoods, and deal with sports. Unfortunately for Siegel, where Aronofsky succeeded with The Wrestler, Big Fan seems to falter. The direction is not bad; it just causes the film to sag in spots. I was bored during some long stretches of the movie that made me feel like I was watching the most mundane moments of Paul's day. The visuals often leave something to be desired, making the viewer feel like the film was a few steps away from being great.

Big Fan manages to combine just the right amount of comedy in what is most definitely a drama. The acting is surprisingly good, with both Oswalt and Corrigan turning in great performances. Siegel shows us again that he is a great writer and has a gift when it comes to crafting believable real life dialogue. The direction causes the movie to be boring in some parts most likely due to this being Siegel's first outing. Even if you are not a football fan, which I am not, you will be able to enjoy this movie. And maybe next time you hear a crazed fan on a radio call-in show, you will feel a little differently.

Upon seeing the trailer for this movie, I really wanted to see it. It seemed like a gripping ride, starting with an intriguing unsolved Hollywood mystery, and using an all star cast, Josh Hartnett still hot from a twisting "Lucky Number Slevin", Aaron Eckhart walking tall after "Thank You for Smoking", and Scarlett Johansson after every movie she touches, not too mention the appearance of much Academy-loved Hilary Swank. Sounds great doesn't it? Yeah...the cast list is probably the best part.

I don't know if I can completely fault the cast for this one, although their agents deserve a bit of a beating. The acting was decent, Eckhart became over the top as the movie continued, while Johansson and Swank seemed under utilized. The movie fell on the shoulders of Hartnett who couldn't manage to drag the lifeless movie for the entire 2 hours.

After suffering through the two hours I quickly checked to see who did this screenplay, since I found it to be the true fault of the film. It took me no less than 2 minutes to realize the error of my ways. We had none other than Josh Friedman to thank for this clunker. If you weren't sure who that was, he's the same writer that gave us the glorified crap that is "War of the Worlds". If Friedman's goal is to work with great directors like Spielberg and De Palma, only to tarnish their reputations then he is achieving that goal. Why these directors choose to work with him, baffles me, he must have friends in high places.

Despite being a very visually pleasing movie, a beautifully illustrated film noir, at times I felt that De Palma's directing faltered. Most notably a portion of the film shot in the first person, that reminded me of the Christopher Walken SNL sketch "The Continental", and actually, I would have rather watched that, since that would have at least been funny.

In all, don't waste your time. If you like other De Palma films, such as "Scarface" or "The Untouchables", go and revisit those films. I can only hope his future projects return to that level.