Paper Heart a Mild Delight

"Everyone's definition of love is so different," Charlyne Yi says during her mission to find out if love exists in her new film, Paper Heart. She doesn't believe in love or the idea of finding a soul mate, so she travels the globe in an effort to explain it, but runs into a conundrum. Love is unexplainable. You can ask as many people as you want and search everywhere, but you don't know love until you've found it.

But dammit, Yi is certainly going to try. My maudlin theory is pure speculation as far as she is concerned. She follows the logical way of thinking. She doesn't believe in something unless she has seen it or it has been scientifically proven. Her curiosity leads her down many different paths, and she does indeed confront scientists, but they have little explanation other than, "There's a little magic involved." But any magician will tell you magic is a falsity, so this plays into Charlyne's initial belief that love is not real. That is until she meets Michael Cera, who plays himself (which he's been doing since Superbad anyway, so he's comfortable), and starts to wonder if her skepticism may have been unfounded.

On her quest, Yi interviews people of all different backgrounds with vastly different experiences. She talks to a man who explains that finding love is difficult because it has to be a mutual feeling, two gay men, one of whom was in love with his previous boyfriend who died at a presumably early age, and a couple who got married at 17 and still love each other now all these years later. One viewpoint sees true love as an improbability, if not an impossibility, another sees it as painful and temporary due to the fragility of human life, and another sees it as undoubtedly real and the only thing in the world that matters. These different perspectives work well for the movie because it keeps Yi wary of love, without a clear answer, and it makes her exploration of it much more interesting and poignant.

Paper Heart is based on the real life relationship between Cera and Yi and is shot like a documentary, playing like a (drastically) toned down version of Brüno, and is intelligently done, in a way that makes it difficult to tell whether or not what is happening onscreen is real. If it weren't for a few visual clues, like the way it is edited or the intercutting footage that seems unnecessary to the purpose of the movie, one might believe this faux narrative. But whereas Brüno was obviously fake, Paper Heart tries to bridge the gap between mockumentary and documentary, playing its fallacies as actuality, which works to its advantage, making the love story feel realistic and heartfelt.

And it is surprisingly affecting, thanks mainly to Cera's boyish charm, delivering his typical soft spoken sense of humor, shyly approaching Yi and hinting that he is interested. His experience with women seems limited and his bashfulness comes off as adorable. One can't help but root for him and hope that he can break down Yi's defenses and leap into her heart.

As with any romance film, you have the initial romantic spark, followed by a conflict that tears them apart before finally coming to some type of resolution, but all of this happens too quickly here and doesn't seem authentic. At a short runtime of one hour and 28 minutes, Paper Heart flies by, foolishly limiting our time with these characters. Considering that Cera and Yi are dating in real life, it's disheartening to see it move with such haste because they have a genuine chemistry (natch).

Though the film isn't perfect, I enjoyed my time with it, despite one major drawback that seriously puts a detriment on the whole affair. Yi is a quirky and charming young woman, with a likeability that permeates through the screen...for about twenty minutes. Then her cheerfulness begins to dissolve and I found myself annoyed by her incessant silliness and unfunny banter. The fun parts of the movie are when her and Cera are together. The rest is somewhat boring.

There are unquestionably some rough patches here and it might be tough for some viewers to make it through this one, but Paper Heart has enough good hearted warmth to justify a recommendation.

Paper Heart receives 3/5

Sandler Shines in Funny People

"He's really funny. I wonder why his movies are so unfunny," Clarke (Eric Bana) says about George (Adam Sandler) after meeting him in Judd Apatow's new film, Funny People. This line of dialogue perfectly captures the question many have been asking themselves recently. Adam Sandler is clearly talented and can be very funny, but his recent movies have taken thin, if not completely unbelievable premises and attempted to create stories out of them, some working towards an effective, if not entirely convincing emotional response (Click), and some so poorly thought out that they end up being complete contradictions and expose themselves for the narratively bankrupt messes they are (I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry). Funny People is Sandler's return to form, comedically and emotionally, and he delivers the best performance of his career.

The movie begins with George on his way to the doctor's office where he learns that he has AML, a form of leukemia, that is killing him. The disease is too far along in the process for known medicines or chemotherapy to work, so he is put on an experimental medicine where only eight percent of patients with similar symptoms have full recoveries. This news weighs in on him and he begins to lose hope that he will get better, and attempts to make peace with his ex-fiancé, Laura (Leslie Mann), before his death. To cope with his loneliness, he employs Ira (Seth Rogen) to write jokes for him, and even more importantly, be his friend.

Because the movie starts with George discovering the news about his disease, it's easy for the viewer to assume it and his inevitable march towards death are the causes of his depression. But as his leukemia begins to pass, miraculously fading away thanks to the medicine, we discover that it wasn't the sickness that was eating away inside of him, but rather his heartache over losing the one and only girl he's ever truly loved. That's what is killing him and knowing that he can't get her back is worse than any disease.

Adam Sandler plays George marvelously, perfectly mixing moments of humor with a true to life disposition, where his fragile outlook on life weakens the longer his body is afflicted with this physical, as well as emotional disease. He delivers a beautiful and powerful performance that really shows his acting chops. When he isn't relegated to making silly noises playing over the top characters with one note jokes, the man is a terrific actor. This is the Adam Sandler I love and this is his best movie since 2007's Reign Over Me.

Nevertheless, that doesn't mean he isn't funny here, because he most certainly is. One of the reasons the humor works in Funny People is because it is true to life, with jokes written for the story, not the other way around. In a movie like You Don't Mess with the Zohan, the absurd story took second billing to the scattered humor and produced a film with little heart, imagination, or laughs. Funny People has all three in spades and Sandler delivers more reasons to laugh here than in his last five movies combined, partially due to his willingness to poke fun at himself.

Anybody who has followed his body of work knows that he has starred in some overly trite, moronic films. In Funny People, he good heartedly lampoons himself, unabashedly allowing the movie to poke fun at not just his character, but also himself, slyly showing George's past works that look and sound just as outrageous as Sandler's own filmography, including films like Re-Do, where he plays a grown man shrunk down into a baby's body, Merman, where he plays a half man, half fish, and my personal favorite, My Best Friend is a Robot, which explains itself.

