Hancock Movie review: B

In our third superhero movie of the summer, we get the refreshing Hancock, a rare genre film not derived from any comic book. While not perfect, this action-comedy has enough gunfights, laughs and entertainment to make it well worth the $10 admission.

In Hancock, Will Smith stars as a super-powered man who is invincible, has super-strength and can fly at blazingly fast speeds. Despite that, everyone in the city hates him. Not only does he tend to cost the city millions of dollars in damage with his "heroics," but he's a bum, a drunk and an asshole. With people chomping at the bit more than ever from Hancock to stop "saving" them, a PR agent (Jason Bateman) manages to convince Hancock to do some time behind bars to appease the public and make them realize just how much the city needs him. The plan works, but what happens next will surprise you.

First off, if you liked the previews, you will love the first half of the movie. Hancock, directed by Peter Berg (The Kingdom), is a fast-paced thrill ride full of car chases, gunfights and ugly children being thrown thousands of feet into the area just for mouthing off to the "hero." Smith is a convincing drunken bastard, and he acts like one with amazing ease. There are plenty of laughs, some good one-liners and lots of destruction (amazingly few explosions, come to think of it). I was highly anticipating Hancock, and much of the film delivers.

In the second half, though, Hancock begins to show some cracks. People are going to disagree on just how big of cracks there are; I would have gone an entirely different, simpler direction, but can't complain too much. The movie is consistently entertaining and has a fair amount of action, though some of the magic from the first half is lost in the second. After a completely surprising twist, the film's dynamic changes, not necessarily for the better. It dives into some rather unconventional plot elements that I don't know were the right choice for a summer blockbuster, but more importantly, Hancock loses much of its humor. I wouldn't say the film gets dark, but it certainly gets darker.

If you're wondering what I meant by keeping things simple, I would have had a supervillain show up and start wailing on Hancock. End with a gigantic fight sequence and throw in a few laughs to boot. It wouldn't have been the most original way to wrap things up, but when it comes to comic book movies, you don't need to be original, just exciting. Hancock's ending is pretty good, but perhaps a bit too low scale compared to what I would have expected.

In the end, Hancock suffers from a surprising but not necessarily great twist, weak CGI and a lack of a strong central villain, but its positives make up for at least some of its deficiencies.

Had Berg and writers Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan tried to stay within the standard limits of a superhero movie, Hancock could have been great. As is, it's solid but not flawless entertainment.

Kit Kittredge: An American Girl Movie review: B-

Review by Robert Bell (B-)

Stepping away from the X-rated exploits of HBO's Tell Me You Love Me, Patricia Rozema has taken on some decidedly lighter material with Kit Kittredge, a depression era G-rated Nancy Drew that is based on the popular "American Girl" doll line.  It seems logical that a movie based on a plush doll line of merchandise that professes "dress like your doll" as a selling point would be facile and salable, however, the film features some guileless didactics with a heartwarming centre that is only occasionally contrived. 

The film follows Kit Kittredge (Abigail Breslin) during the 1930's depression after her father (Chris O'Donnell) has left their home in search of work and her mother (Julia Ormond) has had to take borders into their home in order to make ends meet.  Kit's response to change and hardship is initially fearful, acknowledging social stigmas attached to the poor, such as selling eggs and wearing dresses made of chicken feed bags, but like all plucky heroines she makes lemonade when life hands her a bag of manure. 

To keep the younger demographic interested, there is an overlying mystery involving a faceless thief with an arm tattoo, who travels from town to town giving a bad name to hobos.  As one of Kittredge's central themes is that of acceptance and prevailing kindness, it doesn't take a great deal of genius to predict the road that the film will eventually travel. 

Observations about a child's necessity to take on more adult roles in difficult times, in addition to the human tendency to ostracize and condemn those who are different in order to validate their own fragile existence ameliorate the films schmaltzy tendency to be maudlin and banal.  For every false scene where the soundtrack forces unearned sentiment, there are moments of truth such as one where a young boy writes a fake letter to his mother from his absent father in order to give her hope and strength.

Color, costume and construction of Kit Kittredge are all top-notch, giving gravity and credibility to the premise, while performances from the cast of seasoned thesps are uniformly effective aside from Joan Cusack whose over-the-top goofiness is both distracting and aggravating.  Also, as Kit Kittredge, Abigail Breslin seems to be only partially present, going through the motions appropriately, but never connecting with her character or the audience.  Considering the impressive work by some of the other young actors in the film, this appears to be a problem with the young actress rather than one of direction.

The central mystery, along with Kit's journalistic journey are occasionally lost in a story that tries to cover too much ground, but comes together in a third act that ties things together satisfactorily, if unremarkably.  "Kittredge" glibly makes heroes and saints of the hobo community while shuffling looks of distain towards gypsies, but only out of ignorance and the necessity of simplifying complex themes for the younger target audience.  

Despite some severe pacing issues, more bookish pre-teen girls should find a connection with the titular Kit and her relentless self-preservation and persevering optimism in hard times.

Get Smart Movie review: B

Television series adaptations have a sketchy history. From The Avengers to Starsky and Hutch and The Dukes of Hazzard, there are far fewer hits than misses. It's a bit surprising, really, as every big television series has established characters, built-in fanbases and potential at a big screen level. But it's the fanbases that throw studios for a loop and encourage them to make crap. On the one hand, they want to appeal to such audiences that have very specific expectations, and on the other, they want the movie to work on a broader, modern level. The result is almost always an unfunny and uneven creation.

Unlike most of these TV-to-movie adaptations, Get Smart showed promise. The film featured at-his-apex Steve Carell in a role that seemed perfectly suited for him. A great supporting cast consisting of Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson (finally shedding his "The Rock" alter ego), Alan Arkin, Terence Stamp and even James Caan and Bill Murray was another indicator. The previews, a blend of action and goofy comedy, also worked quite well. Still, nothing's a sure thing in Hollywood, and as the big weekend approached, reviews were mixed at best.

Thankfully, Get Smart is a pretty entertaining film. No one will praise it as the most brilliant movie ever, nor even the most spectacular of comedies. It is a tad inconsistent at times, not always on-spot with its jokes and flat in a few places. But, overall, Get Smart is what I was hoping for, and thus no where close to being a disappointment. It's good enough that I will look forward to its inevitable sequel.

The movie stars Carell as Maxwell Smart, a CONTROL analyst who gets his big break at being a field agent when the agency - and its existing agents - are compromised by a leak. Smart is teamed with Agent 99 (Hathaway), who is as lethal as she is hot, and the two form an uneasy alliance as they seek to take down KAOS once and for all.

Get Smart is James Bond meets "The Office," to put it in modern terms. Having never watched the original series, I can't compare, but the movie appears to have conquered the right blend of making the film modern without completely changing its roots. Impressively, director Peter Segal (Tommy Boy) manages to gloss over the fact that the Soviet Unio/Russia are no longer opponents of the U.S. as they were in the Cold War, and has all but brought the same conflict into the 21st century. Segal moves between action and comedy quite well; Get Smart is surprisingly action packed at times, though it never takes itself too seriously.

Of course, the make or break angle is the comedy, and Get Smart pulls off enough jokes to make it worth it. The movie isn't constantly funny - there are jokes that fall flat and others that are just awkward, but the screenwriters seemed to be aware of this and just keep spitting them out. The dialogue and gags come fast enough that even if a few jokes fall flat, you'll be chuckling a fair amount of the time. There are also some very clever jokes, though the marketing team included a fair amount of them in the previews.

Carell is, in fact, the perfect choice for the role. He essentially plays the same character that he does in "The Office," but adapted to a spy comedy. Hathaway fits the part well, though I didn't love her. The rest of the supporting cast is pretty good, specifically Johnson and some of the other "macho" agents.

