Death is Back in The Final Destination

Apparently, all it takes to make a new movie nowadays is adding or removing an article. The Fast and The Furious simply became Fast and Furious and now Final Destination has become The Final Destination. But adding "the" to the title does not a new movie make. The Final Destination is a carbon copy of the previous installments, with an underlying theme that you can't avoid death. Consequently, each movies follow the exact same story structure, from the opening scene straight to the final frame. (Spoilers!) It begins with the protagonist having a premonition that a bunch of people will die, he saves their lives because of it, they all begin to mysteriously drop one by one and then at the end, when the surviving characters think they've cheated death, they finally meet their demise. Cue the credits. The Final Destination marks the fourth time I've sat through what is essentially the exact same movie and it's wearing thin. It has some good moments, but it doesn't create a voice of its own to stand out among the previous installments.

The film begins with a group of friends at a race track. After going to the concession stand and arriving back at his seat, Nick (Bobby Campo) begins to see things flash through his head, bearing witness to events soon forthcoming where dozens of people, including him and his friends, die due to collateral damage from a wreck. Realizing that his premonition is about to become reality, he rushes him and his friends, along with a few others, outside of the stadium before the damage ensues. Thankful to be alive, they carry on with their normal lives, but they quickly notice a trend; the people who were supposed to die in that crash are now dying in puzzling ways, in the exact order Nick saw them die in his head.

The one and only reason The Final Destination exists is to capitalize on the growing popularity of 3D, though it is used here more as a last gasp of a dying franchise than the next logical step. The unique premise from the first movie became old after the second because nothing new came from it. It's like the filmmakers knew this and hoped that the 3D element would distract viewers enough to keep them from realizing that they were paying for the exact same film as the previous three. They must have also thought that this gimmick would make up for bad special effects. They were wrong.

Much like the characters themselves, everything between deaths is dispensable. The dialogue, story, relationships, drama, all of it is junk. You go to this movie to see people die in creative ways and that's perfectly fine, but even in harebrained slasher films there is a villain, something the Final Destination series has always lacked. Death is not a villain because he cannot be battled against (and probably wouldn't kill people off so elaborately). Hence, there's no real conflict here, though each film has tried desperately to make one.

With that said, the movie knows exactly what it is doing and gives the audience what they want; fancy death scenes with buckets of blood. Not content with knocking a girl's head off with a runaway car tire, the film also gives us a close-up of the aftermath, her mangled head sitting a few feet away from her lifeless body, all for the sake of pleasing the gore hounds in the audience.

And it isn't off-putting violence so many horror movies show these days because its tongue is firmly planted in its cheek, sometimes making the bloodletting humorous to watch. After the opening disaster, the main characters go to a coffee shop called Death by Caffeine. A racist character meets his demise during his attempt to set a cross on fire in a black man's yard while "Why Can't We Be Friends?" plays on the radio. A mother, angry with her children, tells them, "I've got my eye on you," before literally getting her eye all over them. Yes, this is a tasteless movie, but it knows it's tasteless and takes the advantage of self awareness to make a reasonably entertaining experience that I had a marginally good time with, though thoughts of this year's superior 3D horror film My Bloody Valentine echoed through my brain as I watched it and I couldn't shake the fact that this wasn't nearly as fun as that.

In one scene, the security guard who escaped his fate at the stadium explains that he lost his wife and child in a car accident, one he caused because he was drunk (an unnecessary dramatic turn in an otherwise goofy movie). His turn to die is coming up next and he tells the kids that he has made peace with it. "I'm ready to go," he says. At this point in the movie, so was I.

The Final Destination receives 2.5/5

Halloween II an Unfathomable Trainwreck

Rob Zombie broke into the world of cinema back in 2003 with his directorial debut, House of 1000 Corpses, a film with splendid originality and a strange sense of style that intrigued many. He returned two years later with The Devil's Rejects, a gloomy masterpiece of macabre horror that truly unnerved the soul. Then in 2007, he released a quasi-prequel, quasi-remake to John Carpenter's 1978 classic, Halloween and it was at that point when his luck ran out. That film was absolutely dreadful, but the sequel makes it look like a Hitchcockian masterpiece. If Zombie has proven anything in his four directorial features, it's that he can be brilliant when working with his own material, but when tackling an already existing franchise, he's a talentless hack, putting nothing onscreen that comes off as remotely scary or suspenseful.

Halloween II begins directly where the last one left off. Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) is "dead" after getting a gunshot to the face (dude's tough) and Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), the "sole" survivor, is now messed up beyond repair. Flash forward a year later, and she is still waking up screaming most nights because she lacks closure; Myers' body was never found. She just wants a peaceful life away from the nightmares, so she plasters her room with graffiti and hangs a giant poster of Charles Manson over her bed with huge letters saying, "In Charlie we trust." Because that's totally what someone in a similar position would do. She now lives with Annie (Danielle Harris) and her father, Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif), who are also haunted by that night a year ago because Annie was also almost another victim of Myers. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is traveling the nation promoting his new book, "The Devil Walks Among Us." He believes Michael is dead, but little does he know, his book's title is less hyperbole than he thinks. Get it? Because he actually is still walking among us! Man, that's smart!

Though the problems in Halloween II must number in the dozens, one stands head and shoulders above the rest. The reason Michael Myers has lasted in horror cinema as long as he has is because he began as a truly terrifying figure. He was an enigma, a shadow in the night that could be lurking anywhere, watching you, ready to strike. He tapped into the fear of the "boogeyman" (which Carpenter knowingly acknowledged in his original film) and pinched a nerve that nobody has pinched since. As the sequels went on, Myers began to receive more and more of the spotlight and none more so than in this latest outing. Myers isn't an enigma anymore; he's just another human being.

And the more human you make him, the less frightening he becomes. In this new flick, you hear him grunt and scream. You see him with his mask off. You even see him eat. These serve the implication that Myers is indeed human, knows what he's doing and is too blinded by pain and rage to care. He knows the value of human life, going out of his way to kill people irrelevant to his goal of tracking down Laurie and you sense that he needs to feel his victims' pain like a junkie needs a fix. That simply doesn't tap into what made the character scary in the first place.

In the 1978 original, he never came off as human. He had no feelings. He needed no explanation for his killing (the sibling connection between Laurie and Michael wasn't established until the sequel). All the audience, as well as the characters, knew was that somebody had come to town and was killing people off. That was all it needed to strike fear into the hearts of those who saw it. The focus in Zombie's Halloween II is Michael, thus taking away the mystery of the "boogeyman" and humanizing him to a fault, past the point of credulity.

In theory, Zombie had one interesting idea in exploring Michael's character. At certain points in the movie, we see what he sees. The man is violently sick, quite literally, and no doubt has enough demons in him to see the world through a vastly skewed perspective, disconnected from actuality, but most of his visions are of his dead ghost mom standing around ominously next to a big white horse. It's just as stupid as it sounds.

Rob Zombie's Halloween was a joke, completely soiling the legacy of the original through its identity crisis, carelessly blending two different movies into one, a prequel and a remake. It was terribly uneven, but at least it wasn't downright stupid like this one. Hands down, and by a wide margin, this new film is the worst in the entire 10 film franchise, including Halloween III, the one Michael Myers isn't even in. It's a cinematic abomination, similar to what would happen if competing companies could drop nukes on each other's films and this one took a direct hit.

If Halloween II doesn't effectively kill this franchise, then it's safe to say that nothing ever will. Considering the preposterous route it takes, setting up what could be an even dumber (if that's possible) threequel, with an ending that makes zero sense and a final shot that is intended to evoke fear and chills, but instead evokes laughter and spite, I personally hope this boogeyman is finally put to rest for good.

Halloween II receives 0/5

Post Grad Really Bad

Post Grad is a seriously unfocused movie with many a problem, from its questionable target audience (why is a movie about a girl going into the work force targeted at teens?) to its stupid side plots to its horrendous dialogue. This is an unsalvageable movie, devoid of meaning, relevance, wit, or heart. It may not rank among the worst 2009 has to offer (which exhibits the poor quality of films this year), but it's very much inept and deserves to flop at the box office and fade into oblivion, a fate easily bestowed upon dreck like this.