The movie, quite simply, is very funny, and that's because it is intelligent. Although it relies a bit too much on what some would dub "dick and fart jokes" (so much so that it would make Kevin Smith blush), Funny People by and large retains a sophisticated level of humor, aptly paying great attention to seemingly small details. A running joke in Hollywood, especially over the last year or two, is how Elizabeth Banks is in nearly every movie. Just last year, she had three pictures come out within three weeks, and Funny People is quick to parody this. When the film shows George's faux movie posters, Banks is shown to be his co-star on more than one occasion and is featured alongside him. This was a small touch, but a brilliant one and a hilarious wink to film lovers.

Funny People is nearly two and a half hours, which is quite a long runtime for a comedy, but every scene mattered and all were necessary in the telling of this story. It's a poignant tale that doesn't wrap everything up in a pretty little bow, but rather breaks from convention and avoids the predictable ending one usually sees coming from a mile away. No, this film explores real life emotions and shows that happy endings don't always occur, no matter how badly you want them to. Sometimes, you just have to play with the cards you're dealt. It's a sobering message and is delivered effectively through a terrific story, great humor and excellent performances, especially among Adam Sandler. Funny People is not to be missed.

Funny People receives 4.5/5

Good Premise, Disappointing Execution

Humpday follows your typical comedy set-up, akin to something like You, Me and Dupree. Ben (Mark Duplass) is a happily married man and, along with his wife, is thinking about conceiving a baby. Late one night, Andrew (Joshua Leonard) comes knocking at his door, a freeloader who explains he needs a place to stay, to which Ben, who hasn't seen him in years, happily agrees. Andrew, in his usual spontaneous behavior, meets up with a woman at a coffee shop and goes home with her. He invites Ben over where a wild party breaks out.

This is where the film starts to deviate from convention. Here they find out that an annual event called "Humpfest" is held every year where regular people make amateur porn videos in a competition. In their drunken stupor, they make the decision to shoot one together.

I know what you're thinking. "Two best friends having sex with each other on camera in a porn film? That just sounds like Zack and Miri Make a Porno." And indeed, it is quite similar. But the difference is that Kevin Smith's film depicted a man and a woman who desperately needed to make money and reluctantly decided to break that friendship barrier and have sex with each other. In Humpday, not only are the two best friends both heterosexual males, they willingly want to have sex on camera, which they claim is for the sake of "art" in that it's never been done before.

Given this premise, I couldn't help but wonder how the filmmakers would pull it off. No matter how you slice it, two straight guys, best friends or not, would never agree to have sex with each other on camera for a large group of people to watch. This was the largest hurdle that had to be overcome for this movie to work. Surprisingly, that seemed to be the least of its problems. You do actually get the sense that these two guys could actually do it due to their homoerotic behavior; they touch each other constantly, jabbing, slapping, rubbing and grabbing each other. I know gay guys who are less gay than these two. With a continuous string of behavior like this, the story really isn't as unbelievable as you might think.

With this predicament out of the way, it should have been smooth sailing to the end, but that wasn't the case. According to various sources, a good portion of the dialogue in Humpday was improvised and you can tell. It felt disingenuous, lacking in realism because you could see one actor trying to think of what to say in response to an improvised line. Other times, you could see the actors trying not to laugh, or even worse, going ahead and laughing only to pull it back together and keep with the scene. This isn't a huge problem when the conversations are silly (which many of them are), but in scenes where sincerity was called upon, it becomes a distraction.

Humpday has a few great moments, including an argument over who will be "boning" who and a humorously awkward final scene where the two men are alone in a hotel room, trying to figure out how they're going to shoot their project. Awkwardness seems to be the new "in" for comedy, with films like I Love You, Man setting the bar high, but this may be the most uncomfortable thing I have ever sat through. It was brilliantly funny and uncouth, traits that were perfect for a movie like this.

But the rest of the film lacks this type of gumption. I rarely found myself laughing, but even when I did it was more giggles than guffaws. During some scenes, the tone was so misguided that I wasn't even sure whether I was supposed to be laughing or not.

Humpday is a rare breed of film in its attempt to try something different and new, but the end result is an aimless void that plays out more closely to "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" than a feature film.

Humpday receives 2/5

G-Force Bad Even For Kids

G-Force follows a team of guinea pigs, Darwin (Sam Rockwell), Juarez (Penélope Cruz), and Blaster (Tracy Morgan) and their cyber intelligence specialist, Speckles the mole (Nicolas Cage), as they attempt to bring down an evil billionaire named Leonard Saber (Bill Nighy) who plans on destroying the world with his line of household appliances through an evil operation known as "Clusterform." This film is a cluster something.

But alas, their government support is dwindling and their funding is being stripped away. If only Disney had stripped funding from these filmmakers. Instead, they release this cinematic excretion, diluting our children's brains with enough insipidity to ensure that future generations remain stolid and submissive under the rule of the corporation's strangehold.

I'll concede this. Contrary to what my title suggests, G-Force is good for kids. But when I say that, I mean it is appropriate, not entertaining or intelligent. That is to say that parents will find little, if any, objection to it (minus the stereotypical "urban" guinea pig who just so happens to be black, although that can't compare to the egregious racism displayed in last month's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen), though I'm hopeful that most kids will be able to see how trifling this cobbled together catastrophe is compared to other kid friendly films released this year, like the terrific Pixar masterpiece, Up.

The trailers do a good job of communicating just how ridiculous the story and childish the humor is (Zach Galifianakis as the team leader says to his agent fly at the thought of him sustaining an injury, "I don't like it when my fly is down"), so instead of sounding like a curmudgeonly old coot (Damn kids and your stupid talking animal movies!), I'll focus on its strengths.

Even with all of its deficiencies, G-Force's animation is quite good. The guinea pigs, moles, and other computer animated critters were superbly crafted. One CGI heavy scene involves a chase between the guinea pigs in their motorized rolling balls and the FBI as they approach an area with hundreds of fireworks prepped to blow, all exploding as they weave in and out of the potentially deadly blasts. It was a spectacular sequence heightened by the excellent use of Carl Orff's "O Fortuna" that made me smile and laugh. Unfortunately, this is the only moment in the entire movie that made me do that.

