THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is an Appointment Worth Keeping

 THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT Review:

- In weaker hands, The Five-Year Engagement could have been a very standard, very sappy sort of rom-com. But in the hands of director Nicholas Stoller, and a troupe of some of the funniest actors in showbiz, the movie proves to be an enjoyable and very funny romp. Rest assured, this isn't your parents' sweet and sappy love story - this is very much in the Judd Apatow-style of sweet-yet-raunchy comedy, with plenty of gross-out gags, dick jokes, and randomness in between the more serious scenes of romance. Indeed, Apatow is a producer on the film, and this is one that could sit pretty comfortably on the DVD shelf alongside the likes of Apatow's Knocked Up or Stoller's previous hit, Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

The story here is simple, but also pretty nuanced. There aren't a ton of crazy, out-of-left-field things that happen to the two leads - this is more of a movie about life happening. Early on in the film, we see flashbacks to the night when Jason Segel's Tom and Emily Blunt's Violet first met. It was a New Year's Eve costume party. She was Princess Diana, he was "Super-Bunny," and was wearing a ridiculously goofy bunny costume. It was just about love at first awkward dialogue exchange. Tom and Violet get engaged after a year of dating, and it seems like everything is going well for the young couple. Tom's a chef at a Bay Area restaurant, where he seems to be on the fast track towards a head-chef gig. Violet is applying for faculty positions in the Psych department of various universities. But just as the wedding approaches, life gets in the way. Violet gets a position at the University of Michigan, and Tom, eager to support her, semi-reluctantly decides to put his career on hold and move with her to Michigan. As the months and years go by, career and other life obstacles keep getting in the way of a wedding, and eventually, in the way of Tom and Violet's relationship. The question becomes: can these two work through all the challenges and stay together, or is the universe trying to tell them that it wasn't meant to be?

The first thing you should know about this film is that it's got a very loose, freewheeling structure. Stoller very liberally peppers the movie with comic asides, to the point where it's got a very sketch-comedy-esque feel and flow. This works well though, given the ensemble of comedy pros assembled for the film. Segel is at his best here, for one. He channels his nervous energy and gentle-giant charm so as to create one of his funniest big screen performances yet. Tom is one of the more average / normal guys that Segel has played, but it's all the little quirks that Segel adds that make him so entertaining. For example, the movie takes a semi-absurdist turn when Tom gets into a prolonged funk in Michigan. He falls in with some new friends and - overcompensating for not feeling manly enough - he transforms himself into a bearded mountain man with an affinity for hunting, beekeeping, and mead. Seeing Tom go down all these weird paths can get pretty hilarious, and again, it's the movie's willingness to go to some weird places that gets it so many laughs.

Blunt is super game here as well, and is a great match for Segel. They have a very real, natural chemistry, and Blunt gets in some very funny moments of her own. One of my favorite bits in the movie is an argument that Blunt has with Community's Alison Brie - who plays her sister - done all in Sesame Street voices for the amusement of Brie's young daughter. These are some funny women. Brie is a huge scene stealer throughout the movie, too - this won't be a surprise to fans of hers from Community, but her performance here convinced me that Brie is on her way towards being a huge breakout movie star in the near future. How many other actresses could pull off a pitch-perfect Elmo imitation and be this funny doing it? Brie is amazing.

And Brie isn't the only NBC sitcom star in the film. Chris Pratt of Parks and Recreation plays Tom's buddy Alex - a character not super dissimilar than his part on Parks, but hilarious nonetheless. Pratt is also a huge scene-stealer, and his eventual romantic pairing with Brie feels like a match made in comedy heaven. Actually, the whirlwind romance between the two sitcom stars is one of the best / funniest parts of the movie.

The rest of the cast is a who's-who of comedy. Mindy Kaling pops up as a fellow Psych professor. Chris Parnell is Tom's friend who introduces him to hunting. Brian Posehn is Tom's boss once he moves to Michigan, and Rhys Ifans is the sketchy Psych department head who proves to be a rival for Tom. Tom's father is played by the great David Paymer, while Violet's Dad is Jim Piddock from Best In Show. Kevin Hart is another one of Violet's Psych department colleagues, as is Randall Park, who is hilarious as the passive-aggressive Ming.

The movie wisely takes advantage of its wide-open structure to just let all these funny people play off of one another. Whether it's Segel riffing with Pratt or Paymer, Blunt and Brie having sisterly arguments, or the internal drama of the Psych department - there is A LOT going on in this movie, but in turn, there are a lot of sources of comedy. The converse of that is that the movie can feel a bit rambling and all-over-the-place at times - and a bit overstuffed. The movie has so many asides and tangents that sometimes it seems to have gone off the rails a bit. For that same reason, the laughs can certainly be hit-or-miss as well. There are some big belly-laughs and some standout supporting characters, but some of the side characters and subplots just feel extraneous.

My other complaint with the film is one that's typical of many Apatow-produced movies. The tone can be so all over the place that it's hard sometimes to get a read on what kind of movie, exactly, this wants to be. The movie goes to some pretty dark, edgy, and boundary-pushing places with its humor - which makes the super-happy/sappy ending just a bit jarring. By now, I'm used to that sort of Apatowian styles-clash, and again - the actors are so good that they manage to pull it off. Still, there's a throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-the-viewer approach here that, I think, prevents the movie from reaching true greatness.

But hey, all those romantic comedy-isms, to me, go down much easier with a spoonful of absurdist humor, random riffing, and raunchiness. So on that level, I appreciate that Stoller and his co-writer Segel (also the writing team behind The Muppets) wanted to create a rom-com where the jokes are actually, you know, funny. And on that level, they succeed - it's a sweet movie that still has plenty of moments that will have just about anyone laughing - even those who gag at the name Norah Effron.

Overall, I really enjoyed this one - it's a terrific showcase for an all-star cast of comedy up-and-comers, and it proves to be an entertaining mix of funny and heartfelt - even though it isn't afraid to be raunchy, dark and/or messed-up when it needs to be.

My Grade: B+

LOCKOUT: Guy Pierce Escapes From Earth

 LOCKOUT Review:

- Look, I love a great B sci-fi movie as much as the next fanboy. You don't get a lot of 'em anymore either - the sort of high-concept, low-to-medium budget action flicks that the likes of John Carpenter specialized in throughout the 80's. Not every sci-fi film has to be an Inception, you know? Sometimes you just want a badass, pulpy story where, oh, I don't know, a wise-crackin' antihero has to break into a space-prison to free the future-President's daughter from a bunch of nefarious cons. So yes, early trailers for Lockout had me pretty jazzed, and this was a movie I was predisposed to like. The oft-underrated Guy Pierce as a Snake Plissken-esque badass? Check. Produced by Euro-action master Luc Besson? Check. An outlandish premise that was blissfully unironic about its retro-cool space-prison setting? Check and check. Damn - I wanted this one to be awesome. But alas, it's only okay, and at times, a bit less-than-okay. There are glimmers of cool. But mostly, Lockout is pretty generic, and far more forgettable than it should have been. Stick with the likes of Doomsday or Daybreakers to get your retro-sci-fi/action fix.

Like I said, there's a lot of fun to be had in the premise of this one, with a concept that might well have been the plot of the long-rumored-but-never-materialized third ESCAPE FROM NY film. Basically, it's the future. And in the future - a classically dark, foreboding, and neon-colored future of the Blade Runner variety (with a bit of Besson-style Euro-grime thrown in for good measure) - some of earth's worst criminals are transported to an off-planet prison and put into stasis: alive, but asleep. Some humanitarians are skeptical of this practice, thinking that the induced stasis causes permanent damage to the prisoners' bodies and minds. One such humanitarian is the President's daughter - Emilie - who decides to visit the prison on a fact-finding mission. Of course, while she's there, all hell breaks loose. An unfrozen prisoner that she's interviewing breaks loose and frees his cellmates. Soon, the inmates are running the asylum, and the facility's staff - and Emilie - are their hostages. Enter the man known only as Snow - your classic dude with a 'tude, played with sardonic wit by Guy Pierce. Snow - a former government operative - had recently been arrested for murder (he claims he was framed). But in classic Escape From NY fashion, the government decides to cut him a deal: successfully complete a one-man-mission to break into the space-prison and free the President's daughter, and he's a free man (if he survives).

As Snow, Guy Pierce is pretty good, and it's a part that makes you wish he got to be in more action films, as he's clearly got a knack for playing the badass. That said, Snow as a character is fairly bland. In Escape From NY, Kurt Russell was able to take a fairly simple character in Snake Plissken and make him into an iconic, larger-than-life hero. But Snow has few defining features except for his perpetual smartassness - and even that can get sort of eye-rollingly lame at times. Sometimes, a European movie's odd lack of self-awareness can be charming. But the fact that Snow actually - unironically - wears a T-shirt that reads: "Warning: Offensive" is just a bit silly. This is the sort of character that might be cool as part of a team or something, but as a lone hero, he just doesn't give us enough personality to really root for him.

The movie's got a couple of other great genre actors who are unfortunately stuck with pretty flimsy and uninteresting characters. It was great to see Peter Stormare show up, for example, as a government official overseeing Snow's mission. But again, he just doesn't get to do or say much that's all that noteworthy. Same goes for Lennie James, as Snow's buddy who sets him up on the mission, but may or may not be working his own angles. James brings some acting chops that help elevate the role, but there just isn't that much to get excited about with his character. Maggie Grace of LOST and TAKEN fame at least gets to have some occasionally-amusing and semi-decent back-and-forth repartee with Pierce. But her character is a bit shrill - and it almost feels like the script has a slight disdain for her character even as it wants us to root for Snow to get the girl. Finally, Vincent Regan lends the movie some gravitas as the cold, calculating criminal who leads the prison revolt, and Joseph Gilgun is fun as his lunatic brother who just wants to incite total anarchy.