The film begins with Ryden (Alexis Bledel) vlogging (video blogging--how hip) to the audience about her upcoming graduation and how she has looked forward to this moment her entire life. Her final goal after that eventful day is to land a job at a major publishing company, a dream she has had as long as she can remember. Flash forward a few weeks and Ryden optimistically arrives for her interview, assuming she's going in with one foot through the door, but she ends up losing the job to the valedictorian of her college. Depressed, she seeks refuge in the form of best friend Adam (Zach Gilford), who loves her, though she is too blind to see it (which is totally not derivative of other movies). Through the help of her parents (played by Michael Keaton and Jane Lynch), Ryden sets off to find another job, but ends up facing more rejections than she can handle.

From the moment Adam pops onscreen (singing a song he wrote for Ryden, no less) it's painfully apparent that the two will end up together. That's not a spoiler because it's not like the movie tries to hide it. In fact, every plot turn comes straight out of Screenwriting 101, with a story so predictable you'll be able to foresee each scene before they happen.

Post Grad is poorly written, plain and simple. It's filled with cutesy, gag inducing tripe that plays directly towards teenage girls who think schmaltzy love shown in movies like this is parallel to how relationships play out in real life, though I doubt in actuality anybody has ever had a textbook film romance. The dialogue is also consistently bad. It's so homogeneous from scene to scene that you tend to forget characters are even talking, but then, seemingly out of the blue, comes some of the most absurd, nonsensical dialogue exchanges you're likely to ever hear. In one scene, Adam gives Ryden an Eskimo Pie, explaining that one bite of its lush sweetness can cure any and all emotional ailments. So she chomps a piece off the corner and says, "It's like God's giving birth in my mouth." Huh? What does that even mean?

Naturally, the performances are bad, especially from Keaton who overacts tremendously, despite providing the only laughs in this entire wasteland of mediocrity, but the problem here is missed opportunities. There's a good movie in this premise--a graduating college senior struggles to find a job--especially in the troubled times we live in now. Our crumbling economy is forcing companies to lay people off and it's making it increasingly harder for college graduates to find jobs, now competing not only with other graduates, but also people who have lost their old jobs and are looking for new ones. There's a story somewhere in this idea that really focuses on the hardships graduating seniors must endure in the real world, but this simply isn't it.

Instead, the majority of its time is concentrated on Ryden's romantic relationships, the aforementioned dumb-girl-can't-see-the-awesome-guy-right-in-front-of-her relationship, and her budding interest in her 34 year old neighbor who, through their time together, puts her life into perspective and allows her to see how special Adam is. Yawn. Potential exists in the narrative core of economic hardship, but by going down the typical romance route, Post Grad avoids any semblance of relevance in today's world.

Post Grad is only an hour and 29 minutes long (including credits) and it still doesn't have enough material to sustain that length, a sad prospect indeed. So to fill the holes, it establishes half-baked side plots inconsequential to the main story. For instance, Ryden's father invests in a number of belt buckles and hopes to sell them for a profit. It turns out that the person he bought them from was a thief and stole them from the legitimate seller. Through a strange turn of events, he is thrown in jail. Despite its contrivance, one can only hope that this would provide for, at the very least, a dramatic turn because God knows this movie needed one, but no. He stays in jail for one night, his family bails him out and the flick moves on without another word of these events. This side plot (along with others) did nothing but pad the length of an already struggling feature.

The real shame is that Alexis Bledel is cute and appealing as a person, but the material in this stinking cesspool of nothingness doesn't compliment her natural charms and she ends up coming off as annoying and angst ridden, despite having a damn good life. Her family loves her, she has a great guy who thinks the world of her and she's young, with plenty of opportunities to look forward to in the future. But alas, she couldn't get the job she had initially hoped for. Boo hoo. Unrealistically, everything ends up working out for her in the end, though she quickly has a revelation and decides that love is more important than a well paying job, a decision that would undoubtedly screw people over in the real world, but is played as courageous and honorable here.

I won't go so far as to say that Post Grad had "the makings of a good film" because it didn't. But the idea of a student struggling to adapt in the workplace, unable to find a good job because of our poor economy, would make a genuinely riveting movie if placed in more competent hands, and it's socially relevant to boot. As it stands, however, Post Grad is disappointingly nothing more than an extended piece of miscues and stumbles that fails to competently carry out even the most trivial of tasks.

Post Grad receives 1/5

Basterds One of Tarantino's Best

"I think this might be my masterpiece," says Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) at one point in Quentin Tarantino's new, poorly spelled film, Inglourious Basterds, presumably echoing the director's own sentiments, as he has been quoted numerous times saying that it is the best thing he has ever done. To put it succinctly, it's not. Is it a good film? No. It's a great film, but it's certainly not a masterpiece. Though it is unquestionably his best since Pulp Fiction, it doesn't match the brilliance of his first feature length movie, Reservoir Dogs and considering how good of a director Tarantino is, that's high praise.

Inglourious Basterds begins in Nazi occupied France in 1941 outside the home of a poor farmer. One day, a group of Nazis, led by Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) arrives at his door with an inkling that he may be housing a family of Jews. Through his audacious persuasion and clever tongue, Col. Landa talks the farmer into outing the Jews living underneath his floorboards, bringing his men in and having them shoot through the floorboards killing everybody except for one French-Jewish woman, Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) who escapes. Flash forward four years (which is dated as 1944--good math QT!) and she finds herself in ownership of a cinema that will be premiering a new German film for the German soldiers, and it seems that Hitler may be in attendance. Meanwhile, a ragtag group of men who call themselves the Basterds have joined together in an effort to kill as many Nazis as they can, collecting each and every scalp as a souvenir. Their main goal is to kill Hitler and all of the commanding officers, thus ending the war. They eventually learn of this movie premiere and begin to think that it could be the ticket they were waiting for.

What's surprising, especially after Tarantino's last few action-oriented pictures like Death Proof and Kill Bill (mainly Vol. 1), is that Basterds is very much a dialogue driven movie. It may take place during an alternate WWII, but this isn't a movie with non-stop 'splosions similar to the usual Michael Bay fiasco. At a runtime of just over two and a half hours, this summer's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was action upon action with a little more action sprinkled on top for good measure and it bored me to tears. Inglourious Basterds on the other hand has the same runtime and it's mostly talking, but it kept me entertained throughout. The story is moved along through character interactions rather than action and it proves that good writing should always come before good special effects.

And nobody can write a script, or more specifically, dialogue, like Quentin Tarantino and he has one-upped himself with Basterds, an aural soliloquy guaranteed to put the audience into a mesmerizing, awe induced trance. The dialogue isn't just good, it's positively delightful. Though every scene deserves praise, the opening in particular is a joy to listen to, with Col. Landa and the farmer playing mind games with each other, trying to intellectually outwit the other and hide any weaknesses that may reveal what their true intentions are. There is so much well written dialogue flowing back and forth that your head will spin. Inglourious Basterds is a movie that demands to be seen again. It's artistry is profound and not a single line goes to waste. This is an exceptionally well written movie.

Though some questionable casting is a bit confounding (Michael Myers as a British general is too much of a parallel with his comedic British alter ego Austin Powers and it doesn't work), the performances are by and large excellent. Brad Pitt is wonderful as Lt. Raine and works as the catalyst to Tarantino's trademark dark humor, giving off plenty of laughs with his hillbilly, Tennessee accent and lighthearted demeanor. However, it's Christoph Waltz who steals the show. He's entrancing as the black hearted, colloquial colonel that works as the antithesis to Lt. Raine's Basterds and deserves at the very least to be nominated for an Oscar come award season.

Inglourious Basterds isn't a film with a lot of flaws, as my incessant praise has most certainly shown by now, but along with the sometimes baffling casting, there were a few aspects of its design that were trite and unneeded. Occasionally, a scene would be accompanied by a redundant narration that did nothing but repeat what had already been established. For example, a plan is hatched midway through the movie where Shosanna plans on burning down the whole theater during the movie premiere while the Germans are locked inside, explaining that she can use the hundreds of 35mm reels in the building as a firestarter. Contextually, it's not hard to deduce that the 35mm reels burn well, yet the narrator (Samuel L. Jackson) still comes on and explains that they're highly flammable and burn three times faster than paper, an irrelevant fact that did nothing but dumb down what was otherwise a very smart movie.