Get Smart would have benefited from a tighter and more refined script, but even when jokes are failing, it seems intentional. Overall, the movie is entertaining and funny. Recommended.

Wanted Movie review: B+

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B+)

I agree with John Stewart's interview with James McAvoy, saying that this movie "should suck, but it doesn't."  For all intensive purposes a story about a thousand year old fraternity of assassins who get their directives from a giant loom should not be good.  Especially, when the background of the fraternity is only explored in a cursory manner and the story only allows for few and brief moments of character development.

In the hands of a lesser director, such as Brett Ratner (the Rush Hour movies, After the Sunset) or whoever the hell directed the Covenant, this film would have been awful.  But it wasn't.  It was directed by Timur Bekmambetov, the Russian phenom who brought us Night Watch and Day Watch, the vampire films which received much acclaim.  Bekmambetov's direction makes this film. Period.  He recognizes what the premise of the film presents him with, a chance to create a ton of eye-catching action sequences.  He also realizes how the back story of the fraternity and the mystery surrounding McAvoy's father is both necessary, yet far less interesting than watching McAvoy penetrate skulls with his bending bullets.  Even in these slower moments, Bekmambetov's visual style takes hold, creating great visual interest when there should be little.

The film also benefits from a strong cast, surprisingly strong for the storyline; McAvoy, Jolie and Freeman are all great while supporting roles played by Terrence Stamp and Lorna Scott (McAvoy's cringe-worthy boss) also hit the mark.  McAvoy holds nothing back in the film; at many points I thought his head would simply explode during one his many "anxiety attacks."  He shines in every scene, particularly during his outburst in his Office Space-like office and the closing action sequence filled with plenty of carnage.  Jolie is as hot and deadly as ever and her brief bath house appearance offers yet another bonus for the many guys that will flock to this one.  Also, while it is apparent that Freeman probably strolled onto set, was given some lines and delivered them with little to no prep (does he really need any?), he still managed to demonstrate that no one says, "Shoot that motherf@&#er," better than him.  Rehearsal or not.

The action scenes, which seem to get increasingly preposterous throughout the film, are some of the most entertaining and exciting action sequences of the summer.  Similar moments in other films that suffer from shitty overpriced computer graphics are corrected here, particularly the many slow motion bullet shots, which not only look great, but are creative not only in their camera movement, but in the crazy trajectories of the bullets.  It's not too often that you see a bullet fly through a donut and four car windshields en route to a target miles away. Also, to make this clear, the film is not only CG based; McAvoy gets his ass kicked and kicks some ass of his own in more genuine punch-to-the-face sequences as well including his involvement in a rather painful knife showdown.

Perhaps the only real negative about Wanted is its title, which would surely fade into oblivion if not for the strength of the film.  You would think that just a bit of the creativeness that went into making the film could have been put towards the title.  While Wanted does not fall in the same category as the Terminator movies or True Lies that manage to interweave great stories with great action, this is still one of the most entertaining films of the summer.  If you can, do this one as a double feature, Wanted in the theater and Night Watch when you get back.  It's hard to top assassins and vampires back-to-back.

Happening, The Movie review: F

What the fuck. That's my warning that this is one of those rare movie reviews where I will swear. Profusely. It's the only way to keep me sane.

I just got back from M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, and... what the fuck? It's incomprehensible. Amazing and incomprehensible. I just don't get it.

First off, Shyamalan took my advice: he created a movie without a twist ending. After The Village and Lady in the Water turned out to be not nearly as good as marketed, it was clear that the best thing the star director could do was get people off the expectation that there would be a twist ending in every one of his films. That would mean he could spend more time focusing on a quality and entertaining story, and less on a gimmick.

But God have mercy on my soul. The Happening is about as bad of a movie as you can get these days, a masterpiece where every star and gizmo align to form the perfect terrible movie. How a film can even achieve a level of such complete and utter failure is beyond me. It's as if Shyamalan, upset that no one liked his God-awful Lady in the Water, decided to say, "Fuck it," to theater goers and deliver a film that lacks any kind of acceptable acting, writing, directing or storyline.

After The Village, I had a bad taste in my mouth. In hindsight, the movie wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great, either. Two of my favorite movies are The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and Signs isn't half bad, either. So, even after Lady in the Water amazed me by how silly and self indulgent it was, I had high hopes for The Happening. The movie looked like a return to Shyamalan's roots, a creepy thriller about something that is causing people to go crazy and kill themselves.

But don't get me wrong! I did not go into The Happening with high expectations. After canceling my opening night visit to the theater, I waited a whole week to see it. In that time, I was pounded left and right by bad reviews. Not only that, but my brother called me a few days ago and informed me just how bad the movie was. Rarely does he lay into a film so viciously, but he had nothing nice to say about The Happening. However, bad reviews don't shape my own opinion; if anything, they lower my expectations to a point where I hope I can enjoy the film on a visceral level.

How wrong I was. The Happening defied my expectations by being much worse than could ever be imagined. This movie makes Lady in the Water look like Schindler's List, a pile of runny dog poo taste like a T-Bone steak, Carrot Top a respectable actor. The movie is terrible, and only recommended to people who like to laugh at truly bad movies. Yes, The Happening is laughably bad, and that's not just because the boom mike appeared on camera for about a quarter of the film.

The acting is terrible. I like Mark Wahlberg, but he is downright embarrassing. So are Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo. The entire supporting cast is pathetic. Of course, one can't completely blame these actors for what can only be described as inane, unrealistic, cringe-inducing, laughable performances. The screenplay is a disaster, perhaps insight into what Shyamalan's personal Hell would feel like.

Beyond that, the movie just doesn't have much going for it. The concept, on a very high level, is decent, but there's not much suspense or excitement. Shyamalan does keep you guessing as to how the characters will survive an epidemic that is indiscriminate - assuming any characters do survive - but that's not enough to warrant a plot that is about as loose as a prostitute at a rodeo. If that didn't make sense to you, The Happening won't either.

Honestly, The Happening is almost assured Worst Movie of the Year on countless lists. This weekend's The Love Guru might come close, but I could never have imagined a film from a director once considered to be the next Spielberg to be so bad.

Love Guru, The Movie review: D

Review by Robert Bell (D)

What might have been the most amusing thing about The Love Guru was what happened prior to the press screening.  While the audience got seated and the studio rep made nice with the most recognizable film critics, there was live sitar music and belly-dancers that shook about up and down the aisles.  The music was entirely too loud and people had to dodge around the dancers to get to vacant seats.  While this scenario alone was highly amusing, the roar of applause that came after the music ceased and the girls put their boobies away was even more bizarre.  It was reluctant at first, but clearly social expectations and guilt got to many audience members who then overcompensated, making the entire ordeal unintentionally amusing and somewhat ridiculous.  It just seemed to be an example of a marketing meeting gone wrong. 

The film itself is equally bizarre, but rarely sparks any sort of amusement (intentional or unintentional) or cohesion.  The Love Guru is essentially a cinematic pastiche of all things familiar to the comedy world of Mike Myers and recent pop culture.  The sheer inanity and peculiar nature of the on-screen happenings lead one to believe that something of amusement might come about, but it never really does.  Instead, the film spouts out a series of jokes about poo, scrotums, doggystyle sex, French-Canadian profanity and copious allusions to fornication, both elephant and human.  While this should amuse younger audience members and those who are a little less discerning, it will likely irritate and confuse those with a slightly more refined comic palette. 