So yes, the movie has a pretty darn good cast - and that's probably, ultimately, what makes the film as watchable as it is. Even if Snow isn't going to set the world on fire and become the next cult action hero, Pierce is still quite good and makes the most of what he has to work with - and same goes for the rest of the film's actors and actresses. But from a story perspective, the film just never really pops. The premise is established quickly, and once Snow's inside the prison, there's a lot of repetition. A lot of crawling through grey corridors and taking out random badguys, a lot of Regan brooding and Gilgun frothing at the mouth, and a lot - a lot - of verbal sparring between Snow and Emilie (don't you get it Emilie, he doesn't care about anything or anyone!). Few of the supporting characters get a chance to shine, and the space prison - in theory an awesome setting for an action movie - quickly starts to feel like an endless series of same-y seeming corridors - it's like we've been transported into a 90's-era first-person-shooter game. Part of the problem is the pacing - long stretches go by where nothing much happens, and given the movie's simple story, it's way too long.

 At the least, you'd hope that things would be broken up by some kickass action scenes, but most of Lockout's action is pretty tame. One or two sequences stand out - there's one videogame-esque scene where Snow has to hover above a powerful fan in order to float over a giant chasm - while being attacked by a prisoner - that's pretty sweet. But mostly, the film doesn't have any particularly great or exciting action payoffs. The film throws in some Star Wars-style space battles to mix things up, but those feel so out-of-left-field that they're enjoyable mostly just as random visual coolness, but less so from a narrative perspective. The movie's direction is a mixed bag. I enjoyed some of the more ambitious sequences (a motorcycle chase scene is messy-looking but fun and fast-paced), but overall the movie lacked much in the way of style - with a cold, synthetic digital look that does, at times, make it feel like a series of videogame cut-scenes.

Lockout is a film that could have been really fun and really cool, but that just never quite comes together. Nothing in it is offensively bad, but the script is fairly unimaginative, and the characters are just not all that fun or memorable. Worse, what should have been a nonstop action-fest is oddly slow and boring at times. Fans of pulpy sci-fi may find enough bits and pieces of coolness to make this worth checking out, but I also doubt that this one is headed for cult classic status anytime soon.

My Grade: B-

THE THREE STOOGES Gets the Last Slap

THE THREE STOOGES Review:

- The Three Stooges is not exactly a great movie, but it's also not even close to the abomination that some predicted. Debate if you want the merits of having three modern-day actors assume the personas of the original Stooges, but certainly, there's no doubting that the cast and crew behind this new film - in particular the three lead actors and directors The Farrelly Bros. - approached it with a degree of affection and reverence for the source material. The new Stooges flick is a loving homage to the classic comedic trio - it's silly and stupid and full of broad slapstick. In other words, it's exactly what you'd expect from a Three Stooges movie. Still, the film is also a testament to the fact that what works well on television - in short bursts - doesn't always translate well to the big screen. As a narrative, this movie is admittedly pretty lame. It works best when it's not trying to tell a story, but just giving us cartoonish, absurdist slapstick in the classic Stooges style.

First of all, you've got to give it up for the three main actors in the film. On one level, these are pitch-perfect imitations of the original Stooges. Chris Diamantopoulos as Moe, Will Sasso as Curly, and Sean Hayes as Larry each look, act, and fight just like the original Stooges, to the extent that it's almost uncanny. But more so than that, these guys go all out to bring these legendary personalities to life. You've got to admire their dedication to the characters. Not only that, but all three guys nail not just the cadences and mannerisms, but the chemistry. The verbal battles - and physical battles - between the Stooges are the highlight of the film, and the actors deliver vintage Stooges put-downs, puns, and non-sequiters with vim and vigor. And the same goes for the eye-pokes, noggin-knockers, and crotch-shots.

The movie is also packed with all sorts of interesting comedic actors in supporting roles. Unfortunately, no one gets to do much of note that isn't one of the Stooges. So the likes of Jane Lynch, Sofia Vergara, and Craig Bierko all feel wasted and/or underutilized. Only Larry David makes an impression, as a temperamental nun - but that's more out of the sheer novelty of seeing Larry David play a nun. The lack of good supporting roles also sort of speaks to the fact that the story here is ultra-flimsy. It's not that I needed an amazing plotline in a Three Stooges flick, but I at least wanted a funny plotline that allows for maximum zaniness. What we get is pretty blah - the Stooges, having grown up to adulthood in an orphanage, never having been adopted - now hear that the orphanage they've called home is out of funds and will soon shut down for good. Only a vast sum of money can save the orphanage, and so the Stooges decide to venture out into the world and scrape up the dough they need to save it.

The joke thus becomes that Larry, Curly, and Moe have never been into the outside world. This explains (sort of) their outdated clothes and speech, and also affords ample opportunity for the script to cram in lame jokes about iPods and reality TV. In fact, the cast of The Jersey Shore plays a large part in the story. There are some scattered moments where the fish-out-of-water humor leads to some nice bits of satire (seeing Moe as a cast member on Jersey Shore is admittedly pretty hilarious), but mostly, you wonder why the script needed this aspect to it. Eventually, the Stooges' quest for moolah leads them to a conniving adultress (Vergara), who sets the Stooges up as patsies in her plot to off her millionaire husband. On paper, the Stooges stumbling their way into a Dumb & Dumber-esque caper is appealing, but unfortunately, The Farrelly Bros. fail to make this sort of plot work as well as it did in their 90's-era classic. As the script piles on the twists and turns, it can all get a little tiresome. Really, we just want to see The Stooges get hit in the nards.

And get hit they do. The film's most inspired bits are its long set-piece gags that place the Stooges in extended scenes of silly slapstick. There's a comedic purity in watching three guys poke, slap, and clobber each other in scenes of cartoonish violence that have an almost ballet-like artistry. I only wish the movie had more of these scenes, and that the elaborately-choreographed slapstick went even bigger and crazier.

I will say though - a good chunk of the early part of the movie features young, kid versions of the Stooges - and it works surprisingly well. The kid actors are just as game as their adult counterparts, and they're all really funny and on-point. 

Still, I'll admit, I occasionally got bored and/or frustrated with The Three Stooges during its more eye-rolling moments. And yet, the movie is so well-meaning and good-natured that it's hard not to have a certain appreciation and affection for it. Kids, in particular, will probably love it - and indeed, when I saw it in the theater, it was the younger audience members who laughed the hardest. And the movie does mostly work as a film that's fun for kids and families (though between Sofia Vergara, and Kate Upton as a curvaceous nun, there's enough cleavage in this film to give more than a few young 'uns some funny feelings) - and it essentially plays out like a live action Saturday morning cartoon - it's even divided into three distinct "episodes." Overall, this is a nice tribute to some true comedy pioneers, with some inspired zaniness here and there - and the Stooges faithful should be won over by the film's respect for the original material. At the same time, the movie is fun, but not necessarily a must-see if you're not a slapstick or Stooges afficionado.

My Grade: B

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS Takes a Bloody Axe To The Horror Genre!

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS Review:

- I've always had mixed feelings about horror movies. I love monsters. I love eerie, creepy, scary, shadowy stories. I love supernatural stories. I love Halloween. But I've also never been one of those Fangoria-reading horror fanboys who loves horror for the sake of gore and violence. In particular, the modern wave of torture-porn style horror flicks is not something that really appeals to me. Give me stuff with imagination, wit, and genuine style. Less Saw, more Evil Dead. Luckily, Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard seem to feel similarly. With Cabin in the Woods, they've taken horror back to its basics, but through a postmodern prism that deconstructs the entire genre. They've gone back and made a horror movie about why we love horror movies - at at the same time, about how we as an audience have a love/hate relationship with these films. We demand something more than the same old cliches, and yet we expect them and get disappointed when films don't contain the classic genre tropes we've come to know through years of pop-culture brainwashing. If all that makes Cabin in the Woods sound like a much headier, more cerebral film than the usual horror flick, well, that's because it is. But please, don't get me wrong - while CABIN is a gleefully-imaginative mind-bender, it's also one of the most purely fun horror/sci-fi films I've seen in years. It's got multiple moments that reach right into the fanboy center of your brain and make you simply smile with delight.

Of course, the big thing with this movie is that, if you haven't seen it, it's best to go in knowing as little as possible. It's not that the movie's main themes and twists aren't apparent pretty early on, it's just that seeing how, exactly, things begin to diverge from the standard horror movie is a big part of the fun. Because Cabin starts in a way that feels very much like any cheesy slasher flick. In a brightly-lit suburb, 5 college friends make plans to go on a weekend excursion to - you guessed it - a cabin in the woods, recently purchased by one of the main character's relatives. At first glance, the group consists of all the usual horror flick stereotypes - the jock and his hot blonde girlfriend, his shy and brainy friend, a stoner/slacker type, and the cute, virginal girl. And soon enough, the movie begins to go through the motions that so many of these sorts of movies go through. We learn about the characters' relationships. Some potential for romance is hinted at. And the group drives off, away from the sunny suburbs and into the dark, foreboding woods - where, clearly, some sinister forces are just waiting for them to arrive.

All you really need to know, beyond that, is that this purposefully generic setup is merely the prelude for things to come. Things get crazy, weird, funny, and just plain insane - as we begin to realize that nothing is quite what it seems. Suffice it to say, knowing Whedon's history on properties like BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, and Goddard's role as a writer for LOST ... well, some of the big ideas explored in each of those series resurface here in fun and unexpected ways.

And what I will say is that the writing of this film has all of the snappy dialogue, irony-laced humor, and geeky pop-culture references that you'd expect from the men behind this movie. The movie can be scary, but what you'll remember most is just how funny and witty it is. And how many total nerd-out moments it contains. It's funny, because even though I suspected some of the twists, I still imagined that the film would be relatively small scale. But things get BIG. They get CRAZY. And certain things are hinted at where you think: "cool, but they're not actually going to *show* us that, are they?" But they do show us, and they do so in glorious fashion. Again, don't want to spoil anything, except to say: the last 30 minutes or so of CABIN IN THE WOODS are pure, unadulterated fanboy bliss that will make you melt into your 10-year-old self for a while.

It helps that there are some actors here who do a great job delivering Whedon and Goddard's funny and snappy dialogue. Of the main kids, the standouts to me were Kristen Connolly as the relatively naive and innocent Dana, and Fran Kranz as stoner and unlikely hero Marty. Both have some of the big, applause-worthy moments and both really do a nice job of walking that line between serious horror/drama and self-aware, self-mocking humor. Chris Hemsworth, aka Thor, is also quite good. That said, the two stars that end up sort of stealing the show are cagey vets Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins. The two play parts that I can't really talk about without spoiling things, but I will say they do a fantastic job - confronting all manner of weirdness with a wonderfully droll, been-there, done-that demeanor. By the way, they're also joined by Whedon-fave Amy Acker, who is similarly good as one of the pair's colleagues.