That isn't due to lack of trying, however. The talented voice cast was uniformly impressive, including Nicolas Cage who brillianty disguises his noticeable tone and, ironically, delivers his best performance in years. The sole exception is Tracy Morgan who voices one of the most annoying characters in a movie this year, spouting off eye rolling one liners with an overly loud emphasis, an irritating cacophony of sounds similar to what a dying dog would sound like if it could speak.

Like many films these days, G-Force uses 3D to "enhance" the experience, despite the format's tendency to be distracting, coupled with the reduced vibrancy of the color palette due to the tinted glasses. While it works for some, most movies use it unnecessarily. G-Force, however, uses it well. Since it is not a fully animated movie, it doesn't deprive your visual sense of what would be colorful stimulation. Without the 3D, G-Force would be unwatchable.

It's almost like that anyway.

G-Force receives 1/5

Orphan a Really Good Bad Movie

There is nothing more precious in the world than a little child, that is at least until it reaches for a knife and starts to murder your family and friends. If that sounds a little bizarre, it's because it is, more than you can possibly imagine. Orphan, the latest "scary child" film takes the beauty of a family and slashes it to pieces, quite literally, to a mixed effect. It comes from director Jaume Collet-Serra, the man who brought us the awful House of Wax, and although it is certainly better than that film, Orphan is still too silly and unintenionally funny to be considered good.

The picture starts out on a high note, opening with Kate (Vera Farmiga) in a devilish nightmare, still haunted by the loss of her unborn baby. Her life has become a constant struggle to deal with this terrible tragedy, but she hopes to change that by adopting little Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), thus essentially replacing her unborn child and passing all of her pent up love onto her. Along with her husband, John (Peter Sarsgaard) and her two children, Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) and the deaf Max (Aryana Engineer), they attempt to make a normal life with Esther. However, the new addition quickly begins to tear the family apart, arousing suspicion within Kate who begins to uncover what Esther is really up to.

Esther is like the Hannibal Lecter of little girls, using her victim's own demons against them, delving into their minds and bending them to her own will. However, unlike Hannibal Lecter, who was brilliantly portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the 1991 film, Silence of the Lambs, Esther isn't scary in the slightest because Orphan tries much too hard. Look at Harvey Stephens as Damien in the original 1976 Omen film for instance. That story never stayed too focused on him and instead centered around the father finding clues about Damien's relation with Satan. By and large, this is the same story, sans the satanic element, with the parent slowly unraveling clues leading up to a grand revelation. The difference being that this story centralizes the child as the main component, eliminating any sense of question or doubt. Yes, she is evil. You can tell quite easily. All that's left is a routine horror film that plods along for two hours with little suspense or logic.

There's a certain advantage one gets to watching a horror movie with a sold out crowd because it's easier to gauge whether or not it is effective. If the audience is deathly silent and screaming at the appropriate times, you have a top notch thriller on your hands. In Orphan, moments that were meant to scare had my accompanying audience howling in laughter. The subject matter, or should I say the way it was carried out, simply wasn't scary. Being a child, Esther's foster parents naturally take her to a jungle gym where other kids are playing. Here she finds her classroom nemesis and the scene quickly turns into a fairly conventional stalker routine where the evil in the shadows jumps out of nowhere and attacks its victim. Unfortunately, a jungle gym isn't exactly the most ominous of locations.

At times, Orphan relied far too heavily on contrivances that worked at the convenience of the screenplay, including a scene where Daniel talks to his deaf sister Max, despite her ability to read lips and his ability to speak to her through (limited) sign language. He chatters just loud enough so Esther can hear through the walls. What a joke.

But then again, maybe that's the point. Orphan is one giant laugh, although I suspect it's an accidental one. Each actor delivers their lines earnestly, seemingly unaware that they're in a ridiculous film that's about as realistic as my chances of dating a supermodel. Every hollow stare, every evil smile, every goofy plot turn, all were worthy of guffaws, and they all led up to a fairly clever twist, however peremptory and unlikely it may be. But the two hours leading up to this moment are so laugh out loud stupid that the final punch lacks the momentum to land a knock out.

The ironic thing about Orphan is that the calmer moments, where the film explored some real emotions, were far more interesting and worked much better thanks to a couple of great performances from Farmiga and Sarsgaard. I would have rather seen a drama about a lonely foster child adapting to the pressures of fitting in with a new family, exploring her role as the mother's "replacement child," but alas, I was stuck with this laughably bad, yet strangely entertaining horror movie. While I sat there watching this, I thought, "This is just terrible," but thinking back on it, I realize I actually had quite a bit of fun.

This is by no means a good movie and I'm certainly not going to recommend it, but if you find yourself sitting in a packed theater with an unruly group of people able to laugh at its absurdity, you may actually find a good deal of amusement in Orphan.

Orphan receives 2/5

It's Certainly Ugly

One needs only to look at the poster for The Ugly Truth for a good understanding of its comedic quality. It depicts a stick figure male and stick figure female side by side, the female's heart in her head and the male's heart in his penis. Boy, that's fresh. If this tired joke doesn't make you roll your eyes, you might just enjoy The Ugly Truth. I, however, did not.

Katherine Heigl plays Abby, a television producer whose news show is bombing in the ratings, on the verge of cancellation, and in dire need of something different and exciting. After stumbling upon a local cable access program called The Ugly Truth, a program that dishes out the supposed "truth" on women and relationships, her news station brings on its host, Mike, played by Gerard Butler, to hopefully boost their ratings. Despite her initial hatred for him, Abby employs Mike to help her win a date with her sexy neighbor. Love flourishes within her, but not with the person she expected.

Which is to say, this movie is predictable, as most romantic comedies are. For those of you who can't figure out what happens by the end of the film based solely on the trailer, I suppose I'll give you this spoiler warning, so take heed before venturing down this written path, although you'd have to be pretty clueless to not see what is coming from the get-go.