Pitka (Mike Myers), a North American raised in India by Guru Tugginmypudha (Ben Kingsley), decides to return to his native land to become the number one guru, surpassing Deepak Chopra.  His main course of action involves getting on Oprah's talk show, until Jane Bullard (Jessica Alba), the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs, seeks Guru Pitka out to help her with their struggling star player Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco). 

Having recently separated from long-time girlfriend Prudence (Meagan Good), Darren suffers from hand trembles, which interfere with his puck handling.  This is only exacerbated by the fact that Prudence is now dating a French-Canadian goalie named Jacques "Le Coq" Grande (Justin Timberlake), who reportedly earned his nickname by having an enormous hog. 

As Pitka attempts to help Darren with his love issues, his agent Dick Pants (John Oliver) attempts to get him onto Oprah's talkshow, despite the fact that The Love Guru is far more interested in having sex with Jane Bullard. 

Despite sequences of Justin Timberlake singing Celine Dion songs and trajectory gags involving the word tabernac, trademarked acronyms and the use of Mariska Hargitay's (the emmy-winning actress from Law & Order: SVU) name as a greeting and a prayer, nothing comes across as genuinely funny.  The only mild amusement comes when Myers candidly points out the joke he was just making matter-of-factly.  This is most effective in a scene where he and Romany Malco sit in a crowded bar and Myers makes pooping noises into a coffee mug.  When he is done he then states to Malco "I was just making diarrhea noises into this mug."  This is, sadly, as witty as the film gets as it often resorts to jokes that involve celebrity tabloid vagina and boogers. 

The juvenile humor isn't the only problem with The Love Guru, as there are issues with direction and modernity.  When songs like Brimful of Asha, Blur's Song #2 and More Than Words start crowding the soundtrack, it becomes clear that a major barrier within the film is how outdated it is.  Back in 1997 when Austin Powers, Brimful of Asha and Song #2 were released, this film probably would have succeeded as a fresh and edgy comedy, however, it is 2008 in a post Judd Apatow and Tina Fey comedy world and The Love Guru just doesn't fit.  It's a retread of the familiar and old. 

Also problematic is Marco Schnabel's bland point-and-shoot directorial techniques that only gains urgency during hockey montages. 

Those excited to see a variation on the Austin Powers franchise may want to check this one out, but everyone else will likely be disappointed, confused and wondering if they really did just see two elephants have sex in a hockey arena.

Brick Lane Movie review: B-

Review by Robert Bell (B-)

Certainly safer and potentially more accessible to a broader audience than Monica Ali’s controversial novel, Brick Lane partially succeeds as an examination of an oppressed Muslim woman reluctant to voice her own opinions and desires.  Characters are closely examined with care and consideration, but are never given a greater sense of urgency aside from mild discontent in uncontrolled surroundings. 

Born of a poor Bangladeshi family, Nazneen (Tannishtha Chatterjee) is sold off to the older Chanu (Satish Kaushik) after the death of her mother and sent off to London to be a proper Muslim wife and mother to two daughters (Naeema Begum and Lana Rahman). 

After being overlooked for various promotions, Chanu decides to quit his job in favour of foolish and potentially unrealistic opportunities.  He even goes so far as to borrow money from a loan shark neighbour to buy a computer.  To supplement the income Nazneen starts her own home-based sewing business, which threatens the patriarchal sensibilities of her husband. 

Feeling somewhat isolated and trapped in her passionless marriage, Nazneen is flattered when she is the object of some attention from Karim (Christopher Simpson), who brings her clothing to sew.  Her affair with the younger man begins to go sour after the events of September 11th turn him into a political radical. 

Some of the struggle in translating the power of the novel onto the big screen likely stems from the inherent meekness of Nazneen.  Her struggles are mostly internal as her main weakness is an inability to speak her mind.  Occasional voiceovers help provide some insights, as do lingering scenes of household discontent from director Gavron, but her rebellion isn’t entirely logical or justified. 

This also stems from a relatively flat performance from Chatterjee.  She certainly looks the part and convincingly conveys weakness of character, but is unable to channel internal struggle or rebellion on the surface, which only exacerbates some of the shortcomings of the sparse script.  As Nazneen’s oldest daughter Shahana, Naeema Begum is the most convincing of the cast, being simultaneously caring and understandably disdainful of her parent’s damaged and disparate relationship.  She also helps to bring much needed tangibility to Nazneen’s penpal relationship with an offscreen sister, acting as a mirror to the absent character.

Despite these flaws, Brick Lane is an engaging and well photographed character study.  It is just unfortunate that a great deal of identification and empathy must stem from forces external to the film itself.

Trumbo Movie review: B

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B)

Trumbo tells the remarkable story of Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, one of the famed Hollywood 10, who were indicted and convicted for contempt of congress during the HUAC trials of the late forties. Adapted from the play created by Trumbo’s son Christopher Trumbo, the film chronicles Dalton’s life, from his rise to being one of the most sought after screenwriters working in Hollywood to being placed on the Hollywood blacklist to writing under pseudonyms and winning an Academy Award. All in all, Dalton Trumbo is responsible for some of the great film works of the 20th century including Spartacus, Roman Holiday, Johnny Got His Gun and Papillon. Many of the stories he wrote strongly mirrored his own life often involving characters that were alienated from society and that stayed true to their morals and beliefs in the face of adversity. Director Peter Askin weaves together stock footage, interviews and most importantly the reading of some of Dalton Trumbo’s beautifully crafted letters by a tour de force ensemble of actors to tell a great story of a great man.

The quality of the actors gathered to read the letters is a testament to the legacy of Dalton Trumbo and the respect he has in the film community. Each member of the cast, which includes Michael Douglas, David Strathairn, Donald Sutherland, Joan Allen, Liam Neeson and Paul Giamatti, is on screen for no more than about five minutes, but each brings new life to the witty and pointed letters Trumbo wrote, many in response to the wrongs done to him by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the societal backlash that followed. While the presentation of the letters seems directly pulled from the stage play by Christopher Trumbo, with minimalist sets and rather theatrical line delivery, the strength of the actors keeps the audience invested for the most part. There were a few times where my attention wandered or where I was distracted by the performances. Joan Allen’s literal reading of one of the letters (meaning she actually was reading off of a sheet of paper) seemed a bit awkward since all the rest of the letters were memorized including another one by her later in the story. Also, Josh Lucas, who is a strong young actor, seemed a bit out of his league in comparison to his co-stars in the film, which was probably realized by the filmmakers who nearly completely cut him out of the ending of the film when the actors are edited together reading the same letter. These, however, are minor issues in a film that succeeds in many ways.

I often have issues with the introduction of theatrical stage conventions into a film as they often come across as awkward (the recent adaptation of The Producers is a perfect example). However, for telling the story of Dalton Trumbo, his letters are key and visually performing them is certainly much more powerful than simple voiceover. Even so, more footage such as from the HUAC trials and more anecdotes from the people that knew him, in place of one or two of the letters could have helped strengthen the pacing of the film, which lagged at a few points, especially in the second half of the film.

While the conventions used in Trumbo help it stand apart in the documentary genre, they also limit the interest in the film (which I am sure is no surprise to the filmmakers) certainly more to the art house crowd than to a mainstream audience. This is a bit disappointing since Trumbo’s journey in and out of Hollywood is a fascinating and devastating one that people should know about and one that certainly is very relevant in the current political and social climate. While it might not be top on your list of films to see, Trumbo is a high quality film that should be watched, if only to learn a bit about the plight of one of Hollywood’s greatest screenwriters of the last century.

Incredible Hulk, The Movie review: B-

After 2003's The Hulk failed to impress audiences and critics alike, no one really expected to see another iteration of the green beast anytime soon. Flash forward five years, however, and Marvel is trying to reboot the franchise-that-never-was, this time with Ed Norton at center stage.