Still, this is a great film that should be celebrated. It's been ten years in the making and the final product is exuberating. It's a technical marvel, as is usual with Tarantino who always delivers a beautiful looking movie, and aesthetically is nothing short of genius. Any problems that exist are relatively minor, though I'm afraid it may not have the lastingness some of the other, better films this year have had and could fall just shy of cracking a best of the year list. But make no mistake, Inglourious Basterds is accomplished filmmaking and you owe it to yourself to check it out.

Inglourious Basterds receives 4.5/5

World's Greatest Dad Darkly Funny

With a manipulative trailer that doesn't detail what the movie is actually about and a fluffy title that makes it seem much more happy-go-lucky than it really is, World's Greatest Dad has strengths and weaknesses that go beyond simple breakdowns of certain elements of the film. No, what makes or breaks this movie is the premise (that is clearly not defined in the trailer) and the execution of it. Spoilers are simply unavoidable, so take caution before reading.

The story to World's Greatest Dad is surprisingly dark and intricate, something you may not expect from a Robin Williams movie directed by Bobcat Goldthwait (yes, that Bobcat Goldthwait), but indeed it is. Williams plays Lance Clayton, a poetry teacher and struggling writer who has written everything from novels to children's stories, but has never been published. When we meet him, we find he is working on his fifth novel and he has promised himself that if it doesn't make it to print, he'd give up forever. He has a son maked Kyle (Daryl Sabara), a homophobic, perverted, hateful kid who has only one friend, Andrew (Evan Martin), and hardly even likes him. He looks down on everybody, including his father who is becoming increasingly annoyed with his bad conduct in school and hostile behavior towards others, though he still does everything he can to make him happy.

One night, Lance walks in on Kyle masturbating through asphyxiation, cutting off oxygen to his brain until the point of ejaculation. Lance explains to Kyle how dangerous it is and how he could kill himself in the process, to which Kyle scoffs at him and calls him a "fag." Meanwhile, Lance is courting a fellow teacher, Claire (Alexie Gilmore), and after dropping her off one night and rushing home to join his son, he finds Kyle dead, accidentally killing himself despite his father's warnings. Perhaps through shame, Lance makes it look like a suicide, stringing Kyle up by his neck in his closet and typing up a false suicide note, which is later published in the school newspaper where Kyle's classmates latch onto it, allowing Lance to capitalize on his death. His previously desolate poetry class is now populated with students, his love life heats up, and he finally finds himself with publishing opportunities, though it is of Kyle's fabricated diary that Lance has passed off as his son's.

This is a dark, dark movie and the trick to making a successful black comedy is somehow making the audience feel a certain way and generating laughs out of things that one normally wouldn't laugh at. World's Greatest Dad works because, as terrible as it may sound, you end up hating Kyle. The kid is a scumbag, a disgusting, vile waste of life with zero respect for anybody around him, yelling sexual obscenities at passers-by and making his father's life a living hell, despite Lance's best efforts to love him, a feat I doubt many could stomach. Though you initially feel bad for Lance when watching him break down in tears after his son's death, you, as well as him, quickly realize how much better his life will be now that he's gone. It's a shocking thing to say, but that's why the movie works. I suspect the intention of Goldthwait (who also wrote it) was for the audience to feel this way. It makes you feel dirty for feeling gladness over this kid's demise. It's actually quite brilliant.

And that's why you find yourself laughing at scenes you wouldn't otherwise laugh at. Shortly after Kyle's passing, Lance comes across a row of sexually explicit magazines on a street corner, begins to think of his dead son who was obsessed with any and all forms of pornography and begins to sob uncontrollably while a bystander looks at him puzzlingly. He's mourning the death of his son, but you find yourself giggling. In reality, this isn't funny, but in the movie where the wonderful combination of drama and dark humor mix so effectively, it is.

The impressive blend of two polar opposite tones isn't the film's problem, though. It's the story that takes a turn for the worse. The first hour or so is superbly crafted, but then it begins to fall apart through nonsensical plot turns. It felt like Goldthwait came up with an excellent premise and started strong out of the gate, but then didn't know where to go with it, taking its authenticity and shattering it with an exaggerated aftermath of Lance's actions. What happens is that every student in school becomes inspired by Kyle's fake suicide note and the halls become adorned with Kyle paraphernalia. Inspirational signs and posters cover the walls, shirts become emblazoned with pictures of Kyle (with one reading, "WWKD") and the ones without his picture are covered with buttons in honor of him. One student carves the name "Kyle" in her arm so as to make an everlasting scar, another gets a pictorial tattoo of his ugly mug, and another is so inspired that he quits his dependency on drugs. They all lift him up as a fallen idol and it becomes a bit much.

Tack onto this a ridiculous ending where Lance tells everybody what he did without consequence and then books it through the halls tearing off his clothes in slow motion (to the tune of David Bowie's "Under Pressure" no less--not very subtle). It's absolutely absurd, intentionally or unintentionally I'm not sure, but stupid nonetheless. In fact, it was so stupid I actually kind of enjoyed it, laughing the hardest I had laughed the whole movie. The real problem is that this ending is too abrupt, completely throwing out the notion that he might get caught, as one of his colleagues is shown studying Kyle's death reports throughout the film, seemingly getting closer to the truth. But that doesn't happen. It just ends.

The flick, perhaps purposely so, reminded me of James Frey's, "A Million Little Pieces," the book that garnered lots of controversy after the discovery that much of its supposed true story was actually fake. In the movie, Lance appears on a similar daytime talk show to promote Kyle's made up journal and like "A Million Little Pieces," lots of people become affected by it. After reading it, one student explains to Lance that his father was abusive and he was going to kill himself, but Kyle's inspirational words saved his life. This raises an interesting question. Lance may be wrongfully using his son's death for his own gain, but he's also helping many others in the process. How far is too far? Where do you draw the line?

World's Greatest Dad never really gives you a clear answer to those questions and may not even intend to bring them up at all. Nevertheless, it is a decidedly thought provoking film that is spearheaded by Robin Williams' outstanding performance. He's a fine actor when given the chance to be dramatic (as seen in One Hour Photo), and his talent for drama, as well as comedy, shine through here. Still, the movie can't keep up with his delightful dexterity. The unbelievable zig zags the story eventually takes don't bode well with the events antecedent to them, making this one of the most uenven flicks I've seen since Hancock, though to be fair, it still fares much better than that film.

World's Greatest Dad isn't a laugh riot and it exhaustingly collapses in the end, but it's unlike anything I've seen in recent memory, and that's saying something.

World's Greatest Dad receives 3.5/5

X-Games 3D is Nothing New

X-Games 3D: The Movie is proving to be a difficult review. How do I start it out? What do I write? It has no story. It has no arc. It has no conflict. It has no characters. Hell, it's barely even a movie. This thing exists for one purpose: to give more exposure to the annual X-Games where extreme sports athletes come from around the world to defy gravity and perform monstrous stunts most can only dream of. Basically, it's one giant product placement.

There's a good movie somewhere in here, a focused documentary that really puts a story to these athletes, but this isn't it. There is zero narrative here with the only struggles being the struggles to complete the tricks, which is hardly a reason to slap together a half-assed pseudo-documentary. I use the term "pseudo" because this most certainly is not a traditional documentary. Even documentaries have a purpose and tell a story. This one doesn't. It simply introduces some athletes and then you watch them perform in a variety of X-Games competitions.

This why the movie is a conundrum. If you're a big X-Games fan, there's nothing new here. Most, if not all of the competition footage was pulled directly from last year's games, including the Big Air climax that rounds out the last third of the film. So chances are you have seen this footage already. If you're not a fan, then there's no point in seeing this movie because you likely won't care. It's a Catch-22.

Of course, there's the 3D, which is the only reason to watch it, though the core footage is nothing you can't see by simply staying home and watching ESPN. While the 3D is quite good from a technical standpoint, with terrific vibrancy and depth of field used in an attempt to pull the viewer into the arena with the athletes, I found it to be a bit of a distraction. The tricks are breathtaking (though I can't stress enough how easy it is to find the footage elsewhere), making my heart pound in anticipation for each death defying trick, but the gimmick of 3D becomes too much at times. I would have loved to have witnessed this normally, though I suspect the 3D is the only reason for a theatrical release in the first place.

Despite the film's overall irrelevance, I must admit how impressed I was by specific shots. There were some great shots of the athletes at work where the camera would get up close and personal. Here, it slows down allowing us to see every drop of sweat and turn of the board. It's quite beautiful and surprisingly artistic how these men pull off their awe-inspiring feats.