I will also just add that the creature and f/x work in this film is fantastic. I don't know what the budget here was, but you get the sense that - even if they didn't have blockbuster money to spend - the filmmakers put a lot of love into every costume, every makeup job, and every bit of CGI. The character design is just fantastic, and there were a lot of scenes that will stick with you if only because the f/x and character work is so iconic and memorable. There's also some rip-roaring action choreography, especially near the end of the film.

If I have one complaint about the film, it's that the "meta" parts of the film end up being much more interesting than the "real" parts of the film. While the first act is peppered with hints that things are not what they seem, we do actually spend a lot of time watching what is, essentially, a pretty cliched cabin-in-the-woods movie. Point being: it takes a while to get to the good stuff. Yes, the payoffs are totally worth it, but you also get the sense that there is a lot more to explore around the "mythology" of the movie, that we don't have time for because, for a long time, the movie is playing it straight and trying to convince us that it's "just" a standard-issue slasher flick.

By the time the movie is finished though, I was on such a high from the last half-hour that it was hard to dwell much on the more slow and sedate first half of the movie. Ultimately, I just felt a huge appreciation for the fact that I had just seen something so original, so imaginative, and so fun. This movie clearly came from a place of geeky passion, and it 100% shows - and that passion is most definitely contagious. True, you may not get quite as much out of some of CABIN's key twists, reveals, references, and jokes if you're not well-versed in horror and pop-culture. But if you've seen your share of scary movies, then this one hits a sweet spot and flat-0ut delivers. This is a smart deconstruction of the horror genre, but more so than that - it's just a great time at the movies.

My Grade: A-

AMERICAN REUNION: One More Slice of "Pie"

AMERICAN REUNION Review:

- Was the first American Pie ever all that great? Certainly, it was a pop-cultural touchstone of the late 90's, and it had its moments, comedy-wise. But a classic? A movie with a legacy so lofty that it's worth getting excited about a nostalgia-laden sequel almost fifteen years later? Not really ... not necessarily. So if you go into the vulgar, silly American Reunion looking for some sort of game-changing comedy, a pseudo-serious meditation on growing up and ditching the old ways of adolescence for the more mature perspective of adulthood ... look elsewhere. Instead, American Reunion is a funny film that pays homage to the original while adopting the more slapsticky, gross-out gags of the sequels. In other words, it's a pretty dumb movie, but also a pretty darn funny one.

Maybe at some point in time, the American Pie franchise was considered an of-the-moment slice of teen pop. But as the years went on - as the cast's Q-ratings cooled and as various theatrical and direct-to-DVD sequels were churned out, AP became more and more about shock value, about seeing just how many crude sex jokes could be crammed into one film. And for better or worse, American Reunion is sort of the pinnacle of that evolution (or devolution?) - it's the raunchiest, silliest, grossest American Pie movie yet.

Luckily, I am a fan of a good sex joke and enjoy gross-out humor when it's done well. And so, even when things got pretty over-the-top, I laughed. In fact, I laughed pretty consistently throughout the film. Because while the character stuff can be a bit messy and hamfisted, the gags are quite frankly as good as ever.

The American Pie franchise is lucky to have a couple of comedy MVP's at its core. And it's funny to see how good some of these actors still are, and, by the same token, how much some of the core cast's weaknesses feel exposed and magnified over time. But let me start with the good. Jason Biggs is back, and he's still a really funny guy. His unflinching earnestness and neurotic nerdiness remains intact, and his comic delivery is still top-notch. Same goes for Seann William Scott. Yes, the guy gets a bad rap sometimes, but he's totally in his element as the series' breakout character, Stiffler. Scott pours everything he has into the Stiffmeister, and just sells every gag. every reaction shot, and every melodramatic pump-up speech like a champ. Allyson Hannigan is, as always, another MVP. She doesn't have a ton of screentime in this one, but she makes the most of every scene she's in. And her natural geeky good nature makes her character's proclivity for bedroom deviance that much more hilarious.

But can I talk for a minute about the great Eugene Levy? The man is clearly a trooper, having appeared in every Pie film to date - even the straight-to-video ones. And yet, he's a friggin' comic genius. Seriously - go watch A Mighty Wind if you need proof. But honestly, by far the biggest belly laughs in American Reunion come from Levy as "Jim's Dad." His outrageously earnest pep talks to his son are as hilarious as ever, and Levy's utterly deadpan delivery is what sells it. Reunion even cleverly reverses the usual roles, and has Jim very amusingly give some romantic advice to his Dad - creating an online dating profile for him, in a sequence that had me cracking up. But Levy - and his fellow improv genius Jennifer Coolidge, as Stiffler's Mom - almost single-handedly elevate American Reunion with their natural hilarity.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the actors who were once hot teen stars, and whose careers have (perhaps justifiably) faded over time. Chris Klein, Mena Suvari, and Tara Reid are all pretty limited, and bring things down with a bevvy of blank expressions, ill-timed dialogue, and just a general lack of comic timing. All three look a good deal older than their characters are supposed to be, and Suvari and Reid both look worse for wear. Thomas Ian Nicholas and Eddie Kaye Thomas are both decent, but not scene-stealers.

I talk about the individual actors because, while the scripting for each character's arc is a mixed bag, it's the actors who really make or break these storylines. We get behind Jim's Dad's quest to get back in the dating game because Levy is so good. And we root for Stiffler to tell off his obnoxious boss (well played by CHUCK's Vic Sahay), because Scott is really good. But do we care much about Klein's Oz and Suvari's Heather ditching their respective ill-fitting significant others and reuniting? Not so much.

To that end, some of the writing and acting around the film's more soap-opera-ish aspects can be a bit painful. And some just seems like filler (a tease that Kevin might cheat on his wife with Reid's Vicky is blah). But where the movie works best is when it's putting its characters in outrageous situations. Like Jim having to fend off the drunken advances of the horny teen girl he used to babysit for. Or Jim's Dad getting wasted at Stiffler's unusually sedate house party. Or the random reunion of the original film's fondly-remembered "MILF" guys. That said, the movie crams a ton of characters and subplots into its long-ish running time, and at times feels a bit overstuffed, and very hit-or-miss.

So yeah, this is not a great film per se, but it surprised me with just how funny and fun it could be when things got rolling. Even though parts made me roll my eyes, I will admit that American Reunion honestly gave me some of the single biggest laughs I've had at a movie all year (thank you Eugene Levy for your mind-blowing explanation of why Jewish parents are so eager to send their kids to Hebrew School). It felt like a fitting finale for this long-running series.

My Grade: B

Embracing the NEW in Comics: SAGA and The New Wave of Next-Great-Comics

The New Wave of Comics For the Digital Era

- A couple of weeks ago, I had a great time at my first ever Wonder-Con event. The pop-culture convention, slightly smaller cousin to the San Diego Comic-Con, is typically held in San Francisco, but this year came to Anaheim since the SF convention center was undergoing renovations. My friends and I braved some heavy So-Cal rain and a hugely-congested parking situation, and ended up packing in a lot of coolness into a single day of geek-nirvana. With a more manageable size than SDCC, it was relatively easy to jump from one panel to another without a lot of hassle, as well as to roam the convention floor in search of sweet merch.

We attended some great panels on that rainy Saturday: we saw the FOX movie panel, featuring the first-look at the new PROMETHEUS trailer, as well as live (!) appearances from writer Damon Lindeloff, stars Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender, and legendary director (and one of my personal film heroes) Ridley Scott. The trailer looked awesome, and it was great seeing all of those big names live and in person and having some great dialogue about the film. The second half of the panel covered ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER, which looked like a lot of fun. We also saw this really intriguing panel for SOUND OF MY VOICE, the new indie sci-fi/thriller film from Brit Marling, who did Another Earth. The movie looked packed with potential, with a mind-bending story about a cult centered around a woman who claims to be a time-traveller from the future. We saw the first fifteen minutes of the film, which really drew you in and posed some fascinating questions. The icing on the cake was having some of the actors come out in character, as members of the cult - trying to get us to join them. Nice little marketing stunt there. We also went to an awesome panel / event called THE TOURNAMENT OF NERDS. It was hilarious - essentially a comedy showcase where very funny people debated the merits of various geek icons in a single-elimination tournament. So one round might see two comedians arguing over who would win in a fight: Freddy Kreuger of The Undertaker, another might be who's the better supporting cast member: J. Jonah Jameson or Alfred Pennyworth, and another might pose the mind-bending question of: which is better, The Twilight Zone, or Ferris Bueller's Day Off (lesson learned: NEVER underestimate The Twilight Zone). Good times.

In any case, what I'm leading up to is this: my first-ever Wonder-Con was a great time: I saw some great panels, bought some cool artwork, met some interesting and creative folks, and got to hang out with a number of friends. But what I didn't have a lot of excitement for - what I didn't see a ton of excitement for in general at the show - was comics.

Over the last several months, my geekiest hobby has quite simply burned me out. Like many, I've gone mostly digital. I now read a majority of new comics on my iPad, and while I still don't 100% love the experience, I've gotten much more used to it, and appreciate the benefits in terms of space-saving. Going digital though has forced me to reevaluate my comics-buying preferences a bit. In physical form, comics can be more of a comfort food. There's something nostalgic and relaxing about sitting down with a new Flash or Superman comic book. But in digital, some of that nostalgia-factor is taken out of the equation. Without that, and without the collectibility aspect, you become much more laser-focused on story and art. You begin scrutinizing the content in a way that is on the same level with TV or movies. Point being: there's no reason to buy a digital comic EXCEPT for the quality of the storytelling, and so I've found myself becoming more discerning with what I'm reading as I've gone digital.

The other reason I've been reevaluating is DC's New 52. Now that the initial storyarcs in all of the rebooted DC titles are wrapping up, I have to admit that only a handful of the new books have 100% grabbed me. Now, in the past, I might have hung on to books I didn't love only because I'd followed some of their storylines and characters for years and years. I had a fondness and attachment for them that drove me to stick with the DCU through good times and bad. But now that there is a relatively clean slate - again, I am much more laser-focused on quality. Books that kick ass on a monthly basis - the standouts like Swamp Thing, Animal Man, and Batman - I'm in like Flynn. But a vast majority of the rest of the books - that have run the gamut from mediocre to just okay - I find myself eager to drop. Certainly, my wallet will thank me for not spending money on books that I only sort-of enjoy.