Gone is Ang Lee, Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte and any trace of the original picture that is the laughing stock of the Marvel-comic-turned-movie subgenre. Sure, Elektra was much worse, but people actually had expectations for The Hulk. Personally, I didn't hate the original, but considering that the only part of the movie I do remember is the ludicrously terrible ending, it's clear the first movie didn't quite hit the mark. Then again, I've never understood the appeal of the Hulk in general. A movie about a raging green monster with only minimal reasoning skills - and he's the hero - just seems silly to me, though that is perfect fodder for a mindless but entertaining summer action film.

And that is exactly what 2008's The Incredible Hulk is: a mindless but entertaining summer action film. It has plenty of action, a few explosions and just enough back story to piece it altogether. Beyond that, there is nothing particularly engaging or intelligent, but that's okay considering The Incredible Hulk is about a raging green monster with minimal reasoning skills.

Throwing Ed Norton into anything is an immediate upgrade, and knowing that the Oscar nominee, who is a fan of the comic, had his hands on various aspects of the production (except, much to his frustration, the final cut) immediately raised expectations. Then, the movie trailers started to appear, and those expectations waned as the movie appeared to have questionable special effects and a piss-poor screenplay.

Thankfully, the special effects are pretty decent and the screenplay also quite good, at least on a technical level - more on that later. The Hulk is, by definition, a challenge to any visual effects team, but the team has managed to make the best of the situation. There are a few stumbles, but overall I bought the visual effects.

Director Louis Leterrier, of Transporter fame, was brought in to deliver a more visceral experience than Lee's introspective version, and he does a pretty good job. The Incredible Hulk isn't nearly as ludicrous as Leterrier's other films, and is proof that the man is capable of making summer blockbusters. The movie looks good and is entertaining from beginning to end.

But how entertaining? The Incredible Hulk is not an amazing superhero movie by any stretch of the imagination. Especially compared to this year's Iron Man, which managed to be consistently funny, serious and exciting most of the time, regardless of what was happening on the screen, The Incredible Hulk is a bit bland. There are a few scenes where Zak Penn's screenplay evokes some laughs, but overall it takes itself way too seriously to no real result. There are some stretches where the movie just comes off as dull, though mainly there is just a lack of energy written into the dialogue. Tony Stark was constantly lighting up the screen, and Jon Favreau, behind the camera, made a world around him; here, Bruce Banner is mildly entertaining but not particularly engaging, and Leterrier doesn't get things rolling unless an action scene is at hand.

I liked The Incredible Hulk, but I'm not going to rave about it. It could have been better, though as is, it's good enough. The Hulk smashes, screams and punches his way to victory, and it's fun to see the green beast in action. Beyond that, I'll shrug my approval.

Sex and the City: The Movie Movie review: B+

Despite my love for movies and an obsession for seeing films as soon as possible, I turned down an offer to see Sex and the City on opening night. Why? Because I didn't want to stay up until 3am surrounded by a bunch of screaming, crying, laughing women. Instead, I waited two weeks and went with a couple of my female friends - where they proceeded to scream, cry and laugh.

I, I'll admit, am one of the few straight guys who liked the television show. I never saw the first season, but saw every season after that, all within about a month's time span. I was, I'm pretty sure, one of the few straight single guys in the audience. There were one or two guys who had been dragged along with their girlfriends, and several more who were gay.

Now that the stage is set, I liked Sex and the City. Sure, it's a rambling movie, a long single episode or a shortened season shoved into two-and-a-half hours, a movie that requires you to already know the characters and care for what happens to them, for better or for worse. As a continuation of the series, it is the perfect denouement.

Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth and the rest of the cast have returned for this plus-sized adventure, and fans of the show will not be disappointed. Sex and the City has plenty of laughs, emotion, sex and so on and so forth. The mood and tone have carried over from the TV series, probably because writer/director Michael Patrick King has a long history as writer/director/executive producer of the TV show. The film really doesn't skip a beat.

Of course, this is mixed news to the standard professional critic and casual audience member. On its own, the movie is a massive epic of a romantic comedy, and romantic comedies aren't meant to be epic. Sex and the City is two and a half hours long and plays out more like a year in four women's lives rather than a concrete three-act story. The movie does have a beginning, middle and end, but the middle has so many random ups-and-downs and mini story arcs that the film doesn't appear to have a central focus at times. Those looking for a petite, streamlined romantic comedy should look elsewhere.

But Sex and the City isn't meant to be a streamlined romantic comedy, or stand on its own, or even be a romantic comedy. It's supposed to look at the lives of these four women, for better or for worse, no matter what they're going through. By definition, the stories have always revolved around their relationships and sex lives - hence the romantic comedy angle - but Sex and the City is not a romantic comedy by nature. And by sticking true to its theme and storytelling approach, Sex and the City delivers its fans exactly what they were craving.

Beyond that, the movie is actually very funny, or at least it consistently derives chuckles throughout. I, as well as the unlucky boyfriend who was sitting a row or two in front of me, laughed a lot throughout the film. Sure, there are some upsetting scenes with some major breakups that got the ladies crying, but being the insensitive guy that I am, I found those scenes pretty entertaining, too. While I never gave in to the emotional rollercoaster that is Sex and the City, because the ending is pretty predictable and I don't fall for things like that, I will say that the women took the movie with each rolling punch, bursting out in tears in the sad parts and bursting out in tears at the happy parts. Even unemotional me found the up-and-down stories engaging.

The only real problem with Sex and the City is the running time, which is ridiculously long for this kind of movie. Sure, King has plenty of stories to tell, but the film does lag in a few scenes. I'm not sure which scenes King should have cut, but there are a few places where the movie seems to get a little too far off topic, even for Sex and the City. Ultimately, every scene plays a role, but King could have condensed like all good screenwriters can.

Beyond an overly long running time, Sex and the City is an entertaining, fun and funny comedy that appeals perfectly to the show's fans and offers up enough jokes and emotion to please everyone else, too.

Bigger, Stronger, Faster* Movie review: A-

Steroid use in America. It's one of the most talked about topics, the subject of scorn and head-shaking, of fallen sports heroes and false home run records. It's a killer, officials say, and it is a growing problem in all levels of athletic events. Yet, are steroids really as big of deal as people say they are? In Bigger, Stronger, Faster*, Chris Bell explores the steroid problem in his own family, sports and America in general.

While the movie tackles the broad issues found in sports, politics and society, Faster revolves around Bell's own family. Bell, not a tiny guy himself, had dreams of becoming the strongest man alive after seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger as a child; he tried steroids, but was uncomfortable with the practice. His two brothers do not have the same reservations. Raised in the WWF culture of Hulk Hogan, Rambo and other massive heroes, Bell's brothers have been using steroids for years and see them as necessary to remain competitive in their respective "fields."

Bell interviews his brothers about their views, and then expands the discussion to take a look at steroid use in general. He explores the hypocrisy of Arnold Schwarzenneger, who has admitted to using steroids and politically speaks against them, yet sponsors body building tournaments where it is clear that anabolic steroids are used. He interviews people campaigning from both side of the argument, including those who say that there is no proof that steroids have ever killed anyone. Of course, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Floyd Landis are all covered.

The documentary is an interesting one, and surprisingly unbiased. Bell does a good job of presenting the arguments without picking a side; while he states that he is opposed to steroids for ethical reasons, he does not slant his film that way. Less interesting is the discussion about just how dangerous steroids are, but when Bell dives into the ethical dilemma of steroids, the movie really kicks into high gear. Personally, I feel athletic organizations need to draw a stricter line about steroid use, but the biggest question is: where do you draw the line?