What it all boils down to is that the competition footage is excellent and the rest, like the interview material, is kind of boring. Though the good outweighs the bad, it's the bad that is new while the good is easily accessible on YouTube and unworthy of a feature length film. It's exciting, but it's not something I particularly needed to see in the theater. Still, see it I did and I was entertained enough by the fearless athletes to warrant a recommendation. But don't come complaining to me when you realize you could have watched the whole thing on television for free.

X-Games 3D: The Movie receives 2.5/5

Bandslam a Hidden Gem

Upon first glance, it would be easy to brush off Bandslam as another example of the declining quality of inexplicably popular tween franchises. It's too easy to laugh at Twilight fans who cried after seeing the New Moon trailer. It's bewildering the amount of people who see High School Musical as a shining example of the musical genre, and the trailers for this film do little to separate itself apart from that franchise (even going so far as to highlight HSM star, Vanessa Hudgens, who actually plays a smaller role in this picture than you might think). Yes, it seemed like Bandslam was another routinely plotted, dumbed down kids film with little heart or soul. Well, it wasn't. Many will call Bandslam "good for what it is," but it's so much more than that and deserves an audience. Surprisingly, this is an excellent movie.

The film follows Will Burton, played by Gaelan Connell, an indie rock music lover living in Cincinnati, miserable and friendless in a world populated by cliques, none of which he fits into. He dreams of getting out of there and starting anew somewhere else. Luckily, his wish is about to come true because his mother, wonderfully played by Lisa Kudrow, has landed a job in Lodi, New Jersey, so they pack their stuff and move away. Once he arrives at his new school, he meets two beautiful girls whom he begins to establish friendships with, Charlotte Banks, played by Alyson Michalka, and Sa5m (the 5 is silent), played by Vanessa Hudgens. With a kindling romance sparking between Will and Sam (I refuse to type the 5 again out of principle), Charlotte employs Will as her band manager, taking heed to his knowledge of music. In a mere few weeks, the biggest event of the year, Bandslam, is kicking off, and she hopes he will help her band win.

There are a few things separating Bandslam from the cavalcade of other similar films released in recent memory. Though it is a tween film and each character in it possesses their own problems, it is not bogged down by excessive teenage angst. Instead of wallowing in their own self pity, these characters find things that make them happy even when everything around them tries to bring them down. Will, for instance, has had a terrible past, disconsolate and alone in a school full of nasty kids who gave him the nickname "Dewey" (a reference to his father's DWI that plays a major role in his character development), but he has a strong passion for music, looking past the hardships of life and seeing the joys. Every prominent character in the movie is similarly explored. They all have problems and they all work to overcome them.

But these problems aren't simply throwaway situations that every teenager goes through, like the usual phases in life where they are more worried about their hair and how they are perceived by the opposite sex than anything relevant. No, Bandslam deals with real issues: growing up, forming lasting relationships, and even the death of a parent. It doesn't romanticize high school like so many other teen-targeted films, but portrays a realistic one, showing the hurdles they may have to face when they get there.

Another distinction one can make from other teen movies is the positive portrayal of adult figures. Unlike other films where the parent is blindly unaware of what his or her child is doing (if they even exist at all), Will's mother plays a major role in his life, taking interest in his activities, even attending a couple of Will's band practices, offering her encouragement and helping in any way she can. She isn't an afterthought in Will's life. She is everything in it, at least until he finds some friends and begins to manage this band, though she never disappears. It's refreshing to see a loving parent who isn't a dunderheaded idiot and a mother/son relationship that becomes one of the strongest assets to the film. In other similar outings, a "kid power" theme dominates, but this movie's theme is about love and kindness in any relationship, be it family or friends, and is a great message for children to hear.

Bandslam is authentic through and through, boasting an intelligent script and superb performances. Kudrow and Connell in particular are fantastic, ably delivering quick, witty one-liners, but staying keen enough to know when to subdue themselves during dramatic turns. Though still exaggerated a bit, this high school felt authentic and the film is the first in some time that reminded me of my high school experience, the good and the bad. Despite the occasional hiccup in believability, Bandslam turned out to be a wonderful surprise that I cannot recommend highly enough.

Bandslam receives 4/5

Shorts Falls Short

Robert Rodriguez is an interesting director. He refuses to hold back when crafting a film for adults, as seen with his terrifically gory Grindhouse feature, Planet Terror and George Clooney classic, From Dusk Till Dawn. But he also seems to have a childlike side to him with movies like The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl and the Spy Kids trilogy under his belt. Regrettably, I haven't seen the latter films. His latest kid-centric flick, Shorts, is my first foray into his silly side and though it doesn't have me itching to see the others, it was a decent diversion while it lasted.

The story in Shorts centers around a group of people living in the technologically advanced town of Black Falls, the hometown of Black Box Inc., a company that designs and develops a tool with literally thousands of uses: you name it, the Black Box can do it. One day, a group of boys finds a rainbow colored rock capable of granting the holder any wish one can think up, but they wind up losing it, only for it to turn up in the possession of Toe Thompson (Jimmy Bennett). Eventually, the head of Black Box Inc., Mr. Black (James Spader), learns of the rock's powers and attempts to attain it however he can.

As Toe explains at the beginning of the flick, so much has happened since the discovery of the rock that it has become difficult to remember what events came first, saying, "I'm going to have to tell the story completely out of order, in a series of shorts." (Cue the opening title.) From this point on, the movie chronicles five different episodes in non-sequential order, all related around the magical rock and all somehow interconnected.

Shorts starts out on a high note, enjoyably over the top not in an an eye rolling Disney Channel kind of way, but in a knowing, self-deprecating kind of way where the film makes fun of itself more than anything else. I particularly loved the creativity on display in these early portions of the film showing how imaginative these kids were, making certain situations seem much worse than they really were, including one excellent scene where a simple throw of a rock caused a resounding explosion, as if grenades were falling all around the boys. It was wonderful.

But then it quickly deteriorates into immature scatological jokes and slapstick humor clearly aimed at children and loses the adults in the process. What had the makings of a good family film suddenly began to unexpectedly decline in quality. A couple of examples stand out when detailing how it made this abrupt turn. At one point in the movie, a character named Loogie is spit up (like a loogie! Get it?!) by a crocodile and then immediately pooped on by a bird. Another character named Nose picks a booger (out of his nose! Get it?!) and flicks it on a table, where it transforms into a booger monster. It wasn't funny or interesting, though I suspect the 12 and under crowd will rollick in its absurdity and puerile humor.

It became all too apparent that Shorts decided to take the low road and go for the gag effect in order to make children scream in happiness and disgust. After the booger monster starts to attack the children, Nose picks another booger and threatens to eat it, claiming it as a friend of the monster. Here, the camera kindly zooms in on it so we can see the oozing grossness up close. Wonderful.

Still, I did enjoy the relative ingenuity of the early beginnings. I loved how quick, seemingly throwaway lines were later brought up again, putting some context to them, like early in the movie when Loogie says that a crocodile ate his homework, prompting everybody in class to laugh at him. Later in the movie, we see these past events and watch him dive headfirst into the stomach of one of the beasts, wrangle his way out and pull his homework out of his pocket in its destroyed state, confirming his bizarre statement. The writing wasn't anything particularly astonishing, but it was nice to see some thought put into it nonetheless.

There is a clever recurring joke in Shorts that remains funny throughout (though it does teeter on the line of overkill) showing a sibling rivalry stare contest where the first one who blinks loses. Of course, neither ever blink and it goes on for the duration of the movie, mostly seen in the background or in quick glances. It works because with all of the hoopla going on in the film, you forget about these characters only to have them briefly reintroduced, inducing a nice smile. It was the skillfulness of moments like these that saved this flick from its rapid drollery breakdown. But despite this and the best efforts from the mostly likable cast, Shorts falls just short of being recommendable.

Shorts receives 2.5/5

Ponyo an Animated Masterpiece

It seems that as far as Americans are concerned, the leading contender in animation is Pixar. Having produced instant classics like Wall-E, Toy Story, and Finding Nemo, it's a rightful assessment. However, across the seas is a man named Hayao Miyazaki who the rest of the world considers the master of animation. With excellent films like Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away under his belt, he has finally delivered his masterpiece, Ponyo, a tour de force of imagination and wonderment that rivals anything Pixar has ever done and easily earns a spot on my best of the year list.