The fundamental problem The Ugly Truth faces is that the characters are unlikable, if not morally reprehensible. During one scene, Mike details how women have a number of steps they feel they must go through to get a man, but he counters, explaining they need only one: "blow job," he says. According to him, to get to a man's heart, you only need to be willing to - through the phrase of a metaphor - take one for the team. This scene doesn't only subordinate women, relegating them down to people who are only useful for one thing, but it also makes all men look like shallow, misogynistic pigs who care only about sexual stimulation.

Mike is a guy who isn't afraid to say what he thinks, regardless of how vile it makes him look. He makes more sexual advancements than James Bond, but the difference is that Bond is smooth, suave, and sophisticated, and his lines always have a tongue-in-cheek type of vibe. Here, they just come off as despicable chauvinistic talk, in a way that makes the viewer feel like when Mike looks at a woman, he sees the backs of their heads rather than their faces. "Guys never care about your problems. When they ask how you are doing, they don't really care," he tells Abby during one scene, explaining that it's only a precursor question in the hopes that they will eventually get you in bed. He embodies the type of man who other men despise, a guy who makes everyone of the male sex look bad and as a guy, I was insulted.

By the end, we find out Mike has another layer to him, a soft spot that explains why he is the way he is: it turns out he went through a string of bad relationships. Well, boo hoo. So has everyone else in the world. His fragile psyche creates a paltry pity party for himself, passing it along to the viewer, expecting us to feel sympathy for him, but it's hard to empathize with a man who talks down to women without even a passing thought. Does this pathetic excuse make Mike a better person? Of course not. It makes him even more opprobrious because it attempts to justify his manist ways.

Don't think you're getting off easy though ladies. The female representation doesn't fare much better. Abby is controlling and vain, with an extensive personality and professional checklist that her ideal man must embody if he hopes to be with her, including such arbitrary philosophies like, "He must be a cat person," and the avaricious demand that he be a doctor, a profession unattainable to even some of the brightest minds. While not condescending to men, as Mike is with women, she essentially belittles herself with such high expectations making her arguably just as shallow.

Although Butler does what he can with his disgusting character, Heigl simply doesn't have the screen presence to carry a movie. She was fine in Knocked Up, but the difference is that the Apatow directed film complimented her, not the other way around. In that movie, she had a great script, an excellent supporting cast, a hilarious male co-star, and the story had lots of heart to it. The Ugly Truth has none of those things and her dull performance is the final nail in the already decomposing coffin.

With all of that said, there really isn't much else to discuss, although I suppose one question is still up in the air and may be a deciding factor for some readers: Is it funny? Truth be told, the film has a few mildly amusing moments interspersed between the hatred, but the problem is that I despised these characters so much that it wasn't so much what they were saying that ruined the jokes, but how they were saying them. On paper, I can see them working and in another movie, I may have been laughing, but my abhorrence for Mike and Abby denied The Ugly Truth the chance to get off the ground.

The ugly truth is that this film sucks.

The Ugly Truth receives 1/5

500 Days of Summer Truly Special

In a summer where few pictures provide the thrills they auspiciously promise to deliver, with the likes of Terminator Salvation, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen stinking up the theaters (especially the latter), is it possible to convince movie-goers to see a low key independent film like 500 Days of Summer? I certainly hope so. It is thus far, by a large margin, the best film to be released this year.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom, a worker at a greeting card company whose job is to come up with new sayings for a variety of different cards. Ever since he became old enough to understand love, he has believed that he won't be happy until he finds his soul mate. He's a hopeless romantic and believes that as long as you have love, you have everything in the world. Once new employee Summer, played by Zooey Deschanel, arrives at the office, he immediately falls head over heels for her. Unfortunately, Summer doesn't believe in true love and refuses to commit to anything serious, instead opting to have a casual relationship with Tom.

The film chronicles the 500 days that Summer is in Tom's life, including a hilarious scene conveying his happiness the morning after their first night together, where the world looks just a little bit brighter; people stop and smile at him, fountains explode in gushes of water when he passes, and his infectious joy convinces others around him to join in a song and dance number.

The brilliance of 500 Days of Summer is that it doesn't portray a relationship from an outsider's perspective. Instead, it shows how the relationship looks from the eyes of Tom. No, of course the city's citizens didn't erupt into dance because Tom's happiness prompted them to, but rather it was how Tom saw the world on that particular day. His blissfulness blinded him from actuality, unaware of the many flaws of a broken world, but he was happy. As far as he was concerned, everything was perfect. From this first person perspective, it allows the viewer to not only sense how Tom feels, but see his feelings up close and personal, flying high with him during the good times and sinking during the bad, including a terrific scene where he walks out into the middle of the street and everything in front of him is erased, first fading of all color, and then objects, until only his black silhouette stands in isolation, showing that at that moment he literally felt alone, not just single.

Although 500 Days of Summer doesn't necessarily follow the usual romantic comedy conventions, its story is still fairly familiar, breaking little new ground from a traditional point of view. However, it's the way the story is told that is so fascinating, elevating it above the plethora of generic rom-coms we've been subjected to over the years. At one point in the film, when Tom and Summer are rekindling their relationship after having not seen each other in a while, a narrator comes on and tells us that Tom's confidence assured him that his expectations for the evening would mirror reality, to which it then split screens, with the left side showing "Expectations" and the right "Reality," while the two play out simultaneously showing us the differences.

This moment is only one example of filmmaking ingenuity, with seemingly endless new ideas and a brilliantly written script that jumps through place and time constantly, but never gets confusing. As I sat there in the theater, entranced by what I was seeing, I was reminded of why I love going to the movies in the first place. It all adds up to an impeccable piece of work that deserves to go down in history with the likes of When Harry Met Sally as a romantic comedy classic. 500 Days of Summer is one of the most original and refreshing movies I've seen in years and I'll be surprised if anything tops it by the time December rolls around. It truly is a crowning achievement in film and a real treat for movie lovers.