Overall, Faster is a very strong documentary that is fast paced, entertaining and informative. The director covers nearly every facet of the issue. The movie stumbles a little bit when Bell decides to spill the beans about his brothers' use of steroids to his parents; the whole situation seems a bit forced and contrived. Still, Bigger, Stronger, Faster* is a convincing and effective documentary.

When Did You Last See Your Father? Movie review: A-

Review by Robert Bell

When Did You Last See Your Father explores ideas of "seeing" a person beyond that of physical presence. Interpreting human complexity as something that is determined through a series of experiences and vacillating, ambivalent feelings, Father acts as a visual poem that tries to make sense of a father-son relationship through their most memorable and arresting life moments. A refusal to settle for glib resolutions and emotional simplifications is what allows this film to stand out from the many others of this ilk.

In early childhood, Blake (Colin Firth) viewed his father Arthur (Jim Broadbent) as a mythic being whose childish whimsy refused to abide by the rules that applied to everyone else. Inevitably, family secrets and the very nature of human imperfection lead to Blake's conflicting and occasionally hostile feelings towards his father, which are only further propelled by the masked feelings of isolation and disappointment that his mother Kim (Juliet Stevenson) radiates.

When confronted with the impending death of his father, Blake recounts the life experiences that have shaped his personal ideologies and perceptions. From unfortunate camping trips, to liberating driving lessons on the beach, to sexual awakenings with a live-in maid (Elaine Cassidy), Blake comes to understand the many levels of human passion and intent that exist within well-intentioned, but inherently flawed relationships.

Tucker's trademark emotionally driven direction that uniquely captured loss of control in Hilary & Jackie and feelings of isolation and disappointment in Shopgirl, lyrically defines the fragmented nature of human perception throughout Father. Characters are often seen obscured or duplicated through mirrors or barriers that help to define the inner-conflict and frequent misunderstandings that come about. The story itself isn't defined by linearity or narrative cohesion, but through very real and maturely explored sentiment, which can either be heralded or criticized depending on the expectations brought in by the viewer.

While Colin Firth doesn't bring a great deal of spark to his role as an emotionally guarded writer, Jim Broadbent delivers an attuned and insightful look at a man driven by personal passions and passing whimsies. There is a blind ignorance mixed with knowing amusement that is conveyed through his singular rants, which suggests intent far beyond what is interpreted by those around him. Additionally, Juliet Stevenson manages to bring significant gravity to her character with simple glances. This is impressive mainly due to the fact that she plays a completely guarded character who is never allowed to reveal her hand.

Visually arresting moments juxtaposed with minor insights regarding social dynamics within a family make Father a uniquely powerful cinematic experience. A lack of specified catharsis or classically narrative progression may deter viewers who are used to being told how to feel, but should please those who allow themselves to be taken along for the ride. (Mongrel Media)

Strangers, The Movie review: B-

Quality horror films come in fewer and fewer numbers these days, and it's a delight when one holds you by the throat. There's nothing like a film that keeps you breathless and guessing from beginning to end, that gets the adrenaline rushing and has you looking down at your lap asking yourself, "Why do I subject myself to this?" With that being said, expectations were high for The Strangers, the new horror film starring Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman.

The Strangers is about a couple who are spending the night at a summer home after an awkward proposal-gone-bad. Emotions are high and sentiments awkward, but nothing can prepare them for what they are about to go through. It starts with a girl showing up at their house - the wrong house. Then comes the knocking, and other sounds. Then the cell phone disappears, the door unlocks. There is someone outside - inside - everywhere. There are several people, wearing masks and intent on one thing: to frighten and kill the two people inside the house.

The Strangers had a lot going for it. The movie starred two reputable actors. The very first images released to the public were frightening. The trailer was creepy. And silent killers wearing plain masks are just damn scary. The first half of the movie lives up to the promise of the perfect slasher film. Writer/director Bryan Bertino keeps things quiet, adding music only when the characters are playing it (thankfully through a creepy medium such as a record player). The beginning almost plays out as a drama, hinting at something sad that has recently happened to the two leads. Subtle flashbacks tell us the story, then snap back to present where he establishes two strong, realistic characters. The girl shows up at the front door, and never before has a director made such an incident so creepy. The girl's face, partially obscured in darkness (though one would note only one of the two patio lights is out), is just out of full view, making it seem like at any second she's going to snap and do something terrible. Instead, she walks away.

Bertino has mastered the art of audio, as The Strangers is full of creepy, well-timed sounds. When the killers first attack, they do so only to terrorize; a knock here, a sound there, a rap over there. The movie is alive with audio, and Bertino keeps you on the edge of your seat whether you're watching the screen or not. Visually, The Strangers looks great, and Bertino does a good job of drawing the audience into the terror that the leads are feeling. As the characters look out the window, you know that inevitably someone with a mask is going to pop up to freak us out. It doesn't happen for a while, but it does happen. You could look away, but you can't look away for that long. It's scary stuff.

The killers themselves are about as creepy as possible, and given the $20 million The Strangers made in its opening weekend - double its estimated budget - Universal may have a new franchise on their hands. The best villains are always the simplest ones (Freddie Kruger could be an exception); from Michael to Jason, harmless masks have made some of the greatest villains in movie history. The villains in this movie take full advantage of the best costume: the mask. From a simple burlap sack to a doll's face, the masks exude innocence - and thus make the villains even scarier. The fact that they rarely, if ever, talk doesn't hurt.

So far, so good.

Unfortunately, The Strangers slowly starts to unravel in the second half. The movie is scary and suspenseful, until you realize that Bertino has written nothing more than a standard, cliche horror film. Expectations were high after the first half, but instead of going so many directions, Bertino turns his characters into terribly pathetic horror victims that follow every dumb rule in the book. Neither Tyler or Speedman have ever seen Scream - because they truly are about as sad as horror victims come. After Tyler realizes someone is in the house with her, her boyfriend shows up, only to question whether she's making things up. Seriously? Of course, he leaves his cell phone in the car, which, by the time he makes it back outside, has been vandalized. That should be enough of a signal that something is seriously awry, but he never seems to truly grasp the situation. He decides to go and get the neighbors, and has his girlfriend stay in the house. What? Split up? And leave your girlfriend alone in a house you know they've already broken into? Who the hell would do that?

Tyler's character is even worse. She runs around and is about as useless as a horse with no legs. After finally leaving the house, she starts running across the lawn - only to slam her leg into something almost immediately. Of course! Then, even with the knowledge that she is about to die, she slowly drags herself across the yard. If I were in that situation, even if every bone in my legs had been removed, I still would have stood up and ran my ass out of there. After further attacks, Tyler drags herself back to the house she just came from, seemingly unaware that she is surrounded by killers. What a stupid, stupid person.

The worst part of the movie is that not once do either of the good guys lay their hands on the villains. In a film like this, you'd expect there to be some brutal fights, or at least a few moments where the characters get the better of their pursuers. Instead, both Tyler and Speedman fail to do much of anything to fend of their attackers, leaving little to be desired when the ending arrives.

It's frustrating, because The Strangers could have been so good. Instead, Bertino defies the common logic of what a reasonable person would do in such a situation and adheres to comic horror movie fare. That would be all fine and good if The Strangers came off as B-grade horror flick, but it really has the makings of something more. The movie is immensely suspenseful at times, but the second half fails to deliver. Bertino took a great concept and applied it to standard horror fare, rather than the other way around - and the result is ultimately disappointing.