The story centers around Ponyo (voiced by Noah Cyrus), a fish who lives in the ocean with her father, a sorcerer named Fujimoto (voiced by Liam Neeson). She is a curious fish and wants to see more of the world, essentially running away from her father, but due to the pollution in the water, she finds herself stuck in a glass jar washed up on a nearby shore. Lucky for her, an adventurous five year old boy named Sosuke (voiced by Frankie Jonas) finds her and breaks the glass open, fearful that she may be dead. He cuts himself in the process and Ponyo licks the blood off of his finger, revitalizing herself. The blood begins to morph her into a little girl and she spouts arms and legs. She eventually makes a strong connection with the boy, but Fujimoto is determined to get her back, despite her desire to stay with Sosuke.

Ponyo is like a coloring book come to beautiful life, exquisite in its detail, yet humble in its vision. Unlike some animated movies, it isn't self-absorbed, with its animation working more for the purpose of telling the story rather than screaming, "Look what we can do!" at every turn. It's unique from what we normally see in movies, sublimely blending magnificently detailed hand-drawn animation with a still environment, akin to something like a painting. With the CGI spectacles we've become accustomed to, Ponyo creates a distinct style all its own.

There are many moments of epic grandeur in Ponyo, with feasts for the eyes and excitement for the soul, including a mind-blowing chase through the streets where Ponyo, running along the top of a school of fish, races after Sosuke and his mother in their car as tsunami waves crash down all around them. With a muttered "Wow," I was swept away in the film, with my spirits soaring high all the way until the credits began to roll.

Despite its obvious fictitious story, there's a wonderful humanity to Ponyo that keeps it grounded in reality. In the film, the moon has fallen out of its orbit and is getting closer to Earth because of a magical elixir that Ponyo has absorbed. The only thing that can save the world from an inevitable collision is if Sosuke and Ponyo can pass a test of true love, which would make Ponyo permanently human and restore the moon back to its proper course. It's an uncommonly touching story that's refreshingly poignant and deserves to be seen.

There is also some terrific humor, not laugh out loud funny, but jocular in a childlike way, where you see yourself in little Ponyo, running around discovering new things, endlessly fascinated by seemingly insignificant finds. Her and Sosuke are two of the most likable and adorable characters to grace the screen all year and their boundless charm and puerile sensibilities will happily tap into the inner child of any adult who is lucky enough to witness this phenomenal film.

Ponyo is the culmination of Miyazaki's many years of work and it has resulted in a majestic tale, ambrosial and grandiose, perpetually inventive and awe inspiring at all times. I usually don't glance at reviews before I write my own so as not to taint my thoughts with someone else's. But as I sat here typing this up with a never ceasing smile on my face, I became curious as to what America's favorite critic, Rober Ebert, had to say. He ended his review with a perfect summation of the film and since I could never end mine with more relevant words, I'll let him close me out. "There are so few movies that can delight both a small child and the adult in the next seat. Here is one of them."

Ditto.

Ponyo receives 5/5

The Time Traveler's Wife is Pure Schlock

If there's one genre in cinema that needs a complete overhaul, it's romance. It is incredibly difficult to make an authentic romance movie that features an endearing story that tugs at your heartstrings, either through happiness for a kindling romance or heartbreak over a tragedy. The latest to tackle the genre is The Time Traveler's Wife, which refreshingly breaks convention and attempts to do something fresh and new, but fails miserably. What could have been a unique take on the tired genre ends up as a maudlin, overbearingly melodramatic flick that manipulates your emotions from the get go, and doesn't even do that particularly well.

Henry (Eric Bana) is a time traveler. As a young six year old boy, he discovered his unique power as he disappeared in front of his mother's eyes, reappearing seconds later outside of the car they were traveling in only to see a truck smash into it, killing his mom instantly. Confused and grief-stricken, an older Henry appears and tells him there is nothing he can do about it and explains what happened, that he traveled through time. Years later, he meets Clare (Rachel McAdams) in a library. He doesn't know her, but she knows everything about him and claims to have known him since she was a little girl. It turns out a future version of himself had gone to see her and she has waited her whole life to finally run into him. Naturally, their romance kindles and they eventually get married, but because of his random disappearances to other times, of which he cannot control, their marriage becomes a tumultuous ride, testing the power of their love.

If that sounds like schlock to you, then you have a keen perception of just how dumb this movie is. It's a cornball flick that strangely left me feeling cold. I'm a huge sap and although I may not necessarily cry in every movie, I tend to choke up in anything remotely sad, but not in this. I barely got goose bumps and that's only because I was sitting under a fan blowing out cold air. In a well done movie, the tragedy that befalls these characters would be heartrending. In schmaltzy tripe like this, it comes off as silly.

Take away its gag inducing drivel of teary-eyed manipulation and you still have a movie with so many inconsistencies that it makes you wonder if the writers took the time to think about it at all. Allow me to pick apart some key phrases of dialogue that go against the very fabric of this movie's existence. In an early scene with his father, Henry explains that he can't control when or where he goes back in time. He also says that he cannot change what happens in the future while he is in the past, which begs the question, if he is actually there, how does that work?

As a time traveler, his physical tangibility implies that he could indeed change things through his actions. Never mind the innumerable amount of paradoxes his constant jumping back and forth would create, but consider for a moment how easy it would be to simply talk to someone and avoid the supposed foregone conclusions of future events. At one point in the movie, he jumps to a time when he was only three years old and he runs into his mother on the subway, introducing himself, but playing coy to the fact that he is her son. He may not be able to make it in time to save her from the crash, but why not just tell her right there what happens and then offer her proof that he is a time traveler, a proof he gives numerous other people throughout the movie, thus saving her life?

It's a confusing argument, I know, but the film is confusing enough itself if, God help you, you try to piece together the rips in the space time continuum that these constant jumps would inevitably cause. The flick has a science fiction bend to it and I'm willing to go along with the idea that Henry can travel through time, but the rules of it must be abided by. The simple truth is this: going back in time and interacting with anybody at all will change the future, but that doesn't happen here. The film may be different, but it's not authentic and that is its problem.

The Time Traveler's Wife is a nauseating romance movie, with hardly a redeeming quality. There are many more headaches to be found other than the ones listed above, including dialogue that felt like it was ripped from a Lifetime movie and acting akin to bad soap operas, complete with an over emphasis of emotions and long, awkward stares that are supposed to be endearing, but come off as kind of weird. This mawkish film is rubbish through and through and it carries an absurd premise that doesn't fail because it's unrealistic, but because it's handled so negligently. Once it gets to the unintentionally uproarious notion of time traveling fetuses, you'll have long since checked out.

Maybe my heart isn't quite as innocent as I thought, reserving a little corner of darkness where contempt and hatred lie. Or maybe The Time Traveler's Wife is a terrible film. I'd like to believe it's the latter.

The Time Traveler's Wife receives 0.5/5

The Goods Fails To Deliver

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard is not an easily defendable movie. There are so many problems with it, ranging from an uninspired story to a forced love connection to bland direction from first timer Neal Brennan, whose previous work consists of a television movie starring Chris Kattan called Totally Awesome (which I can only imagine is pure dreck), that I simply can't sit here and justify a recommendation. So I'm not. But the simple truth is that the movie is rather funny, not hilariously so, to the point where you can look past its poor filmmaking, but enough so that your time planted in your seat isn't a total waste. The Goods is forgettable at best, but there are enough quotable lines here to keep your interest through its blissfully short 90 minute runtime.

Jeremy Piven plays Don "The Goods" Ready, a wisecracking, smooth talking, colloquial know-it-all whose penchant for selling cars has netted him employment as a car pusher all over the country. His newest job lands him at Selleck Motors in Temecula, California. They're a failing business and if they don't increase their numbers quickly, they will be forced into bankruptcy and taken over by their competitors, Harding Imports. Along with his team, Jibby (Ving Rhames), Babs (Kathryn Hahn), and Brent (David Koechner), Don makes the guarantee that he will save the business in the one weekend he is employed. However, he runs into a little kink when he begins to fall in love with the boss's daughter, Ivy (Jordana Spiro), potentially jeopardizing the operation.