500 Days of Summer receives 5/5

Half-Blood Prince a Fun, Yet Flawed Adventure

The Harry Potter franchise is hit and miss. Some installments are absolutely wonderful, as seen with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and some are just plain dull, like the previous entry, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. While the newest film is certainly better than the last, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a mixed bag of wonderful imagination with brilliant visuals and a tedious, overlong story. It's not the masterpiece fans of the book will make it out to be, but its assertive filmmaking easily overshadows its occasional flaw and makes it a magical ride that even non-readers will enjoy.

How do I know this? Because I'm one of those people. I haven't read any of the books and my knowledge of the franchise comes solely from the films and I enjoyed this latest entry. However, being the sixth installment in such a venerable franchise has its own problems. Reviewing a sixth movie in, say, a slasher franchise is different because you can most likely judge the film on its own merits, seeing as how many lack any semblance of a story. With such an extensive mythology in the Potter franchise, you have to factor in each film, remembering important plot points, character names and personalities, and more. But because of its vast back story, it's a bit hard to keep track at this point and I found myself lost at various points.

I spent too much time trying to figure out what exactly was going on rather than simply enjoying the fantasy before me. It's easy to follow the gist of it, but the smaller, more intricate details will undoubtedly go over the heads of the average viewer who doesn't have a vast knowledge of the previous films or books. It recalls past events, but I couldn't remember them. It mentions many characters (some of which do not even appear in this installment), but I wasn't sure who was being spoke of. It was exhausting, rather than pleasurable, to watch the film because I'm not an avid fan, which is to its detriment.

Still, Potter aficionados will love it, and rightfully so. It's well shot, well acted, and it features lavish sets that bode well with the terrific sense of imagination. It's an all around well done movie. The cinematography in particular is amazing, with a look about as beautiful as you can get in such a dark story. At one point, as a character lies on the ground bleeding profusely, the surroundings are pulled of many colors, almost to a black and white, yet the blood is bright red, looking very much like a graphic novel style film noir, and it was splendid.

With that said, the film is at a tonal crossroads. The premise of the film is supremely silly, but is taken gravely serious. Had it been taken down a more laidback path, would it have been better? I suspect not. It's too dark to be lighthearted, yet it's still kind of childish, resulting in an odd mish mash of dumb, slapstick humor and a heavy-handed narrative.

As with the previous film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is anticlimactic. It builds and builds for two and a half hours only to disappoint with a lackluster ending that resolves nothing. I understand that this film is supposed to set-up the next, but the previous one was a set-up for this, and the one before that a set-up for the last, and so on. By the sixth film, I'm ready for the conclusion. Enough toying with us. Just finish this story.

When all is said and done, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is still an accomplished film thanks to its aesthetically pleasing visuals and the talents of the three fine young actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, who after five movies look comfortable enough in this sixth chapter to convey the illusion that I was watching their characters rather than their real life counterparts. That's not to say they were bad in the previous films, but their work here is more cohesive and helps to hold some of the blander scenes together. Potter fans will indubitably be able to look past some of the flaws, filling in some missing sections of the story subconsciously due to their expertise with the books, but that in no way makes this a great movie. All the same, it's still an entertaining, if sometimes erroneous, adventure and it's well worth seeing.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince receives 3.5/5

Podcast Brilliance

It's been a hell of a week for movies. There were four new releases, two independent films and two widely released films, and I recommended all of them. In a year where each week has usually produced a stinker, including huge movie event turds like Terminator: Salvation and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, it's a breath of fresh air to sit down in four instances and be entertained each time.

The new movies this week are The Hurt Locker, Moon, Brüno, and I Love You, Beth Cooper. Again, BDK of BDK's Movie Show fame and myself have recorded a podcast reviewing each new film. So click the link below and get to listening!

To read my reviews of each movie, you can click here, here, here and here, or simply navigate this blog. However, I reviewed Moon a month ago, so you'll have to do a little digging to find it. Click here to head to BDK's website and read his written reviews.

BDK and the Beard review July 10th new releases: The Hurt Locker, Moon, Brüno, and I Love You, Beth Cooper.

I'm Partially Fond of You, Beth Cooper

Sometimes, a movie comes along that you just have to be in a good mood to enjoy. All things considered, the movie is terrible, but on that particular day, at that particular time, something was clicking and you walked out pleasantly surprised. I Love You, Beth Cooper was one of those films for me. As silly and contrived as it is, it's also plain lighthearted fun, a fluff piece of entertainment that can easily kill an hour and a half without wasteful regret.

Paul Rust plays Denis, a graduating high school senior who is in love with Beth Cooper (natch), played by the gorgeous Hayden Panettiere. He's the valedictorian of his class and during his speech at the graduation ceremony, he confesses his feelings for her. Once the ceremony is over, Cooper confronts him and tells him that it was embarrassing, but also sort of sweet, so he invites her to his "party," which consists only of him and his nerdy best friend, Rich, played by Jack Carpenter. Unfortunately, Cooper's angry military boyfriend is on the way to his house to teach Denis a lesson. Cooper and her friends grab Denis and Rich, getting them out of harm's way, and go on an adventure together in this harmless rom-com.

At one point in the film, Denis and his father are having a talk where he is told to have fun because this is his last summer before college. He wants him to experience everything he hasn't yet had a chance to. Denis replies that the whole "coming of age thing is relatively new" for high school kids. Regrettably, the whole "coming of age thing" is hardly new in film and this clichéd picture certainly isn't going to reinvent the genre. In fact, there's a whole lot to not like about I Love You, Beth Cooper.

The material here is awful and on paper, none of the jokes are funny, consisting mostly of scatological humor and slapstick gags, the most lowbrow comedy there is. The main character, Denis, is kind of a creeper. Before he confessed his love to Cooper at graduation, he had never spoken a word to her, yet he knows everything about her, where she likes to go, what her favorite food is, etc. He even has a giant sized poster of her on his ceiling above his bed, and you can imagine why it might be placed at such a strategic position. Top onto this the cheesy ending with awful dialogue and the film just kind of runs out of steam.

Regardless of these problems, the actors in the film do a terrific job, doing the best they can with limited resources. Rust actually manages to make Denis a likable guy, despite his odd tendency to alarmingly obsess over a girl. He looked comfortable in front of the camera and had a certain amiable appeal as the loser nerd. And Panettiere is bubbly and fun, perfectly playing the beautiful wild child who sees herself only as a person men want to be with for one night rather than simply be with.