That said, the generally sorry state of mainstream superhero comics had me sort of down on the whole medium for a while. I used to get excited for the big new storylines and shake-ups, for the new creator changes and new spin-off titles. But now, I was feeling a double-whammy of comics doldrums. One, I wasn't liking a lot of the mainstream stuff I was reading, and two, I didn't have much of an attachment to the books as a whole. Where once I would have been outraged that these books weren't up to par, now ... I just felt kind of "meh" about the whole thing - at least they were screwing up "new" versions of the characters, and not the versions that I grew up with (back in the days before all superheroes were required to wear multi-jointed metallic armor with popped V-collars).

And yet ... in just the last couple of weeks, I have felt pretty re-invigorated as a comics fan. A huge upside to shopping digitally via the Comixology store is that even small indie titles are but one click away. And you never have to worry about books being under-ordered or selling out. And if you get on board a little late, or miss an issue or two - no problem, and no need to hunt down hard-to-find back issues. Combine the convenience of digital with an influx of new, slightly-out-of-the-mainstream books that have come out of the gate firing on all cylinders, and hey, all of a sudden, comics are back. And most of that has nothing to do with superheroes.

And think about it: you've just got a new iPad or Kindle Fire - what better to get you hooked on the wonderful world of comics than a brand-spankin' new series with no baggage or prior knowledge required. So ... what new books should you be reading? Here are five books that are for adults, that are new and different, and that seem off to a cracklin' start:

1.) SAGA

- Several years ago, writer Brian K. Vaughan changed comics forever with his seminal series Y: THE LAST MAN. A funny, moving, thought-provoking story for the ages, Y instantly established BKV as the new king-of-the-hill in terms of comics scribes. Vaughan followed up Y with the similarly-great political thriller Ex Machina, as well as a couple of one-off projects like the amazing graphic novel Pride of Baghdad. But then, BKV left to write for LOST, and years went by without any new comics from the man who helped give new life to the industry. But now, the best is back - with a new ongoing comic called Saga that looks to be vintage Vaughan. Issue #1 came out last month, with #2 set to be released this week. It's hard to know what to make of Saga so far, except that it has all kinds of potential to be awesome. It's Star Wars meets Romeo & Juliet meets Y: The Last Man. It's a sprawling sci-fi outer space epic filled with weird alien races, and political struggles to rival Game of Thrones. But most of all, it's jam-packed with BKV's knack for humanistic, relatable characters (even in crazy settings), and his trademark ear for great dialogue. SAGA is just getting started, but it's already clear that this book is destined for greatness.

2.) THE NEW DEADWARDIANS

- I really dug the just-released first issue of this Vertigo-published horror-mystery. It takes place in an alternate history where Edwardian London has been ravaged by a zombie apocalypse. To help quell the death and destruction, once-secretive vampires have come out into the open, offering to change people into the undead so as to be resistant to the zombies. The result - a crazy alt-history where zombies and vampires are at war! And, in the center of all this, a vampire detective investigates something that this undead era hasn't seen in years - a bonafide murder. Great writing, cool world-building, sleek art - this is one that has some promise.

3.) FATALE

- From crime-writer extraordinaire Ed Brubaker, and his frequent partner-in-crime, moody artist Sean Phillips, comes a brand new noir series that, so far, is pretty badass. The twisting plot is still unfolding, but after four issues, I'm really intrigued. Basically, a hard-boiled 1930's-era detective is wrapped up in an occult mystery, involving evil supernatural mob-bosses, Lovecraftian monsters, and a beautiful / immortal femme fatale named Josephine. To say more would be spoiling, but I will say that this book oozes atmosphere.

4.) THE MANHATTAN PROJECTS

- The first issue of this series just came out a few weeks back, but I'm already dyin' to know where the story can possibly go. Basically, this is another alt-history book, that ponders what would have happened if The Manhattan Project *wasn't* just a place where the atomic bomb was developed, but a crazy mad-science factory where all sorts of insane stuff was going on? What if Albert Einstein and Oppenheimer were working on dozens if not hundreds of crazy projects back in the day, few if any of which were ever actually revealed to the public. It's a great premise, and the first issue of the series - penned by Jonathan Hickman - has a particularly killer twist to boot.

5.) SAUCER COUNTRY

- From Paul Cornell, who's made some big waves the last few years at DC, this is another new Vertigo series with a great premise. In the American Southwest, Senator Arcadia Alvarado is about to launch her presidential campaign. She seems to have some momentum on her side and grassroots support. But the stress of the campaign isn't the only thing on her mind - as it turns out, Alvarado is also a multiple-time alien abductee - and she has strong suspicions that a full-scale invasion is imminent. I really dug the first issue of Saucer Country's X-Files meets West Wing vibe, and am really curious to give this one a shot and see where it goes from here.


- So there you have it. Some great new books, all with the potential to be the next big thing. Of course, there are some other amazing books out there that you should try out: Swamp Thing, Animal Man, Sweet Tooth, The Walking Dead, Invincible, and Fables are just a couple that I highly recommend. So get to buying. Or downloading. It's a brave new world out there.

WRATH OF THE TITANS: Thunderbolt of Lightning, Or Very Very Frightening?

WRATH OF THE TITANS Review:

- Clash of the Titans had potential. It had a couple of nice action scenes, a decent cast (with many of the best actors relegated to bit parts), and a fun canvass of Greek myth on which to play. So I was hopeful that the sequel, WRATH OF THE TITANS, would be able to realize the potential squandered by its predecessor. To some extent, this second film in the franchise is a clear improvement. The Greek gods - played by titans like Liam Neeson, Bill Nighy, and Ralph Fiennes - are given much more screentime. The battles are bigger and better, and the F/X even more eye-popping. The result is a perfectly fun popcorn flick that, like the first one, can be pretty dumb and nonsensical, but, more so than Clash, it can also be quite the spectacle.

WRATH picks up several years after the end of Clash. Perseus (Sam Worthington) is known throughout Greece as a hero after his previous adventures (whenever people see him, they make reference to the first film's "release the Kraken!" line). But Perseus has chosen not to live the life of a hero or a demi-god, but instead the simple life of a fisherman - raising his son Helius in quiet surroundings with a normal life. Helius, of course, dreams of being a hero like his father and wishes for adventure. Soon, he gets his wish. The god of thunder, Zeus, comes to visit his son Perseus, explaining that the gods' power is vastly weakened. Now that the people no longer pray to the gods, the gods are becoming mortal. Zeus is cool with that, but there's a problem: as the gods lose their power, the various magical spells they've cast over the years also begin to evaporate. Chief among them is the prison they've fashioned for the father of the gods, Kronos. Kronos is slowly becoming free, and already his armies of demon-creatures are laying waste to various lands. If Kronos himself is loosed, then it's goodnight Irene. Zeus thinks that if the gods ban together, with the help of Perseus they can stop Kronos. But as it turns out, a bunch of the gods - like Ares, god of war - have sided with Kronos. So yeah, Perseus has some serious odds to overcome if he wants to prevent oblivion.

That's the short version of the plot. In the film, the story comes off as complicated and convoluted as hell - and it's often tough to keep track of where Perseus is going and why. The whole film plays out with a videogame-esque fetch quest logic that may have made sense on paper, but can be very tough to decipher amidst the film's soap-opera theatrics and bombastic action scenes. At some point, you just have to stop thinking too hard about the plot and let yourself get wrapped up in the visual pyrotechnics. That said, this is not exactly a great script, and a lot of the dialogue does indeed land with a thud. In particular, a good deal of the "snappy" one-liners and zingers are super groan-worthy. And there is some real cheesiness that threatens to undermine any sort of gravitas that the movie wants to convey.

And so, a lot of responsibility for selling the convoluted and at times clunky script rests on the shoulders of the cast. Certainly, some pull it off better than others. The old pros like Danny Huston (Poseidon), Neeson (Zeus), Fiennes (Hades), and Nighy (Hephaestus) do a fantastic job, each of them capturing perfectly the pulpy-yet-weighty tone that the movie is going for. Guys like Neeson and Nighy deliver some of the film's best and most kickass moments. In fact, things really kick into high gear during the film's climax when Zeus and Hades finally get to kick ass with their god powers. "Let's have some fun!" intones Neeson. And indeed, we do. I'll also say again that Nighy is a blast as Hephaestus, playing the part of crazy old loon with pitch-perfect zaniness.

On the other hand, Sam Worthington's Perseus is still a bit of a wet blanket. He's decent, but just doesn't have quite the iconic feel of his more experienced supporting cast. Perseus is stuck with a lot of the film's clunkiest dialogue, so it's not all on Worthington - but still. Tony Kebbell is also pretty cheesy as the comic-relief sidekick, Agenor. He's got a couple of funny bits, but they are far outnumbered by eye-roll inducing moments. I also thought that Edgar Ramirez was a bit of a weak link among the gods as Ares. As one of the film's primary villains, I would have liked to see a little more flash and style for the god of war. As is, he feels a bit generic. Rosamund Pike is pretty good as warrior-queen Andromeda, though she only gets a couple of real moments to shine.

I am a big fan of Clash director Louis Leterrier, but Wrath director Jonathan Liebsman benefits from having a slightly better script to work with - with more and bigger action and more of a focus on the great actors like Neeson. Liebsman's action direction can be a bit choppy at time, but I give him credit - he stages some hugely ambitious battles, many of which are sprinkled with some damn cool imagery. I mean, how can you not geek out a bit for stuff like Perseus, perched atop a winged Pegasus, hurtling through the sky into the mouth of the giant, rampaging uber-god Kronos? There are several of those kewl moments scattered throughout Wrath, though Liebsman pulls off some of the st-pieces better than others. On one hand, a battle with a gang of angry cyclops is admittedly pretty awesome. On the other hand, Perseus' confrontation with the legendary minotaur is only okay, and nowhere near as good as Tarsem Singh's version in his recent Greek-myth-flick Immortals.