Edge of Heaven, The Movie review: A-

Review by Robert Bell (A-)

As a slightly morbid investigation of East-West culture clashes and the reconnection and adaptation of human relationships that surround loss and disappointment, The Edge of Heaven succeeds. It is structurally similar to the template made successful by Mexico's Alejandro González Iñárritu, but drawn in on a much smaller scale, keeping the story bound by Turkey and Germany. There is a stark realism to the relationships, which are never embellished or contrived for incongruous emotional impact. They exist believably, which is impressive considering the subtle balance created through a story of conveniently intersecting lives.

Edge of Heaven is broken into three parts; divided initially by two deaths and finally by the lessons learned and rekindling of broken relationships. Non-diegetic inserts showing "The Death of Yeter" and "The Death of Lotte" give the audience some not-so-subtle foreshadowing to the impending dooms of our likable and misguided protags. Despite the impending knowledge of the deaths, their inexplicit handlings are still somewhat surprising and upsetting.

The initial story follows pensioner Ali (Tuncel Kurtiz) as he visits whore valley for some copulatory satisfaction. Finding comfort in the steely, middle-aged prostitute Yeter (Nursel Kose), Ali decides to offer her a full-time job as his personal live-in hooker. Initially hesitant to accept his offer, Yeter becomes intrigued when she learns that Ali's son Nejat (Baki Devrak) is a professor in Germany. Upon moving in with Ali, it comes clear that she is far more interested in his much more grounded and aesthetically pleasing son. Feeling Yeter's distance, Ali becomes angry and abusive.

The death of Lotte (Patrycia Ziolkowska) starts out with Ayten (Nurgul Yesilcay), a young and armed political radical in Turkey being chased by the authorities. Escaping illegally to Germany, Ayten approaches Lotte for money to eat. Taking refuge on the young foreigner, Lotte invites her to stay at her house, much to the chagrin of her politically correct mother Susanne (Hanna Schygulla). Eventually, Ayten is deported back to Turkey and imprisoned. Desperate to help Ayten, Lotte travels to Turkey and rents a flat from Nejat as she tries to help her friend gain freedom.

The final story follows Susanne as she travels to Turkey to honor Lotte's wishes of helping Ayten fight her political imprisonment. While there, Susanne stays in her daughter's flat and strikes a bond with Nejat as they learn from each other and their respective tragedies.

From a subtextual perspective, Heaven is occasionally contradictory, but always interesting. The initial stories of female persecution by singular and sociologically superior men are met with an interesting denouement involving the rekindling of a damaged father-son relationship. The intended message is unclear when female suffering appears to be the fulcrum of catharsis for men, who mostly remain unaffected. There are also issues surrounding Turkish nationality and political discontent mirrored with more colonial German belief systems. German ideologies are painted with an equal, yet very different oppressions than Turkey, mainly when Ayten's forced pleas for asylum are denied and met with a relatively ignorant perspective. The insight appears to be that of differing perspectives unwilling and incapable of fully understanding each other without tragedy.

Additionally, Ayten's own trajectory is occasionally muddled as she seems unwilling to sacrifice her own political beliefs for the love and humanity she is so desperately fighting for. She ultimately winds up using Lotte, someone who genuinely cares for her, to further her self and her political agenda. Through tragedy, Ayten changes, but in doing so defies some of her own ideological values that were initially paramount.

While there is a deliberate nature to Akin's impressive script, there is also a feeling of detachment. On paper, the characters are left to perform their archetypes to further a political agenda, which occasionally comes across with minor artificiality. Thankfully, the performances from the diverse and talented cast mask this flaw. A great deal of depth and humanity is brought to each character as Akin's direction allows scenes to linger and the actors to explore each moment with insight. This also helps one overlook the surprisingly pleasant Turkish prison experience and recurring casket visuals.

The Edge of Heaven is one of the more thought provoking films to come about in some time and should be received well by art house auds and academics alike. There is a genuine feel to the relationships and political motivations exhibited on screen despite a greater knowledge of cinematic manipulation.

Children of Huang Shi, The Movie review: C+

Review by Robert Bell (C+)

Going the route of most international productions, The Children of Huang Shi attempts to give narrative gravity and attract North American auds by overshadowing a significant moment in Chinese history with the banal love story of two camera-friendly Caucasians. Like a pimple on otherwise perfect skin, the characters are drawn with single-minded nobility and one unique flaw to make them human. It's a simplistic and not entirely convincing approach to characterization, which detracts from the impact of an otherwise interesting film.

George Hogg (Jonathan Rhys Myers), a young British journalist poses as an aid worker in 1937 China in order to gain access to Nanjing, an area sanctioned off by the Japanese. After stumbling upon a mass execution, he finds himself in a sticky situation with the Japanese until being rescued by an explosives expert who is part of a communist Chinese resistance group, Chen Hensheng (Chow Yun-Fat).

By some clever manoeuvring on the part of Chen, Hogg finds himself taking refuge at a dilapidated orphanage for boys. He initially finds the situation difficult, being rejected by the untamed youths - primarily the belligerent, anti-authority Shi-Kai (Guang Li) - that is, until the arrival of a deeply empathic Australian nurse with a secret (Radha Mitchell). With her help and guidance, Hogg teaches the orphan boys lessons of hygiene, mechanical repair, language and the cultivation of land.

When the threat of Japanese invasion becomes increasingly urgent, he decides to take the boys on a harrowing journey through mountains and snow to find shelter in a far off place.

At the centre of a story that is certainly worthy of the big screen treatment is a detached and almost mathematical screenplay that gives little emotion to what should be a passionate epic. Each character reaction, accidental cut and step forward in plot is methodical and contrived, thus creating a predictability and coldness to the various outcomes. This artificiality tends to gloss over interesting character conflicts in favour of unconvincing romance and almost mystical heroism. This is really a shame, as subplots involving discord between the forgiving Hogg and more vengeful Chen, as well as the struggles Michelle Yeoh's character copes with as an opium dealer are far more interesting and complex than what is displayed on screen.

While set designs and cinematography are often impressive to watch, Spottiswoode's direction is surprisingly flat and the editing is often sloppy.

Performances throughout are solid and professional, with Radha Mitchell standing out as a subdued and deeply flawed woman who escapes her spotty past by helping those less fortunate. Her character is written with a heavy hand and a great deal of cliché, but the talented actress is able to effectively convey meaning with slight expressions in the few quiet personal moments of the film.

What stands out about Huang Shi are the first-person testimonials from remaining orphans that are shown over the closing title sequence, suggesting that a documentary approach to the subject matter may have been somewhat more effective.

Meet Bill Movie review: C

Review by Robert Bell (C)

Western culture would have us believe that happiness is easy to attain. If one adheres to the rules and guidelines set forth by our pasty-white, capitalist forefathers than we too can have the white picket fence and long-weekend cottage commute. Formative educations systems instil these values on our youth, rewarding and encouraging assimilation and singular belief systems. Intelligence is defined by one's ability to respond with the most socially acceptable answer. Any defiance or questioning of dominant ideologies and their structure, no matter how logical, is deterred and punished. This encourages a hegemonic ideal, which is then established in the production line of children. They can then go into the world and do what is expected of them; taking pride in their post-secondary educations and 9-5 income generating professions. Goals then become driven by money and status, in order to have the best "things" and be coveted by complete strangers. There is no time to question how this regimented lifestyle came to be, or whether it's even sane (or wanted), as success waits for no one. Should questions of passion or desire or happiness come into play, there are always reality-altering anti-depressants and other chemical substances. The illusion of freedom exists within this structure, allowing people to feel uniquely important or that their success lies in their personal choices and ethics. Occasionally however, there are individuals who look outside of their cages and wonder how they got trapped in the first place.