Despite its contrivances, its predictability, its poorly written script, its bland direction, and its stupid humor, the lively performances make I Love You, Beth Cooper kind of sweet. It's no prize winner, but then again, it's not trying to be. What the cast does is take a poorly devised comedy and make it tolerable enough that you'll walk out smiling. What more could you ask for?

I Love You, Beth Cooper receives 2.5/5

The Hurt Locker a Profound Piece of Art

If past numbers are to be trusted, movies set in the midst of violent and controversial wars in present day Iraq and Afghanistan tend to not do well at the box office. With a relatively minor budget of $25 million, Stop-Loss sank, making only a fraction of it back at just over $11 million. Combine the disappointing intakes of Rendition and In the Valley of Elah and you don't even match what Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen made in a single day (which is a sad statement on society, I might add). It's disheartening to see these interesting and insightful, albeit flawed, films get overlooked, but if there's one that may be able to break this poor streak, it's The Hurt Locker. To put it simply, it's one of the best films of the year.

The flick follows three soldiers, a bomb defusing team tasked with finding and defusing IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). I would go further into the plot, but truth be told, there's not much else to it. Most stories have a beginning, middle, and an end, but The Hurt Locker only has a beginning. Once the credits start to roll, no real resolution is reached. In fact, the previous events all seem to begin again. It plays into the idea that war is a vicious cycle and has no end. In this case, lack of a conclusion works to its advantage.

That's not to say it doesn't have a point to make. Given the subject matter, one would rightfully assume a statement would be made, but it's not the one you might expect. In actuality, the film doesn't so much comment on the war as it does explore the effects it has on the soldiers who fight it. Republican, Democrat, or other, there's no arguing the mental anguish these soldiers go through during and after war. The movie, through its extensive study into its characters, really taps into the emotional turmoil many have to deal with. Some become increasingly angry, some find it hard to carry on normally with so much death surrounding them and others become so addicted to war that it becomes all that they know. The Hurt Locker is a non-partisan film that delves into an important topic, examining the health of our soldiers defending us from harm, and it's an excellent one at that.

Naturally, this study of real life problems soldiers have wouldn't mean much if the surrounding film lacked a visceral punch. Luckily, the film is well rounded, almost never at fault and is brilliantly directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who carries herself with aplomb, ratcheting up the camerawork when necessary, but allowing her actors and the natural suspense of diffusing a bomb carry most of the movie. There is real tension here, never manipulative or forced, rarely relying on frantic camera movements or overly loud music to bump up the action.

Even with the ample amount of suspense, it sometimes built up into nothing, but the strange thing is that it was never a disappointment. The film feels so natural and the circumstances so real that you don't want it to explode into violence. These characters are authentic, with the illusion of actual soldiers conveyed through several excellent performances, and I didn't want to see them in harm's way. In other movies, this build up with no payoff would be a problem. Here, it's a relief.

At times, I felt like I was in the field with these soldiers, not merely watching from my comfortable chair in a crowded theater, which is in large part due to the shaky cam technique Bigelow uses, similar to something like Cloverfield, but not nearly as excessive. In most movies, this style of filmmaking is unnecessary, but here it worked to the film's advantage. Along with the gritty look of the film, the shaky camera helped me immerse myself into what was going on, sweeping me away in this riveting and powerful drama.

If there's one knock against the film, it is its length. It's over two hours long and a scene or two could have been trimmed up a bit, including one that depicts a sniper battle between Iraqi insurgents and the American troops. Despite the gunfire and blood splatters, the main purpose of this scene was for one of the soldiers to have an emotional breakthrough, making the decision to gun down an enemy, presumably marking his first kill, but it took far too long for it happen. While it played to the reality of the situation, this is still a movie and tight editing and smooth transitioning is a must. This section in particular lacked both.

However, that's one minor quibble in what is otherwise an astonishing piece of art. Every performance is spot on, the tension is real, and the opening is one of the most breathtaking moments in film since the coin flip scene in No Country for Old Men. Everything about The Hurt Locker adds up to one exceptional experience that you won't soon forget and is one of the must see movies of 2009.

The Hurt Locker receives 5/5

Brüno Shockingly Hilarious

I'm one of those people who didn't buy into the hype of Borat back when it was released in 2006. Everywhere you went, it was praised as being one of the funniest and smartest films to be released in years. When such strong words were being used to describe a movie, I couldn't help but be a bit skeptical, but then I went and watched it, quickly jumping on the bandwagon, stroking its already inflated ego and speaking of its greatness to anybody who would listen. It even prompted me to go watch Da Ali G Show, where the character originated, and its big screen brother, Ali G Indahouse, a movie most people didn't seem to like, but I found to be cheerfully and hilariously stupid. I suppose I was destined to love Sacha Baron Cohen's newest film, Brüno, and I did. While it doesn't quite reach the same heights of Borat (more on that later), it is nevertheless one of the funniest films of the year and easily recommendable.

Similar to Borat, Brüno follows the titular character, a gay Austrian fashionista, in a mockumentary style film where he travels the globe offending as many people as possible in an hour and a half. After being fired from his Austrian fashion show, Funkyzeit, Brüno decides to travel to America to become a superstar, and he will do anything to achieve that goal. Along the way, he adopts a little black child, pitches a scandalous new show to a focus group, attempts to convert to a heterosexual, and more.

One can't help but applaud Sacha Baron Cohen's dedication to this role, one that is arguably more controversial than Borat. He walks around the world, in areas where he could literally be killed, dressing and acting like a gay man, performing outrageous stunts around unsuspecting people, and doing it all for the sake of entertainment. He takes what I considered the least effective character from his television show and reworks him into a lovable goof, a character I now extremely respect and wish for more of. The brief 82 minutes I spent with him was frankly not enough.