I will say, this film - much like Clash and also Immortals - takes a huge page visually from the videogame series God of War. Certain visual elements of the film feel totally lifted from GoW. On one hand, I love GoW so you may as well rip from the best. On the other hand, as with many films that borrow their aesthetics and pacing from videogames, you sometimes wonder if you'd be better off playing than watching - you know? Clash has the level-to-level, location-to-location jumpiness of a Playstation game, which proves a little less effective in a narratively-driven movie than in a game where the story serves the play mechanics. To that end, Wrath can feel convoluted and hollow, even if it does have a decent number of very fun-looking action scenes and suitably epic visuals.

No doubt, Wrath takes a while to pick up the pace, and the first half of the film can be a chore to get through at times. But, where I think Wrath does sort of come through in the homestretch is in the fact that, not only is it's climactic battle pretty sweet, but some of the father-and-son themes that had been slowly but surely building over the course of the film actually have a nice payoff. There's a surprisingly strong thematic thread here about father and son legacy, and hey, I'll admit it - there are some pretty great little moments towards the end of the film with Perseus and Helius.

Wrath of the Titans can often feel like cinematic junkfood, but it's solid blockbuster fun that overcomes clunky dialogue and a totally convoluted plot by delivering cool creatures, big battles, and a much-needed injection of gravitas from a couple of veteran thespian badasses. Not a great film, but a perfectly serviceable Saturday matinee.

My Grade: B

THE RAID is Action Movie Awesomeness of the Highest Order!

THE RAID: REDEMPTION Review

- There are badass movies, and then there are BADASS movies. And my friends, THE RAID falls squarely into the latter category. If you are a fan of kickass action movies, run to the nearest theater playing this as soon as humanly possible, and prepare thyself for ownage of the highest order. Because The Raid is, quite simply, an instant action-classic. It will blow your mind and fill your neural pathways with awesome-overload. I mean - damn! - this is how it's done.

The genius of The Raid is how it takes a simple yet instantly-digestible premise and just milks it for all it's worth. The underlying idea is this: a ruthless crime-lord, Tama, has, for a long time, been untouchable by the law. Holed up in a high-rise tenement building that he uses as his base, the crime boss offers the highly-secured building as a shelter for any criminals looking to escape the law. In return, he asks only for loyalty. Thanks to shady dealings with the cops and a general sense that he's too powerful to take down, Tama has reigned unchallenged over the city's underworld. But now, a SWAT team has been charged with infiltrating the compound. Their mission is to storm the building and secure it floor by floor. Ultimately, they are charged with taking Tama and his top lieutenants down once and for all. At first, the mission is meant to be carried out covertly. But soon, things go wrong, and Tama is tipped off to the SWAT team's presence. He summons all of his men to take out the SWAT team. And thus ensues total #%&$'ing carnage.

The film is like a master class in action-movie plotting 101. The lead characters are plainly drawn in quick scenes that establish their role in the story. On the SWAT team, the key players are quickly set-up: there's Rama - a highly-skilled rookie cop who just wants to get home to his preganant wife, Jaka - the by-the-book captain of the squad, and Wahyu - the shady, silver-haired veteran who may or may not be in Tama's pocket. Tama's right-hand men are similarly, simply, established. Andi is his trusted adviser - though he has a surprise connection to a member of the SWAT team. And Mad Dog is his enforcer - a sadistic martial arts master who insists on only using his hands to kill his opponents. Tama himself is a classic bad-guy - he oozes venom and is just gleefully evil.

Essentially, what we've got here is a story and characters that work perfectly with what Welsh director Gareth Evans is going for: total badassery. And I can't say enough about how much each of the actors - both the leads, and the army of extras who contribute to the fight scenes -impress with their combination of charisma, martial arts and athletic skill, and sheer sense of showmanship. This is one of those films where you just sit back and watch in amazement. How were these fights choreographed? How much was improvisational from the actors, and how much was plotted out in advance? How did Evans capture the lightning-quick martial arts moves, gun battles, and acrobatics of the performers? And how did he manage to make the action so bone-crunching and yet so transcendentally cinematic - especially given the clear yet never truly limiting budgetary constraints? One thing I'll point out here: THE RAID has some of the greatest martial arts battles I've EVER seen on film. And yet, this isn't *just* a martial arts movie. It's got everything: gun battles, shoot-outs, covert attacks, and yes: absolutely insane hand-to-hand fights that go places that no movie has gone before. Just when you think the film can't top itself ... it does. And if you're a jaded action movie fan who thinks they've seen it all: think again. Suffice it to say, there's a legitimate "holy $#%&!" moment every couple of minutes in this one.

I'll give special shout-outs to two actor/performers in particular who are just plain sick. One is Iko Uwais as our young hero Rama. This guy is phenomenal - an excellent actor and an off-the-chain martial artist. Uwais seriously may have what it takes to be a legend if given the right film parts. He's that damn good. Meanwhile, Yayan Ruhian as Mad Dog ... my god. This guy is perfect as a take-no-prisoners bad guy - he's lean, mean, and just ridiculously incredible at kicking ass and doing so with style. All I can say is that one of the film's climactic battles - a three-way fight between Rama, Mad Dog, and a third participant that I won't spoil - is one of the single greatest showdowns I've ever seen in a movie, and will be etched into the cannon of awesome action-movie moments forever and for all time.

And by the way, there's also a pretty great, Carpenter-esque synth soundtrack that adds a lot to the movie. Good stuff ... sure to get yer' blood pumping.

No, there isn't much to THE RAID beyond its videogame-like structure and mind-melting action. And for that reason you have to wonder if it can truly be called "great." I will just say that this is an instant classic within its genre. If you want deep character arcs or multilayered emotional journeys ... look elsewhere.

Sony is apparently already at work on an American remake of The Raid, and I have to question why. There's simply no way a remake could even come close to topping this. The only way to do it would be to forego the martial arts and just make a badass - but more traditional - action movie with the same or similar premise. But still ... do NOT wait for a remake here. The Raid may be Indonesian, but it speaks the universal language of ABSOLUTE OWNAGE. There are things here you've never seen or dreamed of before. You will go in a boy, come out a man. Because yes, this will be a movie spoken about for years to come in hushed, reverent whispers. So see it now. That is, if you've got the cajones.

My Grade: A-

THE HUNGER GAMES: Are The Odds In Its Favor?

THE HUNGER GAMES Review:

- After seeing THE HUNGER GAMES, it's not hard to see why it's a cultural phenomenon. The character of Katniss Everdeen is exactly the antidote to an overload of young adult fiction female characters who - like Twilight's Bella - are too passive, to whiny, and decidedly *not* kickass. With Katniss, the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and here we have a teen female protagonist who's smart, in-control, brave, independent, proactive, and most definitely badass. And if the Hunger Games movie succeeds in one area, it's in translating all that is great about Katniss to the big-screen. As embodied by the great Jennifer Lawrence, Katniss is a great new character - instantly iconic, and instantly the kind of girl that legions of fangirls the world over can look up to and root for, in a way that goes beyond merely hoping that she hooks up with one potential love interest over another.

At the same time - and partly because it doesn't wholly center around a love triangle (though there is one) - The Hunger Games is interesting because it's got very female-friendly sensibilities, but a premise that has typically been the domain of male-centric sci-fi and fantasy. It's high-concept stuff: a dystopian future where country is divided into districts, ruled over by a totalitarian regime based in the Capitol. Once a year, the districts must pay tribute to the Capitol by sending one teen representative to fight in The Hunger Games - a survival-of-the-fittest, kill-or-be-killed battle to the death - that's nationally televised watched by all. Suffice it to say, this may be female-centric YA fiction, but on paper, at least, there's plenty of potential coolness to get anyone interested.

And so ... I went into The Hunger Games, not having read the books, actually sort of excited. I thought it was cool that there was this next big thing that everyone was anticipating, and that unlike so many next big things ... this one might actually be good. And, after seeing the film, I do see why the books got so popular, but I also don't feel that the movie stands on its own as a great or even very good film. Like I said, Jennifer Lawrence is great - she's the highlight of the whole movie, and I think she's very quickly become one of the best actresses of her generation. But other than the intensity and nuance that Lawrence brings to the film, there isn't a lot that really pops. For a movie with such a big, dramatic, high-concept sci-fi premise ... the film feels strangely small-scale, and strangely bland.

The biggest issue is similar to the problem I've had with a number of the Harry Potter flicks - it's rushed-adaptation syndrome. Even as someone who hasn't read the books, it's easy to tell while watching The Hunger Games that a lot of the key characters, relationships, and events of the novel are glossed over or given short shrift in the movie. And I wasn't noticing that as a fan of the books who wanted to see all the best parts crammed into the film. I was noticing it as someone who wanted deep and emotionally-resonant characters and character arcs. Most of The Hunger Games' supporting characters seem to flit in and out of the film, and few if any make much of an impression. The best is probably Elizabeth Banks' Effie - the whimsical personality in kabuki-like makeup who oversees the games and grooms the competitors for action. But others - from Woody Harrelson's Haymitch (a former games-winner turned trainer who's become a bit of a drunk) to the spritely young contestant named Rue - have a good scene or two and that's it. They feel underdeveloped as characters, even as you can sense that we're supposed to really care about them. Rue in particular - the movie wants you to love her, and we might have had she been fleshed out more and introduced earlier. But as is, the key plot points revolving around her friendship with Katniss make only a fraction of the impression they should.

The movie features an eclectic cast, to say the least - a strange mix of up-and-comers and veterans. And the casting is, I think, a mixed bag. Lawrence owns the part of Katniss, as I've talked about. But her male costars don't quite have the same presence. It's weird - it's like the studio overcompensated for going out-of-the-box with Lawrence and decided to cast the male leads with super-generic actors straight out of teen central casting. I don't want to be overly harsh - these guys are decent. But they just don't feel like they're in the same league as Lawrence. That goes for Josh Hutcherson, who is something of a charisma vacuum as (the unfortunately named) Peeta. Peeta is supposed to be unnaturally strong, which is weird since Hutcherson isn't a particularly big guy. And he's supposed to have chemistry with Lawrence, so much so that Katniss is supposed to fall for Peeta even though, originally, she's only feigning affection for the sake of the cameras. But there's barely a spark between them, and their pseudo-romance feels about as manufactured as anything in Twilight. Even worse is the other part of the triangle, involving Liam Hemsworth as Gale. Gale is all longing looks and generic flirtation that wouldn't be out of place on most CW shows. And it's the lame romance stuff between Katniss, Gale, and Peeta that squarely keeps The Hunger Games in the same ecosystem as the Twilights of the world. The gritty, serious nature of the story is undermined by the cheesiness of the love triangle.