As you can surely tell, there is little story here. The set-up is contrived and the unnecessary romance does nothing to further it along. There is, quite literally, nothing in regards to narrative to grasp onto in this film, an obvious bad sign. When it does try to switch things up and add another layer to its already cockamamie story, it elicits nothing but disgust, as seen with the side story of Babs trying to have sex with Peter (Rob Riggle), a 10 year old with a pituitary problem that makes him look like he's 30. This is played for laughs, but it comes off as uncomfortably distasteful.

A common criticism for bad comedies is the "one note joke" observation, the idea that the film in question repeats one prevalent theme, like fart jokes or sex jokes, over and over. The Goods is more like a seven note joke film, with each character personifying one of them. One character is angry all the time, verbally abusing people. Another is gay and hits on men. Yet another is in a boy band and his jokes are tied around that. The list goes on and on. The film as a whole isn't one note, but the characters are and much like a one note film, their shtick gets old by the end, although at a decelerated pace due to its abundance of one note jokes (still with me?).

That doesn't make much sense, but I doubt the reasoning behind the production of this movie does either, so why bother with the semantics? After all, I laughed. Not as much as I would have liked, but I did nonetheless. The funniest part, surprisingly enough, is a Will Ferrell cameo that further sanctions my argument that he is hilarious in 10 minute bursts, but cannot sustain a feature length movie.

If there's a saving grace to this otherwise tiresome fodder, it is Jeremy Piven who is excellent, even in movies that aren't particularly good, like this one. Though each character is one-dimensional, Piven does the best he can with his and manages to squeeze a few laughs out of nothing, as does the rest of the cast. As signaled through my (relative) brevity, I have little to say about this movie. It's a comedy and I found it somewhat funny, but it takes more than that to make a good film. In the end, I just don't have the heart to recommend The Goods.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard receives 2.5/5

District 9 Exceptionally Unique

District 9 is an ambitious film. It's unlike anything I've ever seen, insightful in its messages and tense in its action, successfully delivering a wonderful, unique, and thought provoking experience guaranteed to stay with you for months after. Though not perfect, District 9 is the breath of fresh air this summer of disappointing blockbusters needed.

Back in 1982, a strange ship came to Earth, hovering over the land of Johannesburg, South Africa. After three long months, the ship was cut into and an innumerable amount of aliens were found inside. The creatures were forced into quarantine, living in refugee camps dubbed "District 9." Twenty-eight years later, the aliens are still there and control over their welfare has been handed over to the MNU Alien Civil Affairs, who plan on moving them to a different location and have begun to evict them from their makeshift homes. Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is the head of the MNU and while in District 9 overseeing the removal of the aliens, he is sprayed by a mysterious canister housing a strange liquid, which begins to mutate him into one of the creatures. Wanting to study him, MNU seizes him, but he breaks free and joins up with a resident alien creature who promises to fix him if he helps him get back home.

District 9 is a film about racism, refugees and the camps they live in. It takes a science fiction story and draws many parallels to real life, criticizing why we do or do not attempt to help others. Refugee camps are supposed to be temporary places to live, helping its inhabitants get through a rough time, such as a war, but many are dirty and inhospitable, working more like a prison than anything else, keeping a large number of people in a small area of land. In the movie, the MNU claims that they want to move the aliens for humanitarian reasons, but it is explained that their real motivation was to find alien weaponry and figure out how to use them, which would bank them lots of money in the process.

The movie makes the claim that there is always an outside motivation, which is why many terrible refugee camps still exist today. Why hasn't America helped Darfur and the millions of people housed in refugee camps over there? There's not enough to benefit us. Why assist a refugee camp if you can't get anything back in return? De Merwe, the head of the MNU, supports this idea at one point in the movie. After finding a huge stash of weapons, he excitedly says, "This is Christmas. This is the biggest find I've ever seen," effectively securing that he cares not about the well being of these living creatures, but is motivated instead by money.

District 9 also explores intolerance and hatred, showing how some people see others as a lower form of life, unimportant when compared to themselves and others like them. The people of Johannesburg have begun to hate the aliens, including the MNU who are supposed to protect them. Early in the movie, De Merwe pulls tubes out of an unborn fetus killing it instantly, only to snicker and hand the remains off to a co-worker, telling him to keep it as a souvenir as a reminder of his "first abortion." After he begins to mutate and work alongside another alien, of which has a child, the little one says to him, "We are the same," to which he angrily replies, "We aren't the same!" He's not so much afraid of the changes taking place, but rather that he is becoming something he has spent the last few decades hating.

That's not to say that the whole thing is one giant sermon. Take away the social messages and you still have a riveting, tense movie sporting a truly epic story with a perfect conclusion guaranteed to give you goosebumps. This is a special film, wonderfully rounded out, with great care taken to every aspect of its design. Made with a modest budget of around 30 million dollars, the movie looks absolutely beautiful, with special effects that seamlessly integrate themselves into the real world to a dazzling effect. Combine this with the terrific direction from Neill Blomkamp in his feature directorial debut and you have a visually pleasing movie that showcases the combined efforts of the tremendous skill at hand.

If District 9 stumbles on anything, it is its drastic switch in style. The film begins as a mockumentary, telling a fake story through the conventions of a documentary, complete with historical information and testimonies. Through this style, it explains how the aliens came to Earth and gives some back story on De Merwe, complete with a camera crew following him around during his time in District 9 serving the aliens their eviction notices, but it disappointingly abandons this method fairly early on, only briefly resurrecting it near the end.

Although vital to the story, there are scenes with just the aliens that are not shot, or intended to look like a documentary. Other scenes have Neill on the run after he begins his transformation, but he doesn't address the camera as he does earlier in the movie because there is nobody there with him. This type of footage would be impossible to have short of recreations. Once the movie drops the documentary style angle, one starts to wonder why they went that way to begin with. It's a radical detachment from the previously established tone of the film, though only a minor flaw when surrounded by an otherwise brilliant film.

For District 9 to work, it had to be done with unknowns and it rightfully is. It's a groundbreaking tale that desperately needed authenticity and by using unknown actors, who all give outstanding performances, the movie works exceedingly well, to the point where you forget you're watching a movie and begin to really invest in what is happening onscreen. Unfortunately, it starts to drift away from the message as it goes on, devolving into yet another action flick. Nevertheless, it's immensely entertaining and you likely won't care once you see the unrelenting carnage that unfolds. This is a superb first outing for director Neill Blomkamp and I can't wait to see his next film. If it's half as good as District 9, it will be well worth watching.

District 9 receives 4.5/5

G.I. Joe Another Stupid Action Film

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a film that I suspect will split viewers into two different groups. Some will find it enjoyably campy and others unbearably stupid. I fall into the latter category. Despite the occasional thrill and some awful dialogue that you can't help but laugh at, The Rise of Cobra is an empty void of nonsensical stupidity, a vapid waste of time guaranteed to delight the 13 year old boys it is targeted at who have no sense of what constitutes a good film.

G.I. Joe is an exercise in total nonsense featuring an irrelevant story where the less said about it, the better. It has something to do with a company called Mars who builds nanotech warheads capable of eating through metal, from the smallest car to the largest buildings and the Joes have to stop it from falling into the wrong hands. In other words, it's like every other action movie, except dumber.

Nevertheless, the movie starts out on a high note, with a spectacular action scene that, although over the top and completely ridiculous, was a lot of fun. It proved that outrageous action can work in the right context and this tonge-in-cheek drollery seemed to know exactly what it was doing. It was directed stylishly and it warranted a cautious optimism, promising better things to come. They never did.

The only other worthwhile scene is an action packed chase through the streets of Paris where the characters cause wanton amounts of destruction, though the most exciting parts of it are shown in the trailer. The rest of the film, including the numerous other action scenes, is a by the numbers affair with limited originality, only with the clichés ramped up to 11. One scene depicts General Hawk, played by Dennis Quaid, as he explains to his troops that he must operate independently of the government, breaking his orders to stand down, and telling them all that they are welcome to leave or stay and fight for a good cause. Of course, they all stay and fight as the music swells up and the general slowly reveals a cocked smirk expressing his happiness and gratitude. It just brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it?