Brüno is funny. There's no doubt about that. The dilemma I've faced so far in attempting to detail why this movie is so good is that I don't want to give anything away, but how can I possibly explain a movie like this without spoiling certain parts? Part of the fun of the film is going into it unaware at what you are about to see. Revealing something as seemingly minor as the set-up will all but ruin many of the jokes. Therefore, my explanations will be brief. I may actually get into the negatives more than the positives, but don't take that, well, negatively. Brüno is one of the best times you're likely to have in a crowded theater this year.

One of the film's greatest strengths is that it is constantly funny, with not a single slow moment throughout. At certain points, it felt like certain scenes were going nowhere, with hardly a joke even tossed out, but by the end, there was always a payoff, including one scene where Brüno and his gay lover, who are chained together in a sexual contraption only Cohen's twisted mind could have thought of, walk past members of the Westboro Baptist Church, a religious group whose tactics include "preaching" the word of God through excessive gay bashing, carrying signs like "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Doom Nations." This is only a small scene, lasting a mere few seconds, but it's effective, it's funny and if you have any knowledge of the WBC, it's fulfilling in its own right to see such evil people be unknowingly ridiculed on a grand scale.

However, while both Brüno and Borat are equally funny in their own special, demented ways, Borat was more compelling because it provided a terrific social commentary on the ignorance of America. Despite our presence in foreign nations, we actually know very little about people overseas, and the film was quick to ridicule us because of it. People from Kazakhstan do not look or sound like Borat. In that film, Cohen actually spoke Hebrew and the lettering of certain so called "Kazakh" words were mostly nonsense letters tweaked to look like a foreign alphabet. That character, by simply existing and interacting with various people (including a few powerful politicians), worked in a way that satirized our naiveté. Brüno, on the other hand, merely plays off of already established stereotypes of gay men. While Borat spoofed us in an intelligent manner, Brüno basically spoofs himself. The debate on the nation's rampant homophobia was untouched throughout the first half of the film.

Fortunately, once Brüno goes to visit a priest, a so called "gay converter" (who compares homosexuals to terrorists), it finally begins to delve into this social taboo. Here, Brüno asks how he can spot a homosexual. The answer from the unsuspecting victim? They're very kind. Chances are if you're talking to an extremely nice man, he is gay. Whoa now, a courteous and polite person? Stay away from that one. By the end of the movie, his victims aren't simply in disgust at his actions; they're spewing verbal hatred and throwing chairs. The first half is a bit sluggish, but the back half eventually accomplishes the goal of exploring the hot topic of homophobia.

The film was a bit unfocused as well, attacking people that didn't necessarily need to be picked on. One scene shows Brüno as he interviews a handful of parents in auditions for their babies. He poses outlandish situations that would put their babies in danger, but they all go with the flow because they are desperate for their baby to land the part. One parent even agrees to put her baby on a diet, going so far as to agree to give it liposuction if it hadn't lost the weight by the desired time. Okay. What's the point? In a way, Cohen's making a statement about bad parenting, but that's not what this movie is about. It was shocking and disturbing, sure, but it wasn't relevant. That was the problem.

Still, the main purpose of the film is to be funny and it most certainly is. Brüno pushes the envelope about as far as it can go and in my desire to avoid spoilers, I haven't even scratched its surface. It's disappointing to see the obvious option for social commentary go to the wayside for much of the film, but you likely won't care because you'll be clutching your sides in uproarious laughter. Brüno is offensive. It's in bad taste. It's pure idiotic lunacy with ample amounts of gratuitous nudity and yeah, that means it's a must see.

Brüno receives 4.5/5

Podcast Awesomeness

For the last two weeks, I've been at the beach in North Carolina soaking in the rays, attempting to get a tan, but for some reason, my body likes to repel any source of attractiveness and is still drenched in pale whiteness. Maybe it's because I spent more time at the movie theater than I did at the beach (not really). But hey, it's my job and I'm here to please my 137,587 readers (arbitrary number).

Yes, I was able to take time away from getting drunk on the sands to go see the newest movie releases, Public Enemies and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, and I called in again to participate in my weekly podcasts with BDK of BDK's Movie Show fame (which you can listen to every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK or stream live on wjfk.com!). Unfortunately, I am now home, so it's back to my normal routine of watching movies and being awesome. It's a tough life.

For now though, listen to the new podcast and don't forget to check out our written reviews of these films. Click here to go to BDK's web site and simply scroll through this blog to read mine (or click here and here).

BDK and the Beard review July 1st new movie releases: Public Enemies and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.

Public Enemies a Major Disappointment

What do you get when you combine the dream pairing of two terrific actors, Johnny Depp and Christian Bale, and Michael Mann, director of excellent films such as Heat and Manhunter? Apparently, you get a middling gangster movie that fails to live up to the high standards the talent involved has set for itself. Public Enemies takes a no fail formula and somehow mucks it up with a healthy dose of mediocrity and imbalanced performances. That’s not to say it’s bad, but with such an impressive pedigree backing it up, one can’t help but wonder what went wrong along the way.

Public Enemies begins in 1933, in the fourth year of the Great Depression. At a time when the country was suffering, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) was prospering from his uncanny ability to rob banks, netting thousands of dollars in the process, and somehow evading police every time. After a string of successful robberies, and deemed a menace to society for making the police look foolish, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is given the task of bringing Dillinger to justice.

When you look at a film like Public Enemies and your expectations are justifiably high, with wishes that the incredible talent involved will produce a masterpiece, one tends to nitpick on the negatives rather than praise the positives. In fact, some of my criticisms could hardly be called “negatives” because they don’t necessarily feed off of the problems of the film, but rather my hopes and dreams that failed to come into fruition onscreen. I say this with the desire that you won’t take my excessive criticism too seriously, but understand that I merely respect these filmmakers so much that it’s disheartening to see them fail to live up to their potential. With that said, let’s get on with it, shall we?

The year 1933 is an interesting time period, one that could have given the film some context, but it fails to capitalize on the idea. It takes place during the Great Depression and many people in the country are struggling to get by while Dillinger lives the high life with wealth beyond anyone’s wildest imaginations. The movie could have used this as a way to contrast between the riches of Dillinger and the poverty of a seemingly dying nation, exploring how his actions robbing banks was effecting the overall economy, but no connection was made. In a film with such a fruitful historical background, this was a big missed opportunity.