Meanwhile, some very good actors seem a bit miscast. Donald Sutherland is always great, but he just seems to genial and non-threatening to play the sinister President Snow. It's too bad that Snow doesn't 100% work, because the movie is desperately in need of a great villain. Other than Snow and his machinations, the main antagonist is the utterly-generic Cato, the douchey tributary from District 1 who's the odds-on-favorite to win the games. But Cato, with his spiky blond hair and perpetual sneer, seems like he'd be better suited as an upper-east-sider on Gossip Girl than as the major-league threat in a sci-fi blockbuster. Woody Harrelson also feels a bit out of place as Haymitch. His character seemed like it was meant to be a gruff badass type with a penchant for booze - the kind of role that someone like a Liam Neeson could play in his sleep. It seemed like a role desperate for some gravitas, and that's not really what Woody does. With a long blonde wig, he comes off as sort of goofy.

There are some standouts though. I mentioned Elizabeth Banks as Effie - a great little side character who's visually-striking. Stanley Tucci is also at his over-the-top best as Ceaser Flickerman, a preening talk-show host who serves as the flamboyant MC of the Games. I also liked Amandla Stenberg as Rue - I just wish she had more screentime. All sorts of other interesting actors pop up - from Lenny Kravitz as stylist Cinna, to Deadwood's Paula Malcomson as Katniss' mother. But a lot of these side characters are underserved by the jumpy script.

When the movie does stop to linger and heighten the drama of a particular scene ... well, that's when it's most effective. I loved the scene towards the beginning of the film, for example, where the entirety of District 11 assembles to see who among them will be chosen for The Hunger Games. After an ominous video message from the President, two children - one girl, one boy -between ages 12 and 16 is chosen. As conveyed in the movie, it's an eerie and pulse-pounding scene. If only the entirety of the movie had its sense of scale and drama. The film takes a long time to get to the actual Hunger Games, and so the games don't quite have the epic tone that they should. A lot of the details of the contest are left unexplored, and even key alliances and rivalries among the contestants get glossed over. More importantly, the full gravity and awfulness of the games - the fact that you're literally forced to kill innocents to survive, the fact that you're on your own in the wilderness and forced to fend for yourself ... never quite comes to the forefront. I also felt like the true moral ramifications of having to kill merely for others' entertainment was never explored with as much depth as I wanted. I don't know if it's different in the book, but the film sort of skirts the issue by having almost every one of Katniss' major confrontations end in some sort of contrived manner where she doesn't end up directly killing her rivals. The film does begin the Games with a terrifyingly brutal scene, in which several contestants are struck down while vying for stockpiled supplies and weapons. So early on, a violent and gritty tone is set ... but that level of intensity and brutality isn't quite maintained as events progress. And certainly, Katniss is never truly put in a position where she's forced to confront, head-on, the true, morality-compromising nature of the games. Essentially, after that opening scene of violence, the rest of the Games feel more like paintball and less like competitive assassination.

That said, where the film does do a nice job is in making the Games out to be a hyper-realized version of today's Reality TV culture of vaguely sadistic voyeurism. I mentioned that Stanley Tucci does a great job as the always-grinning, always-peppy talk show host who helps broadcast the games - and it's this aspect of the movie that is most thrilling and smartly satirical. I'll also mention Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane, the "gamesmaster" who essentially produces the Games - a television producer engineering the challenges, manipulating the artificially-generated landscape, and playing god in so much as he holds the fate of the contestants in his hands. Bentley does a nice job here, and the film wisely gives Seneca a good amount of screentime - playing up the film's function as social-commentary.

Visually, the movie is a mixed bag. I liked a lot of the imagination that clearly went into the futuristic Capitol and its garishly-clad residents. I liked the bleak, dreary scenes in District 11. But when the scene shifts to the Games, things begin to look fairly plain and generic, with the fields and forests looking like they could have been shot in someone's backyard. The movie does a poor job overall of conveying scale and scope, and we never get a clear idea of the size of the Hunger Games competition area and exactly what sort of landscape comprises it. And you have to wonder - if the battle arena is only an illusion and is in fact computer-generated, then why would its designers go for such a plain-looking forest-scape? Director Gary Ross seems most skilled at capturing the film's more intimate, character-based moments. But he only occasionally gives the movie the sort of grandiose, epic feel it needs. And too much of the cinematography - during action scenes and other key moments - feels too static, too straightforward, and not stylized or dazzling enough.

There were and are a lot of things that really intrigue me and appeal to me about The Hunger Games. The movie hints at all sorts of interesting backstories, histories, and characters - but to that end, it felt like sort of a tease. I know, there are still two more novels to be adapted. But when you look at this movie, there's a lot in the setup that's interesting and compelling, but as the story progressed, I kept waiting and waiting for the big moments that would get my blood pumping and give me goosebumps. But I don't know that those moments ever really came, and only Lawrence as Katniss gives the film any real sense of badassery. The film struggled over which of its many subplots and supporting characters to give time to, and you can sense while watching that the plot and tone of the film is being pulled in many different directions. The movie is such a dutiful adaptation in that it covers all the bases of the books, hitting all the beats - but it feels like the uber-cliff's notes version of the story - a hyper-condensed-feeling retellling that touches on all the key plot points, but that has only a fraction of the heart, the emotion, or the drama that you look for in a movie like this.

My Grade: B

Going Down to Jump Street. 21 JUMP STREET.

21 JUMP STREET Review:

- On paper, a 21 Jump Street movie seems like a pretty terrible idea. But in practice, the new film succeeds by having essentially nothing to do with the TV show on which it's based. What this movie does is take the basic premise of the old FOX show - young police officers sent back to high school as undercover students - and mines that premise for all of its inherent comic potential. Instead of a trying-to-be-cool-and-edgy teen drama, we now have a completely over-the-top and ridiculous comedy. And somehow, it works. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum make for a great comedic duo, and they're surrounded by very funny people like Nick Offerman, Ellie Kemper, Rob Riggle, and a funniest-he's-ever-been Ice Cube. There's fast-paced action mixed in with the comedy. There are sly nods to the old TV show. And the script is sharp and funny. The result is that 21 Jump Street is one of the funniest movies of the year so far.

The setup here is that Jonah Hill plays Schmidt, who was the awkward chubby kid in high school, and is now an only slightly less awkward and still chubby rookie cop. Channing Tatum plays Jenko, who was the cool, dumb jock in high school and is now, also, a rookie cop. Freed from the shackles of high school cliques, Schmidt and Jenko become buddies - both are eager to rise through the ranks and become badass cops, but both have limitations. Schmidt is out of shape and timid, Jenko is, well, intellectually challenged. And so, they are a perfect match in many ways. But just as the unlikely pair is beginning to show some promise in the field, they are picked - for their youthful looks (or as Ice Cube says, because they are some Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber-looking mother%$#&'ers) to be sent down to Jump Street. 21 Jump Street. And it's there that they're secretly assigned to pose as students in a local high school, where a new designer drug is spreading rapidly through the student body. Schmidt and Jenko are charged with weeding out the dealers and the suppliers and busting up the ring.

Of course, even as they try to crack the case, Schmidt and Jenko are forced to relive high school. The twist is that their manufactured identities get mixed up, so the geeky Schmidt is forced to take drama classes and do track and field, and dim-bulb Jenko is enrolled in AP chemistry classes, where he's surrounded by the school's brightest (and nerdiest) brainiacs. Meanwhile, the two discover that high school is a lot different than back when they were actual teens. And that is where some of the movie's funniest - and most on-point - humor comes from. It's hilarious to see these twenty-something guys try to wrap their brains around the new order of things - where the popular clique looks a lot different than it did back in the day. I know I had to laugh at Schmidt's observations of how his nerdiness actually makes him sort of cool in today's high school ecosystem - I've often felt the same ... I wasn't a geek, just ahead of my time! But there's some really funny observational humor to be found in looking at how high school has changed in recent years.

And like I said, Hill and Tatum are in top form here. Hill's comic timing is as good as ever, if not better, and Tatum shows that he's no slouch either - delivering some side-splittingly funny lines, and overall just having a great buddy-cop/odd couple chemistry with Hill. And again, the supporting cast is just loaded with top-notch comedy talent, although it's also worth mentioning that there are some nice breakout performances here as well. Dave Franco (brother of James), for one, is quite good as the somewhat sinister popular kid who strikes up a friendship with Schmidt. There are also some great cameos - semi-expected, perhaps, but no less cool.

Ultimately though, the movie's script is just plain funny. The interplay between the leads is consistently great, and a good portion of the jokes hit their mark. I was reminded of a lot of the sweet-yet-salty tone of many a Judd Apatow-produced movie, as, tonally, this is very similar to Superbad and the like. The movie goes to some wonderfully random and absurdist places. Ice Cube has some amazing angry rants. Nick Offerman gets to do some brilliant meta-jokes. And, without spoiling anything, I'll just say that the movie uses the comedy "rule of three's" to great effect.

Now, I do think there are some noticeable lulls in the laughter. And at times, the movie seems to get a little too contrived - with some of the tension between Schmidt and Jenko feeling a bit overdone, and the romantic subplot with Schmidt and a high school girl feels a little bit off (and slightly creepy).

By the time the film ended though - with strong hints at a sequel - I had more than enough goodwill towards it that the continued adventures hinted at did indeed pique my interest. This is ultimately just a really well-done comedy with a funny premise and a great cast. Not perfect, but still - damn good.

My Grade: B+

Su Casa Es Mi Casa? A CASA DE MI PADRE Review!