I usually prefer a good story with my action movies, but no matter what nonsense the writers were going to come up with for this, it's still a movie based on toys and over the top action scenes reminiscent of the opening should have been its focus. Unfortunately, it spends far too much time in flashbacks showcasing the back stories of a handful of characters. It must have flashed back five or six times detailing important events in their lives, explaining why they have chosen to be good or evil, but I didn't care about what was happening in the present timeline, much less in the past.

I feel like a broken record because every couple of movies or so, it seems I have to use the phrase "terrible dialogue" to describe why one doesn't work. G.I. Joe is no different. It's filled to the brim with idiotic euphemisms like, "You get knocked down, you get back up," and exchanges between characters where one says, "You can't save me Duke!" to which he replies, "I'm not giving up on you!" The dialogue plays out like it was ripped from a bad after school special.

Naturally, the performances are terrible and the dozens of attempts at humor, usually through Marlon Wayans, the comic relief (a term I use very loosely here), all fall flat. None of these problems are huge enough to destroy the movie on their own, but when grouped together, they work cooperatively to make G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra yet another disappointing summer blockbuster that fails to live up to its promises. Now you know this movie sucks and knowing is half the battle. Zing!

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra receives 1.5/5

The Boredom of Cooking

As a film lover, I am sometimes forced to watch movies that hold little interest to me, though I still try to go into every one with no bias, throwing away how I personally feel about the subject matter and judging it on its own merits. Usually I can do that and see the film for what it is. I couldn't do that with Julie & Julia. Watching a pair of women cook for two hours simply isn't my idea of a good time.

Amy Adams plays Julie, an emotionally lost woman who feels like she is at a crossroads. Her friends are tremendously successful, landing multi-million dollar projects and bringing home the big bucks while she sits at a cubicle, frustrated at the lack of focus in her life. To cope, she decides to start a blog, writing about her endeavor to work through Julia Child's famous cook book, "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." She sets the time period to one year and as she works through the 524 recipes, her blog gradually gets more and more exposure.

The film flashes back and forth chronicling Julie's life as well as Julia's, played by Meryl Streep, as she also seems to be at a crossroads due to a lack of focus in her life, eventually taking up her love of cooking and detailing the barriers she had to break through to become the person Julie now adores. It tries to create a parallel between the two, but I didn't care about either. I simply couldn't connect with the women because I'm not a cooker. I can't tell a spatula from a ladle. I can barely microwave a hot dog without burning it, and even then I only get it right half the time. Cooking isn't my forte. I don't even find it mildly interesting and, therefore, couldn't immerse myself into the movie.

Though it's really not all that impressive anyway. Despite strong performances from the leads, especially Meryl Streep who perfectly embodies Child, and competent direction from Nora Ephron, the movie lacks any semblance of what one would traditionally call a story. There is no conflict here other than Julie and Julia's internal conflicts, but even that is only the beginning of the movie. Some type of conflict must exist within the length of the story, usually to set up a climax and bring about a resolution. That's Storytelling 101 folks and this movie flubs up the most basic of structures.

Some would argue that the disputes between Julie and her husband allow for conflict in the movie, which is hardly the case. All married couples argue. Late in the movie, a newspaper reporter tells Julie via phone that Julia heard about her blog and didn't like the idea, prompting an emotional breakdown before her husband quickly rectifies the situation, calming her down through his husbandly love. These examples of such insignificant quarrels are nothing but trite attempts at creating the illusion of a story.

I was unable to attend a pre-screening for Julie & Julia and was forced to watch it with its target audience, women 40 and up (and the occasional man unwillingly dragged there by his wife). They all found it positively delightful, but the so called "problems" in the movie are so minor in comparison to actual real world problems that the whole thing just becomes absurd. Big plot turns in most movies consist of a kindling romance, an unexpected death, or something similar that will change the lives of the characters forever. In this, Julie puts dinner in the oven, falls asleep on the couch and burns it. Gasp! It's a silly notion to think that this is what is considered the story.

I appreciate that the film tried to be an innocent, upbeat little picture with zero violence and only a moderate amount of sex and cursing, but lack of vulgarity doesn't excuse its lack of story. It needed a script and it needed one badly. Julie & Julia is two hours long, but it feels double that. This fluff piece of entertainment will work for older audiences, but no one else.

Julie & Julia receives 2/5

A Far From Perfect Getaway

There's been no shortage of terribly good films recently, movies that are so laughable you kind of enjoy them. Just in the last few weeks we've received the cheerily cheesy Orphan and the abysmally bad, yet hilariously dissected, The Collector, which now join the ranks with February's Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, the best (worst?) of them all. Well, chalk another victim up on that list because A Perfect Getaway is ludicrously stupid, sometimes on purpose, though unintentionally more often than not.

The film follows newlyweds Cliff (Steve Zahn) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich) who embark on a honeymoon trip to Honolulu hoping to relax and celebrate finding each other. With the desire to reach a secluded beach, they decide to take an 11 mile hike, meeting up with Nick (Timothy Olyphant) and Gina (Kiele Sanchez) who accompany them along the way. Eventually they run into a group of girls who have just found out that nearby a different newlywed couple has been murdered and the only information the cops have is that they were killed by two individuals, a man and a woman. Each couple begins to suspect the other, but someone seems to be following them. Could it be the hitchhikers Cliff and Cydney rudely shunned earlier on their trip, their newfound friends, or is someone else behind it all?

Though not bereft of minor incidences, A Perfect Getaway fails because of two mammoth flaws. The first is that it has tonal problems, at times showing its evil, plotting, serious side and other times showing its goofy, fun side. I did find myself laughing at its sometimes humorous, yet utterly stupid jokes, but I never found myself scared or worrying for these characters. When it's over-the-top (hilariously evoking memories of cheesy 80's action flicks like First Blood), it's a genuinely entertaining film, even if only tepidly so. When it takes a serious turn (of which there are many), it fails so miserably that I found myself continuing in my laughter, though inadvertently. Not a single scene works during these moments, especially once the twist is revealed.

Which brings me to its second blunder, and it's a big one. A Perfect Getaway has a preposterous twist so utterly absurd that it stretches the credulity of the film to an irredeemable level. Part of the fun of a "whodunit" is attempting to figure out who the killers are. Like so many other films before it, a flashback occurs after the reveal to show you all of the clues you may have missed in your effort to put the pieces together. I can make a guarantee that you will miss nearly all of them. You know why? They weren't there to begin with. Most of the "clues" are revealed in the flashback, which consists of nearly all new scenes not shown before the twist. According to dictionary.com, a clue is defined as "anything that serves to guide or direct in the solution of a problem, mystery, etc." Therefore, those aren't clues. They don't cleverly guide the astute viewer to an answer because there's no way of figuring it out, short of a lucky guess based on the few legitimate tips the film throws our way.

Now, this shouldn't be a big deal because yes, the few minor hints that are there are fairly clever (though extremely miniscule). The problem is that no scene prior to the reveal signals who the killers are. In fact, the twist practically negates some of those scenes because the two characters in question talk in seclusion about their suspicions despite knowing it is they who are the murderers. Some will argue the "brilliance" of these scenes once they know the twist, giving one quick explanation that, although sensible, holds little ground.

The film just doesn't play fair, stringing you along a certain path only to spin you around with a quick slap in the face hoping you'll be dazed enough to not realize you've been dishonestly duped. It's not necessarily a bad twist, but there's nothing indicating it will happen, and that is its problem. It jerks you around until you've simply had enough.

But like I said, it's so bad at times that you can't help but laugh and enjoy the stupidity. While mostly good in the first half, the last act (featuring that insipid twist) suddenly makes each actor joyfully over perform, seemingly switching characters on the fly and overstating each and every moment. The sole exception is Timothy Olyphant who remains consistent throughout. His character is written more like a caricature. He exaggerates every move and delivers every line so insincerely that it makes it look like he's the only one in on the joke. Everybody else seems clueless, unaware of the farcical nature of the film they're in and amusingly overdoing it.

When all is said and done, A Perfect Getaway ends up as one of the least thrilling thrillers I've seen in quite some time. Want a slow, boorish pace, a stupefying twist and oafish tonal transitions so abrupt you'll wonder if another movie got caught in the reel? This one is for you. Its runtime is just over an hour and a half, but boredom will set in long before that. While not a total waste thanks to its sometimes lively humor, the paltry ending ruins this getaway.