Such is Bill (Aaron Eckhart), a man trapped in routine life with a cheating wife (Elizabeth Banks) and a well-paying, but intellectually void job at a bank. Enabled and invigorated by a wisecracking, con-artist youth (Logan Lerman), who in turn is infatuated with a luscious lingerie saleswoman (Jessica Alba), Bill decides to march to the beat of his own drum.

Suffering many humiliations, including a penile comparison to an acorn, Bill seeks solstice in a doughnut franchise that he views as an escape from his mundane life.

As a preachy didactic about going after what one "wants" in life, Meet Billis a relatively successful yarn. The music cues at appropriate times to let the audience know when to laugh and when to reflect on Bill's personal discoveries. They come at convenient moments, lending a believable if formulaic character arc. The problem is that the comedy isn't funny and the drama isn't particularly moving or inspiring. Meet Bill carries the emotional gravity of an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger (perhaps the one where Haley Joel Osment had AIDS). Given that Walkerwas on for 9 seasons (seriously), Meet Bill should please a less discerning and easily entertained crowd.

Adding some much needed dignity to the film, Aaron Eckhart delivers a typically strong performance as a self-deprecating cornball. He captures the essence of a slow and unremarkable man quite well, unafraid to look weak and unattractive. His transformation is believable and he brings some much-needed humanity to a relatively uninteresting character. It isn't easy to identify with the rich and disenfranchised, but Eckhart does his best to engage the viewer. Also strong is Elizabeth Banks who seems to enjoy playing a trashy and emotionally disengaged love interest. Many actresses would have tried to make this character more likable, but Banks appears unafraid to come off as a nasty bitch. It's actually quite commendable and refreshing.

Aside from the strong cast, Meet Bill has a television movie/straight-to-DVD feel to it. Individual viewers will attach meaning to it based on their own abilities to identify with a middle-aged man who no longer finds security in his inflated bank account.

Son of Rambow Movie review: C-

Men have been graced with not one but two Rambo movies this year. The simply titled Rambo bulldozed its way into theaters earlier this year, much to the delight of fans looking for some mindless, gruesome fun. It was the explosive, bloody thrill ride I wanted it to be. Jump ahead a few months and we have the second Rambo film, aptly titled Son of Rambow Unfortunately, it is not the action-packed adventure one might suspect, but a childhood film inspired by First Blood.

A British film set in the early 1980's, Son of Rambow follows a young boy named Will Proudfoot (Bill Milner) who is naive to much of the modern world. A member of the Plymouth Brethren, he isn't allowed to watch TV or movies, and in fact has to leave class every time his teacher shows a video. It is on one of these occasions that he meets the manipulative hooligan Lee Carter (Will Poulter). While Lee Carter first takes advantage of Will's innocent ways, the two soon form a friendship as they set out to make an adaptation of First Blood - the first and only movie Will has ever seen. As filming continues and more and more students join in on the production, Will and Lee Carter find their relationship strained - and his family threatened with expulsion from the religious order in which he has been raised.

Having only watched blockbusters for the last month, I was looking forward to sitting down to a pleasant little British comedy. The concept sounded great; the previews were hilarious. After all, how can a comedy about two boys remaking a low budget Rambo film not be good? Unfortunately, Son of Rambow is not very good at all. As I've heard some glowing reviews about the movie, I have to assume that my perception was skewed the night before, but if that were the case, it must have really been skewed. Son of Rambow is mildly funny at best, yet utterly boring.

Son of Rambow is just over an hour and a half, yet it feels like it's three hours long. Thanks, Garth Jennings, for making a movie feel twice as long as it actually is. I hadn't been so excited to get to the end of a movie in a long time, which is pretty amazing since Son of Rambow is just the kind of film that would appeal to me on multiple levels. I wasn't the only one who was bored - a group of eight people left halfway through the picture.

I don't know exactly what went wrong here. The concept is good, as are the actors. Will Proudfoot is a bit crazy, but likable. Lee Carter is the best character, as he receives the most character development and has some interesting family dynamics to deal with. Other characters, such as the French exchange student Didier Revol (Jules Sitruk), are pretty enjoyable. On the merits of each individual scene, there is nothing particularly bad; director Jennings does a good job with each, balancing lightheartedness, drama and quirkiness pretty consistently. The actual filmmaking scenes are pretty good, especially the one where Will gets blasted off a ladder with a fire hose.

Unfortunately, the synergy of the scenes amounts to very little. Okay on their own, there is very little flow, entertainment or even cohesion to the mass plot. The movie meanders aimlessly for a long time before Will ever gets to see First Blood, and even after that point, the filmmaking scenes - again, the best parts of the movie - are so few and far between that it's impossible to become engaged in the story. Jennings attempts to relay Will's imagination to the audience through "hallucinations" of nightmare scarecrows, on-screen animations and more fall flat; such elements were done much better in The Science of Sleep. Jennings also forays into random scenes that add little value to the story, namely a dance/party sequence with the French students. There are so many "what's the point?" scenes that completely veer away from the movie that was marketed to us.

Ultimately, the problem with the Son of Rambow is that it was advertised as a funny, quirky film about two boys trying to make a Rambo movie. The filmmaking, as it turns out, is a small part of the movie, a loose glue to adhere to rather than the central focus. The result is a dull and disingenuous picture that fails to spark any kind of fire, despite the makings for one.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Movie review: B-

Indiana Jones. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Easily the most anticipated film of the year, if not the decade. Fans have been waiting for Harrison Ford to reprise his role as the hat-wearing, whip-wielding, sarcasm-throwing archaeologist hero for twenty years. Rumors abounded for so long that people became immune to any kind of tentative announcement. Then, suddenly, Indiana Jones 4 was a reality, and all the big players, from Steven Spielberg to George Lucas and Harrison Ford, were returning. There's no way this new Indiana Jones could fail, right? Right?

First off, I am a big Indiana Jones fan. So big that over the last week, I've watched all three of the original films. I even like The Temple of Doom, for Christ's sake. That being said, I went into Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hesitantly, determined not to trump it up too much for fear of approaching it with too high of expectations. I had heard that the film was receiving mixed reviews, as it should; this movie, literally the most anticipated film since the Star Wars prequels, was, by nature, going to set expectations unrealistically high. It's impossible not to be disappointed by a film like this.

This new Indiana Jones is entertaining enough. For the first half hour of the movie, I had a big grin on my face as I was so delighted to see Indy back on the big screen (whether I saw any of the originals on the big screen is up for debate, as I was only seven when The Last Crusade hit theaters). Watching Indy jump, shoot, whip and punch his way through Communist slime is entertaining, and with the return of the familiar John Williams soundtrack, it's hard not to pee your pants just a little.

But still... this movie is by far the worst one of the bunch. I hope that on a second viewing I will enjoy it more, but I'm pretty sure even the second time around I will take issue with a few things. The story is absurdly cluttered and hardly engaging. There doesn't have to be much, but Crystal Skull drops so many storylines they're hard to count. Indy gets blacklisted - what's the point? Indy has the FBI after him - what's the point? There are a few other elements that drop by the way side.

Karen Allen is back in this movie, but it's hard to figure out why. She looks ecstatic to be back in a major movie, but forgot that she has to act convincingly. Of course, she needs a part to act . Her character seems to be in the screenplay to establish that Shia LaBeouf is Indy's son, nothing more. She is hardly reminiscent of the tough, passionate woman we saw years ago, and writer David Koepp doesn't seem interested in reestablishing the convincing chemistry she and Ford shared in Raiders of the Lost Ark. A lot of the character dynamics, and the characters themselves, seem underdeveloped. LaBeouf is quite good in his role, but most of the other characters show up out of nowhere to serve as nothing more than plot points. Case in hand: John Hurt, who runs around like a homeless lunatic most of the time.