CASA DE MI PADRE Review:

- It's fitting that I sit down to write this review having just watched Will Ferrell appear on Conan, in character, as Anchorman's Ron Bergundy. As the mustachioed news anchor announced the impending arrival of Anchorman 2, he was greeted with rapturous applause from the studio audience. Very quickly, the Conan clip went viral, and became the talk of the interwebs. The fact is, Ferrell has been in some movies of questionable quality over the years, but we forgive him because when he's at his best, we get movies like Anchorman - stone cold comedy classics. Nobody does deadpan absurdism like Ferrell, and that, I think, is what makes Case de mi Padre so instantly likable. It's classic Will Ferrell, on acid. Somehow, Ferrell and co. took a comedy sketch premise that would have been on past the 12:30 am mark on SNL, and made a whole movie out of it. The premise is the joke of CASA, and it's a joke that's milked for all it's worth. This makes for a movie that is periodically hilarious, though it also means that, eventually, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

So what is this movie? Basically, it's this: it's Will Ferrell as a Mexican rancher and unlikely hero in a Spanish-language B-movie satire. It's essentially the SNL sketch version of Machete, only less badassery and more silliness. In the film, Ferrell is Armando Alvarez, one of two brothers who must go to war with a drug lord to save his father's ranch - and seduce his brother's curvaceous ladyfriend in the process.

The film uses the same sorts of mock-B-movie techniques we've seen in films like Machete and Grindhouse - missing reels, intentionally grainy film quality, and gleefully over-the-top characters and dialogue. But CASA takes things a step further by piling on the absurdity. For one thing, the whole movie is in Spanish, and the central joke is the mere presence of Ferrell's blissfully oblivious Spanish-speaking character, who obviously stands out from the rest of the hispanic cast. Ferrell's Spanish is actually pretty good, but part of the joke is simply his total commitment to the character. No matter how weird or silly things get, Ferrell plays things pretty straight. The comedy can get broad (like in a crazy-ass sex scene that shifts from human actors to mannequins when things get hot n' heavy), but Ferrell himself never does. And that - the fact that the movie only seldom gives a blatant wink to the audience, makes the more subtle humor all the funnier. The interesting thing is that Ferrell is surrounded by a supporting cast chock full of legit latino actors - names like Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal. He's also joined by Genesis Rodriguez, who plays his love interest. Genesis makes a huge impression here - she seems totally game for all of the wacky stuff the script throws at her, but also appears to have some dramatic chops as well.

I guess my issue with the movie was that, in between some of the standout moments of hilarity, it can get a bit boring. The movie plays it so straight sometimes that you can sometimes forget you're watching a comedy and begin to feel like you're watching some actual assembly-line Mexican B-movie. It's become a bit of a cliche to say that certain comedies feel like an SNL sketch stretched out to 90 minutes, but that really is how CASA sometimes feels. There just seems to have been the bare minimum of material needed to make a movie out of this premise. To that end, I think the movie suffers a bit in comparison to something like Machete. Whereas Robert Rodriguez infused that film with a true passion for the B-movie genre, CASA has only a very vague link to the sorts of films that it ostensibly parodies. The movie could have benefited from having some fun action to go along with the comedy, for example. But there really isn't much to the film other than the central premise/joke. You don't get the sense that there was much passion at the root of this one - it's more that, quite simply, Ferrell and co. wanted to see if they could get away with making this movie.

And ultimately, the mere fact that this film exists is sort of what makes it uniquely and inherently funny and amusing. There is, certainly, pleasure to be had just watching CASA and laughing in disbelief that a movie this self-consciously random exists. Essentially, this becomes like the ultimate version of one of those Family Guy gags that just keeps going and going, all the while fluctuating between being funny, hilarious, repetitive, awkward, and back to being funny again. For that reason, I think CASA is sort of a must-see for comedy fans. I mean, in a world where big-screen comedies tend to be uber-formulaic and by the numbers, here is something that probably shouldn't even exist from any sort of commercial perspective, and yet does. Even when the film flounders to stay interesting, and even when the joke wears thin, that fact alone makes it worth watching and paying attention to.

My Grade: B

JEFF WHO LIVES AT HOME: Return of the Slacker

JEFF WHO LIVES AT HOME Review:

- Jeff Who Lives at Home is a refreshingly low-key comedy with a great cast - but it's also a comedy that suffers for being a bit pretentious. Now, I came away from this film with my appreciation for the writing/directing team of the Duplass brothers intact. Although I've yet to love one of their films, I appreciate the unique voice and quirky comedic sensibilities they bring to the table. However, I also wonder if JEFF is something of a step back for them, because with their last film, Cyrus, they seemed to be just on the verge of greatness. JEFF has great moments, but it also struggles with tone and theme, and comes off as a semi-rambling meditation on life, the universe, and the movie Signs.

Yes, the M. Night Shyamalan movie, Signs. Because that's how JEFF opens, with its title character - played by Jason Segel, with his usual hangdog-stoner likability, ruminating on the movie, which he is, oddly, obsessed with. Jeff is a thirty-ish slacker who lives in his mom's basement and does, well, not much. He seems to have no real job, prospects, or interests other than getting high and hanging on the couch. But Jeff does have a belief that the universe has some sort of special destiny for him. And he believes that, all around him, just-hidden signs are waiting to be discovered, so as to point him in the right direction. As the film begins, Jeff believes he may have stumbled onto a key sign. A man keeps calling his house asking to speak to someone named Kevin. Presumably it's a wrong number, but Jeff is convinced that it means something - that he is meant to find this Kevin and that in doing so his life will attain meaning. But Jeff's weird little quest gets sidetracked when he's recruited by his older brother, Pat. Played by Ed Helms, Pat is, on the surface, the kind of man that Jeff should aspire to be - he's married, holds a job, and, basically, is a grown up. But Pat's life is actually in shambles. His job is a boring sales job. He spends more money than he has to keep up with the Joneses. And worst of all, his wife, as it turns out, is cheating on him. So in between searching for any signs of the mysterious Kevin, Jeff accompanies Pat as the two play detective, snooping around to uncover the identity of the man who Pat's wife is boinking. The third piece of the puzzle is Jeff's mom, Sharon (Susan Sarandon). Sharon works in a bland, featureless office - a lifetime cubicle dweller. She seems bored by her job and by her life in general, and frustrated at how useless her son Jeff is (all she wants from Jeff is for him to fix a broken shelf, but he can barely even muster the willpower or attention span to do that). But Sharon's work-life gets a little jolt of excitement when an anonymous co-worker begins instant-messaging her, professing that he's got a crush on her. Even as her sons are out playing detective, so too is Sharon - slightly embarrassed, slightly giddy - trying to figure out which of her office mates has the hots for her.

On paper, one of the main selling points of JEFF WHO LIVES AT HOME is the fantastic cast - and they do not disappoint. Segel is very good as Jeff - he makes Jeff likable, funny, and easy to root for despite Jeff being, basically, a delusional loser. In many ways, Jeff feels like an older version of head-in-the-clouds Nick from Freaks & Geeks (played by Segel) - a guy who in some respects is annoying, but whose sheer obliviousness is ultimately endearing. Helms is also really good, and he has a nice, love/hate chemistry with Segel. I will say though, the film's two leading women are perhaps also its surprise stars. For one, Susan Sarandon steals the movie as the put-upon mom of the Helms and Segel. Her excitement over her digital office flirtation is palpable, and she, of all the cast, best portrays her character's existential crisis. The Duplass brothers try to craft a script rife with depth and pathos, but only Sarandon 100% conveys all of those intended layers of meaning. And it's her story that best combines the quirky with the mundane. That said, Judy Greer is also - again - a scene-stealer, as Pat's frustrated wife. Greer, so good recently in The Descendents, plays a similar character here, but gets more screen time in which to develop her character. She's a standout, with some great back-and-forths with Helms and her usual spot-on comic timing.

When JEFF sticks to being a quirky slice-of-life comedy, it's a lot of fun. I thought the film worked well as a portrayal of a family in which each member - though different on the surface - is trying to fill some sort of void in their going-nowhere lives. There are a lot of great little comedic moments when Jeff and Pat are tailing Pat's wife, and also when we check in on Sharon and her charmingly low-key office drama. However, the movie struggles to figure out what it is, exactly, that ties these characters and their stories together. Rather than just stick to slice-of-life stuff, the film eventually shifts gears and takes on a metaphysical tone that strives to be profound - going for a transcendental "everything is connected" vibe. And I just don't know that the film pulls it off. Whereas a movie like Little Miss Sunshine combined comedy and pathos with elegance and real human emotion, JEFF's big finale feels contrived and very much out-of-left-field.

Too many elements of JEFF feel random for random's sake, and, ultimately, the movie strays too far from its original premise about a slacker looking for meaning. The movie starts out being about Jeff, and ends on Jeff, but little of the in-between feels like real progression, and so the ending doesn't feel earned. At the same time, Jeff is a pleasant watch, and the Duplass' gift for naturalistic dialogue and well-observed humor is evident even when the movie, overall, begins to feel a little aimless. Though the movie is flawed, there is still that unique voice at its core, and I'm curious to see what these guys can do when they really bring their A-game.

My Grade: B

JOHN CARTER: Can Disney's Long-Gestating Adaptation Live Up to Its Source Material's Epic Legacy?

JOHN CARTER Review:

- JOHN CARTER has a lot to live up to. It's an adaptation of a classic, influential sci-fi story that has literally been in some form of development for decades. It's an attempt to kickstart a new live-action franchise for Disney - a huge, mega-budget movie that is going to have to make serious bank to turn a profit and justify sequels. It's a film that comes from quite the pedigree of talent: it's directed by Andrew Stanton, the man behind Wall-E, and it's co-written by the great novelist and purveyor of pulp fiction, Michael Chabon. So yes, even though the film's underwhelming marketing campaign likely turned off many, for me, John Carter was something to get really excited about. I had high hopes that this would be an under-the-radar dose of pre-summer awesomesauce - a geek-out worthy pulp sci-fi epic of the highest order. Sadly, on the Disney mega-blockbuster sliding scale, the film is perhaps a bit closer to Prince of Persia than Pirates of the Carribean.