Nevertheless, Johnny Depp is fascinating in his portrayal of Dillinger, a fearless, reckless outlaw uncaring of the pain he’s causing to others, as long as he gets his due, but even he can’t make up for the fact that his character is shamefully unexplored. At one point in the movie, Dillinger explains that as a child he made a stupid mistake, stealing from a kind man, only to be caught and sentenced to 10 years in prison, an outrageous sentencing for a seemingly minor 50 dollar theft. This could have been used as a means to provide a bit of character development, explaining why he turned out the way he did, but instead, it gets dropped almost immediately, turning into another disappointing exercise of pointlessness that the film seemed to revel in.

Public Enemies is directed by Michael Mann, the same guy who directed the excellent film, Heat and he attempts to use the same equation here that worked so well in that. He takes two stellar actors and separates them throughout most of the film, only to bring them together in one key scene, hoping it will have the same impact as the epic pairing of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in that aforementioned film, but it simply doesn’t. While Bale is far from bad in his role as the special agent assigned to bring down Dillinger, he is mediocre in comparison to Depp’s terrific performance. In Heat, each actor was equally enthralling in their respective roles, but here, the jump between the riveting Depp overshadows the blander Bale scenes, so the eventual pairing of the two doesn’t pay off.

In addition to all of that, the writing could have been spruced up a little to convey a feeling of excitement because as the finished film stands, it’s a tad boring. The best dialogue driven films remain captivating because the exchanges between characters are interesting and well written. Here, it comes off as flat. The dialogue isn’t bad in an eye rolling, laughable way, but it’s not particularly interesting either.

Despite my incessant negativity towards the film in this review, I am going to recommend it, if only mildly so, because it does have some genuinely suspenseful moments, including a fantastic jail break scene, and the always reliable Depp in another home run performance. Regardless, this is one of the most disappointing movies to be released so far this year. It’s still worth your time; just be sure to keep your expectations in check.

Public Enemies receives 2.5/5

Ice Age 3 An Unimpressive Bore

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is a lot like an annoying relative. It shows up uninvited, sticks around for too long and thinks it’s funny when it really isn’t. This third entry in the venerable franchise appears seemingly out of nowhere, resurrecting a series that many had long considered dead. If only it had stayed that way.

The film starts with Manny (Ray Romano) and Ellie (Queen Latifah) who are expecting a child, which means things are changing and the group is splitting up. Diego (Denis Leary) insists that things will be different because of the baby and decides to go off on his own while Sid (John Leguizamo) is upset at the notion of abandonment until he stumbles upon three eggs which he takes up as his own. Little does he know that they are dinosaur eggs and their mother is coming to find them, which puts Sid in considerable danger. After finding this out, the remainder of the group decides to find and help Sid, which hurls them into an incredible adventure with a creature named Buck (Simon Pegg), a self proclaimed dinosaur hunter, which takes them into an unknown underground world where dinosaurs roam.

I saw the first Ice Age back in 2002 and wasn’t particularly impressed, reserving only a faint remembrance of it in my mind. I never bothered with the second and therefore am not up to speed with its mythology. The reason I bring this up is because Dawn of the Dinosaurs does little to bring in new fans, which is essentially what I am, and instead opts to jump directly into the story, not so much introducing the characters as simply plopping them all together with the assumption that we already have a familiarity with them. That was its first big mistake.

Going into this film not privy to its existing characters and story arc was a daunting task in itself because it left me trying to piece together the personality puzzles that would explain why the characters acted the way they did. What didn’t help was the way it brought up plot points only to abandon them by the time the credits rolled. At the beginning of the movie, Diego is leaving the group due to what seems to be a number of reasons, including his failing eyesight and lack of stamina. It looked like this could be a crucial turning point in the film, detailing why Diego’s apparent depression is driving him away from the ones he loves, eventually working as a way for him to surmount his shortcomings, but that isn’t the case. In fact, his actual problem is never even explained. The error the film makes is assuming that the fact that these problems simply exist is enough to warrant a character breakthrough, but it’s not. Why is his eyesight failing and his stamina decreasing? Is it old age? Is he sick? It never explains.

One thing I’ve consistently said about voice acting is that it works best when the actors are unobtrusive, meaning that their voices shouldn’t be instantly recognizable because it creates a separation between reality and the fictional world in front of you. There are exceptions to the rule if the voice simply fits that specific character, like Seth Rogen as Bob in the recent Monsters Vs. Aliens, but most often than not, voice acting should be left to the unknowns. Unfortunately, Dawn of the Dinosaurs doesn’t follow this rule. Instead of hearing the characters, I usually heard their respective celebrity counterpart. The problem is that most of these voices contributed nothing to the characters. A thousand different voices could have been used for Romano’s wooly mammoth. He brings nothing that the plethora of other voice actors couldn’t have. His usage was unnecessary, as were the talents of Queen Latifah and Dennis Leary, who are both particularly uninspired.

One big reason this is so disappointing is because the voices don’t change. The actors don’t tweak their voices to fit the character and instead simply talk normally. The sole exceptions are John Leguizamo as Sid and an unrecognizable Simon Pegg as the dinosaur hunter, Buck. His character is the Puss in Boots of the Ice Age franchise, charming and funny with a perfectly fitting voice. He is one of the main reasons this movie was kept afloat instead of sinking under its own mediocre execution.

All of these problems could have been overlooked had the comedy worked. Children will undoubtedly love the slapstick humor and the silly visuals, but the whole ordeal is too silly for adults and eventually becomes a taxing event with embarrassingly unfunny jokes, including a parody on the jealous lover scenario where one depressingly watches his or her companion as he or she embraces someone else lovingly. The joke this time is that the jealous lover is a walnut, who has been abandoned by a squirrel in favor of another of his species. These jokes weren’t just bad, they were wretched.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs aims high, but can’t reach the bar set by so many others before it. It’s not that it’s terrible; it’s just an unfortunate waste. There’s been no shortage of quality animated movies for the masses to ingest this year. Why waste your time with this one?

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs receives 1.5/5