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