From the get-go, JOHN CARTER has serious pacing problems. The movie starts by hurtling us into the midst of a battle on Mars, with so much going on that it's hard to process. Just as we're beginning to take it all in, we switch to 1880's New York, where a young Edgar Rice Burroughs (the real-life author of the John Carter stories, as well as Tarzan) finds that his uncle - John Carter - is dead. Among the items bequeathed to Edgar as part of John's will is a journal. And that journal serves as the movie's framing device, as we see the world-spanning story play out as Edgar reads it. The journal first places us years earlier, where we meet a young, brash John Carter (Friday Night Lights' Taylor Kitsch) - a civil war vet who's now out in Arizona, prospecting for gold. Carter soon funds himself in the midst of a scuffle between the local cavalry and a tribe of Apaches. But even as tensions begin to escalate, Carter's situation takes a sudden turn for the weird. In the middle of a fire fight, Carter takes refuge in a cave, one thing leads to another, and - thanks to a strange alien device - Carter is transported to Mars. As was hinted at in the film's opening, things on Mars are a bit tense. There's two warring factions of human-like, red-skinned Martians, and another race of tall green aliens called Tharks that are caught in the middle. Now, Carter - who finds himself with superhuman strength and agility thanks to Mars' gravitational differences - must decide whether to use his powers to become the red planet's unlikely savior.

The various factions and politics of Mars, as well as the races, cultures, creatures, and jargon - it's all A LOT to take in. And the fact that the first act of the film is so dizzyingly paced doesn't help. There are a ton of things thrown at you, and it's easy to get lost or overwhelmed. But even if you manage to follow everything (good luck), the first half of John Carter still feels heavy on info-dumping and short on soul. Few if any of the characters register on an emotional level. A lot of this has to do not so much with the story itself but with *how* it's presented to us. For example, we get hints that Carter is a scarred man. He had to bury his wife and child at some point, and he's still not over that pain - that loss made him into a bit of a nihilist. And that right there is the germ of what could have been a really compelling character arc. The problem is, it's hinted at but barely addressed. We get these quick-cut flashes of John's wife and daughter, but there's no real emotion behind them. We are left to fill in a lot of the blanks about Carter. That's fine in theory, but unlike with, say, Liam Neeson in The Grey, Kitsch doesn't do a ton to sell us on our hero's supposedly tortured soul. We're supposed to believe, for example, that he has to overcome this great trauma before he can give in to his attraction to the lusty princess of Mars, Dejah. But you never buy it - Kitsch's 'tude-laden Carter seems ready to get with her from the first moment they meet. Part of the problem may be Kitsch. His Carter feels too much like some dude from 2012 and not enough like a classic, timeless hero out of the pages of a pulp novel. It's a shame that so few actors these days can capture that sort of epic hero tone. And yet, Lynn Collins does just that as Dejah. As the curvaceous princess of Mars, Collins kicks ass, looks good doing it, and does so with the perfect tone of Shakespearian gravitas mixed with pleasingly campy melodrama. Collins is easily the standout of the film. The only downside is that her badassery helps draw attention to Kitsch's relatively limp performance. You think back to the great epic hero actors of cinema - and you long for the likes of a Charlton Heston, Russell Crowe, or hell - Arnold Schwarzenegger - anyone with that sort of iconic man's-man charisma, to have been in this role.

To that point, the film has a lot of silliness that contributes to it feeling very all-over-the-place, tonally. I can see how the film's sensibility is in many ways a sort of Pixar-ish sensibility - there's a lot of cartoonish slapstick - and a lot of the film's scenes have a very animated-style, almost Looney Tunes-like quality in how they are composed. On one level, I can appreciate the goofy fun of a character like Woola - Carter's loyal, dog-like alien companion. But at the same time, there's so much slapstick silliness around Woola that it begins to take away from the dramatic weight of the movie. In an animated movie, you can get away with a lot more of that sort of thing. But this is a huge, live-action, would-be epic. And Stanton and co. already have to work hard to get us to buy into this crazy sci-fi world. Why make it even harder to swallow with such an overload of comic relief? Point being, the movie veers wildly from trying to be gritty and serious to being completely cartoonish. At one point towards the end of the film, for example, right as the tension builds to a crescendo, the movie completely kills all dramatic momentum by throwing in a totally unnecessary and super-lame comedic moment. Even the action is inconsistent tonally. Sometimes, Stanton gives us a brutal, God of War-esque arena battle, in which Carter gores a giant alien beast through the chest in violent fashion. Other times, we get cartoonish fight scenes that just seem to be missing 60's Batman-style "bang!" and "pow!" sound balloons. Ultimately, it felt to me like JOHN CARTER never truly settled on what sort of tone it wants to have. As is, it attempts to throw in Pirates-style slapstick and wit, Conan-style grittiness and violence, and Pixar-style whimsy. Combine that with the pacing issues, and the movie can start to feel like a bit of a mess.

That said, there really are a lot of great little nuggets of coolness in the film. I give credit to guys like Dominic West, Bryan Cranston, Mark Strong, and Willem Dafoe for really doing all they can to make their characters pop. These guys are all fantastic actors - they just don't get great characters to play. Dominic West in particular as the lead villain ... even though the performance was excellent, the character just felt pretty lacking and unmemorable. West's performance was nicely sinister ... it's just ... who is this guy, why is he so evil, what's his deal? It's not that we even need that much information - it's more that, man, for a villain who has so much dialogue, little of it is of much substance. I mean, I'd have been cool with a Thulsa Doom-esque badguy who, like James Earl Jones in Conan, just shows up, looks super badass, and barely speaks. But West, he doesn't even get a particularly cool or iconic look. West makes all the monologuing better than it has a right to be, but still - no kids are going to rush out to buy the action figure, you know? Meanwhile, Mark Strong plays a mysterious, shapeshifting alien who is sort of the master manipulator - kind of a cross between Emperor Palpatine, Galactus, and the Observers from Fringe. Strong, in general, is so great at being the badguy (please let there be one more Green Lantern movie so he can reprise his role as Sinestro). But, again, it takes so long to find out even basic info about his character and motivations ... that the reveals feel anticlimactic.

Okay, okay ... so that's a lot of ragging on the film. The thing is, despite my complaints, I did find it overall to be entertaining. There's a pretty solid sense of anything-can-happen fun here. Certain scenes in the movie also succeed at capturing the sort of old-school pulp-epic feel that you just don't see a lot in movies anymore. And really, it's the slower, quieter scenes - the ones that wouldn't have felt out of place in 70's or 80's sci-fi movies - that worked best. Certain parts of the movie are visually gorgeous, and sometimes, when the look of the film does evoke the old painted covers of a sci-fi pulp paperback, you can't help but geek out. Those epic moments are helped by the actors who convey the right tone to go along with the film's premise. Collins is a big part of that with her bravura performance. And I also give a lot of credit to Stanton and the film's designers. I didn't love a lot of the alien / creature design in the film, but I did absolutely love all of the world-building. The sets, the alien cityscapes, the costumes, the clothing, the technology - all of it looked awesome. Like I said, certain moments in the film had a very pleasing, almost painterly style to them that was evocative and cool.

On the flipside though - the aliens, the Tharks in particular, just looked super cartoony to me and rarely felt real or tangible - it was like an army of Jar Jars. Again, guys like Willem Dafoe gave their all to help bring their Thark characters to life, but I just never fully warmed to the character design. It's funny because this week alone, we've seen the passing of some of the great conceptual movie artists of all time in Ralph McQuarrie and Moebius. Guys who imbued movies like Star Wars and Tron with character design that ignited the imagination of generations. I didn't see a lot in John Carter that had that same spark. I give the movie credit for never feeling generic - if nothing else, this is some far-out stuff that will make kids used to crap like Transformers realize that there's far more under the sun. But again, it's less about originality and more about tone. The Tharks and others are all too silly and cartoony - they're never really eerie or scary. It's all dreams and no nightmares. It's way too much Pixar, not nearly enough Frank Frazetta.

John Carter does take a while to get going. And there's a bit too much of the "look Ma I can fly (or jump really high)" sort of scenes that fill every superhero movie (and that were recently knocked out of the park by Chronicle). But I will also say ... that the movie picks up bigtime in its third act. After a somewhat confusing, exposition-packed first hour-and-a-half or so, the final leg of the film sprints from one big action set piece to another, and Stanton seems to find his groove. The big final battles feel like a great wrap-up to some slightly better, more fleshed-out movie. But taken out of context, there is indeed some rip-roaring action to be found - nicely orchestrated by Stanton (if only the ending wasn't killed by the return of the lifeless Edgar Burroughs framing device).

One other point though - you can almost feel the push-and-pull of studio interference all over this movie, and I can't help but wonder to what extent the film got chopped up, rearranged, re-scripted, etc. by the studio. Even on a point as minor as the film's title, it feels like we're seeing the debate over what the movie should be called play out while watching. The fact that the movie closes by dramatically displaying the title "John Carter OF MARS" and *then* the plainer, official title, "John Carter," - it feels like a very deliberate middle finger to Disney and all of their focus group testing. Testing that left the movie with such a laughably generic title. It's funny, parts of the movie have that slightly awkward feeling of watching creative choices being debated before your eyes.

At the same time, you do sort of have to admire Andrew Stanton for making a movie that is so clearly out-there and complex to the point of being incomprehensible. There's no shortage of crazy sci-fi jargon here. The film doesn't compromise on sci-fi/fantasy nerdiness, with made-up languages, English dialogue laced with Martian (er, Barsoom) lingo, and ten Star Wars cantina scenes' worth of oddball creatures and other assorted weirdness. Again, that alone makes the movie feel refreshing in the age of the dumbed-down sci-fi blockbuster. And for that reason, I can see how some fanboys will latch onto the movie, if only because it never skimps on including every bit of Martian history, dialect, and apocrypha from the Burroughs books.

And because of that, John Carter is a movie that geeks are going to want to love and mainstream critics are going to love to hate. Personally, I fell somewhere in the middle - appreciating certain aspects of the film - visuals, action, a handful of the performances - but also feeling frustrated by the lack of heart, soul, or any true feeling of epicness, grittiness, gravitas, or danger. Other than Dejah's sexy outfits and one or two moments of videogame-like violence, this is a Disney-fied pulp adventure desperately in need of a Jack Sparrow or Han Solo character to give it a little bit of edge. It could also have used a sense of awe and wonder and intensity. The original John Carter stories helped to inspire everything from Flash Gordon to Star Wars and everything in between. But this John Carter is ultimately not at the same level as cinema's best sci-fi/fantasy adventures.

My Grade: B