A Perfect Getaway receives 2/5

The Collector an Abysmal Piece of Trash

According to some reports, The Collector was written to be the prequel to the Saw franchise. Written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the penmen behind Saw IV, V and the upcoming Saw VI, it's hard to argue otherwise. It's clear that they have been greatly influenced because The Collector is practically a Saw clone. The difference here is that I appreciate Saw for what it does: deliver a solid, if at this point overdone continuing story with a fascinating villain and (mostly) intelligent twists. The Collector has none of these traits. It's a tremendous disaster, a complete waste of time for everyone involved and a project I would shamefully keep off of my resume had I participated in its production.

The film follows Arkin (Josh Stewart), who plans on breaking into his boss's house to steal a valuable item worth lots of money because his wife needs to pay off a loan shark by midnight. Once he arrives, he finds that he isn't alone and that somebody else has already broken in and is keeping the family hostage in the basement, torturing them and rigging the house full of traps. Arkin becomes the unwitting participant in this sick man's games and tries to free his captives.

There were times during The Collector when I wasn't quite sure what the hell was going on. I thought perhaps I had missed something along the way, thinking to myself, "Surely this movie isn't that complicated," and it's not. The story isn't so much incoherent as it is simply nonexistent. What little story arc there is has to do with the body count rather than a natural story progression. The only way I could tell it was nearing the ending was through keeping a tally of all the prominent characters and counting down as each one was killed. Unfortunately, that's not a story. That's a snuff film.

Despite its similarities to the Saw franchise, The Collector doesn't even come close to matching what its genre brothers have done. In the earlier films (forget the later ones), each trap had a specific function: to see how far one would go to live. There was always a way out. The traps in The Collector are designed to keep people in, and are rigged all throughout the house, but serve no immediate purpose. His victims are already bound and gagged down in the basement with no way of escape, short of outside intervention. One can't help but wonder why the Collector decided to take the time to set up such elaborate traps in every room of the house knowing his victims were securely fastened already. Was he expecting company?

As for the traps themselves, it's an absurd thought (and a hilarious discussion with friends afterwards) when trying to piece together just when he found the time to set them all up, including in rooms where his victims would never go even if they were to escape. (Why rig the upstairs bedrooms? The doors are much more likely.) What's even more ridiculous is that this film takes place all in one day and the daytime scenes with Arkin and his co-workers show that the house is completely normal. With such intricate traps, it would take the Collector days to set them all up, but he does it in a matter of hours (if not minutes in some cases). One trap shows a staircase with hundreds of nails embedded in it, not just placed there, but literally built into the wood. Did he construct this entire staircase? For that matter, where the hell does it lead? Nobody goes up or down it the entire movie and there are two separate staircases leading to the basement and upstairs area. What is going on!?! It's painfully apparent that logic was an afterthought to the traps.

The Collector spared no expense when it came to its attempts at keeping the audience on the edge of their seats, using every horror cliché in the book, including ominous music, quick cuts, a ridiculous amount of fog so obviously generated by a machine that it was embarrassing, and quick flashes of lightning accompanied by a loud thunder strike (though that's not how it works; thunder actually follows lightning because sound moves slower than...oh, never mind).

What's really sad is that you can tell the filmmakers thought they were making something really clever and spooky, taking the movie on with confidence, but this is a clear case of a film that tries much too hard. Though light on story, the premise is interesting and could have worked well, but instead ends up as one giant mess with plot holes so big you could fit Kanye West's ego through it, ranking it among the worst movies I've seen this year.

If that isn't enough, the film has one of the most obvious "who's the killer" reveals in cinema history, with one giant clue so freaking clear that I wanted to stand up and tell everybody that I had figured it out, but then I realized how unfulfilling of an accomplishment that was because chances are they all had too.

With a cruel spirit and grimy aesthetics, The Collector could have been depressing, but it's too damn stupid to be as such.

The Collector receives 0.5/5

Aliens in the Attic a Harmless Film

Aliens in the Attic is inoffensive. Kids will love it and adults will find no reason to keep them from flocking to the theater to see it. But it must be said that it is mind numbing, pandering directly to the children with little intent to bring in adult audiences. While not necessarily a bad thing, there's nothing holding it together in regards to plot, acting, humor or relevance. Those looking for a stupid, fun time at the movies will enjoy themselves, but anyone with a desire for something with substance need to look elsewhere.

Tom (Carter Jenkins) is a high school student whose grades are suffering despite his above average intelligence and his parents aren't sure why. They eventually come to the conclusion that what he needs is family interaction, away from all of the technology that engulfs his life, and forces him on a vacation to a secluded lake house in the middle of nowhere. Along with his sisters Bethany (Ashley Tisdale) and Hannah (Ashley Boettcher), and his cousins, Art (Henri Young), Lee (Regan Young), and Jake (Austin Butler), he is stuck with his extended family for a whole week with nothing to do. Just after arriving, Bethany's college boyfriend, Ricky (Robert Hoffman) arrives, much to the dismay of Tom who hates Ricky and his deceitful ways of tricking his parents and sister into accepting him. As their grandmother, who they so affectionately call Nana (Doris Roberts), watches television, the screen scrambles and the family deduces that something is wrong with the antenna on the roof, so Tom and Ricky go up to fix it and find a group of aliens who begin to attack them. Using some type of mind control device, they take control of Ricky while Tom escapes. He tells the other kids and discovers that the aliens want something in the basement, but the children intend on keeping them from getting it.

I apologize. In my first paragraph I say there is nothing in regards to plot and then go on to detail one of the longest plot descriptions I think I've ever written, but there are lots of characters in the movie and I felt like I needed to mention them all, so you could see how so many people can make so little difference. Nevertheless, I failed to acknowledge work from otherwise hilarious actors like Andy Richter, Kevin Nealon and Tim Meadows, whom all have minor roles. While the kids are relative no names outside of the increasingly beautiful Ashley Tisdale, everyone else has done some great work: Roberts in "Everybody Loves Raymond," Meadows in the more recent Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, and Nealon with great supporting roles in everything from 1996's Happy Gilmore to last year's underrated comedy, Get Smart. Yet I just couldn't find it in myself to care about any of them.

Aliens in the Attic plays a little bit like a kid's horror movie, with cheap jump scares and tired clichés like the slow, cautious walk and the "None of our cell phones have any service!" plot turn. Boy, that never gets old. Of course, it doesn't get too scary. It is a children's movie after all. There are moments of humorous tranquility so as not to disturb the kiddies' nightmares, featuring multiple jokes about getting hit in the groin and slapstick humor so tired that I'm pretty sure the actors were falling asleep. None of these kids are funny or have any type of comedic chemistry. With around five or six actors onscreen together at all times, it becomes embarrassing to see how quickly their shtick turns into a bad Disney Channel program complete with idiotic dialogue and exaggerated mannerisms. The only worthwhile jokes in the film come from the adults and Robert Hoffman, who unabashedly ridicules himself while his character is in mind control mode, to an entertaining effect.

"I don't want to be like you! I want to be cool!" Tom screams at his father at one point in the movie, explaining that he tanked his grades on purpose because he was tired of being picked on for being smart, which is a self-contradiction because if he were so smart, he would have realized how awesome it is that he will one day go somewhere in life while his peers will be scraping gum off of the underbelly of his private business toilet. Is this what we're teaching our kids? That being smart is less valuable than being cool? After vanquishing the aliens, Tom explains to his father that he has some type of understanding that being smart is cool, but he's only saying this because he's in a state of euphoria from kicking alien ass. It wasn't his intelligence he prided himself on, it was his combat skills. Swing and a miss.

Aliens in the Attic shamelessly plays to kids, shifting the balance of power in their favor because the child characters are the only ones capable of staving off the invasion. You see, the mind control device works only on adults! Which makes no sense! Wouldn't it be easier to capture a child's feeble mind, one that hasn't had the time to maturely develop? But I digress. It takes this childhood fantasy of gaining control over a situation and shoves it in our faces, much to the delight of children and much to the disdain of adults.

I would be surprised to find that the 13 and under crowd didn't like Aliens in the Attic, but then again I'm not a child anymore, so maybe I'm not giving them enough credit. Perhaps they've matured and future generations will get increasingly more intelligent as the years go by. Maybe they will be able to see how banal this silly little adventure is and look for more grown up offerings that actually deal with important life lessons. Or maybe they'll eat it up like it's candy. Either way.

Aliens in the Attic receives 1.5/5