While things pick up after a few minutes, the dialogue is pretty cringe-inducing at the beginning. I don't know if the film was shot in sequence, but the very first scene that involves Indy's return is about as awkward as they come. It's as if Ford wasn't quite comfortable returning to his most cherished role.

All that being said, those are minor concerns. I can get over them, and because I am such an Indiana Jones fan, I know I'm going to be overly picky. But there are several moments where one wonders, "Spielberg, what on God's green Earth were you thinking?" From here on out, consider this a SPOILER ALERT.

First, the Crystal Skull. Indiana Jones has always had a mysticism around them, but when you think about it, the supernatural has always played a rather minor role in the films. The Ark of the Covenant doesn't do anything until the climax of the movie. In Temple of Doom, there is some heart removal and glowing rocks, but that's about it. In the Last Crusade, nothing abnormal happens until the last scene. In Indiana Jones 4, Koepp, Spielberg and Lucas took the very dangerous path of bringing aliens into the mix, and it is a risk they should not have taken. First off, the Crystal Skull looks cheesy. Two, it has special powers. Thirdly, those special powers play way too much of a part in the movie. Fourth, the alien route is just cheesy... even for Indiana Jones.

Beyond that, there are a few dreadfully bad moments throughout the film. The scene where LaBeouf swings through the jungle like Tarzan and somehow manages to end up back in a car chase that left him long before is something you'd expect to see in The Mummy Returns, not a film from the guy who directed Schindler's List. Spielberg's obsession with monkeys and groundhogs is annoying, too. And what's the point of the nuclear bomb in the beginning? It's a little cheesy, and does absolutely nothing to progress the plot. Absolutely nothing at all.

To cap things off, the action isn't anything to scream about. There are some good sequences, but no memorable sequences like those in the previous movies (the rolling rock and airplane fight sequence in Raiders, the mine cart in Doom and the tank scene in Crusade come to mind). There is also surprisingly little action. There is a lot of exploring, but not a lot of Indy vs. Communist excitement as one would expect. Sadly, the final major fight scene focuses almost exclusively on LaBeouf vs. Cate Blanchett. I'm sorry, but I want to see Indy, no matter how old, taking down all of Russia. Not LaBeouf waving a sword around.

Complaints aside, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has some good things going for it. Despite a lack of action and some cheesy moments, it is consistently entertaining where most films would not be. The visual effects, for the most part, are good; I have heard some criticisms about the fact that they intentionally look old, but as an Indiana Jones fan, they work perfectly. All in all, the movie is still better than most, even though I'm also laying into it more than most.

This new Indiana Jones film is decent enough, but it's frustrating to think that over twenty years, this is the best story and screenplay Lucas and Spielberg could agree on. The alien storyline is just completely wrong. I hope that with future watchings I am able to look back on this review and say that I was overly harsh, but I am skeptical as to whether that will happen.

War, Inc. Movie review: B

War movies and war satires haven't been well received over the last year. With the lackluster performances of Stop-Loss, Rendition, The Kingdom and The Hunting Party, it's no surprise that a seemingly mainstream movie featuring John Cusack and Hilary Duff would be relegated to limited release and art house cinemas. It seems that people aren't very interested in getting a dose of reality or hearing endless social commentary on increasingly fuzzy wars and foreign occupations. The quirky antics of the TMZ guys and plastic-titted Hugh Hefner girls next door seem to be higher on priority lists this side of the Atlantic.

While War Inc. is far from a perfect film, suffering from an occasionally convoluted plot that doesn't entirely make sense and some hackneyed conveniences that come into play in the third act, it is a unique and peculiar experience that needs to be seen to be believed. Acting as a solid satire with decent action and some inspired comic moments, War Inc. struggles mainly with dramatic ire when trying to give the illusion of greater significance. It attempts to balance quirky comedy with legitimate social satire, ultimately sacrificing both in an effort to cover every base. The most effective moments in the film are ones that ignore narrative balance and follow their own natural trajectory.

A private corporation run by former US vice president (Dan Aykroyd) sends hitman Brand Hauser (John Cusack) over to the recently occupied Turaqistan to assassinate Omar Sharif (Lyobomir Neikov), a middle-east oil minister, in order to maximize commercial profit from the struggling nation. Hauser and his eccentric partner Marsha (Joan Cusack) have been sent under the guise of organizing the high profile wedding of pop princess Yonica Babyyeah (Hilary Duff) to Ooq-Mi-Fay (Sergej Trifunovic). Finding himself in a moral crisis that is only exacerbate by the liberal-minded rants of plucky reporter Natalie (Marisa Tomei), Brand invests more of his energies in protecting Yonica from her own destiny as a product of North American packaging and greed.

The subtext in War Inc. isn't exactly subtle, nor does it need to be. Images of ever-morphing American celebrities (including "Flipper") are visible at every landmark, as are tanks with flashy advertisements and corporate logos. Solid effort is made to exploit American occupation through comic effect, most effectively when gift bags are handed out to political leaders and when war amputees are doing the can-can with fancy new prosthetic limbs. As a lefty American poli-com it's a relatively glib oversimplification of complex issues, offering very little insight on profiteering and international relations, but communicates its point effectively to a less discerning, and generally less politically interested, audience.

While certain trajectories work well in the film, there are a number of plot devices and decisions that don't fully satisfy or pan out on a narrative whole. Sequences involving Hilary Duff singing sexually charged songs about foreign invasion and terrorism, while erotically licking a fuel pump nozzle, are highly clever and amusing, but are often overshadowed by annoyances like Cusack's repeating hot sauce gag and a misguided denouement involving foxy fillies with machine guns.

Performances by lead thesps are uniformly solid, if occasionally uninspired. John Cusack has played this role so many times before that, despite his best efforts, the gig seems tired and recycled. Joan Cusack, on the other hand, is delightful as his hypomanic sidekick, who is unfortunately given too little screen time. Surprisingly, Hilary Duff isn't that bad, not completely screwing up her accent; she demonstrates some range and charisma.

Hardcore fans of the anarchic mayhem demonstrated in Grosse Point Blank should find some amusement in this slightly more bizarre tonal retread, but anyone looking for a cohesive narrative will likely find themselves disappointed and confused.

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The Movie review: A-

The first Chronicles of Narnia movie, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, was decent. It was marketed as the solution to the void that The Lord of the Rings left in its wake, and, frankly, it failed to live up to expectations. The movie was a children's movie, which was fine, but it stayed comfortably within its PG rating even when it promised magnificent battles and medieval, fantastic action. Beyond that, director Andrew Adamson had never directed a live action picture, and it was a risky and ultimately poor move by Disney to put him in control of such a gigantic franchise opener. The movie was clunky, not particularly imaginative and way too long for the story it was presenting. That being said, it was good enough.

Adamson has returned to direct the second film, Prince Caspian, and, thankfully, it appears as though he truly learned from his mistakes. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is a thousand times better than its predecessor in every way. The story is more engaging, the action more exciting, and, most importantly, the visuals much grittier. Prince Caspian is rated PG, but parents should be warned; this movie truly does stretch its rating. In many ways, this movie is the perfect representation of what is wrong with the MPAA; Prince Caspian has no sex or gore, but is quite violent. Despite decapitations, murders, executions and plenty of deaths, the MPAA still gives the movie a PG rating. Of course, that's good for everyone over the age of ten.

The movie picks up a year after the last one ended, with the four kids back in London. Magically, they are swept back to the land of Narnia, but not the Narnia they remember. Over a thousand years have passed, and humans have all but exterminated every Narnian creature. To complicate matters, the King has just ordered the death of his nephew Prince Caspian, the rightful heir to the throne. Caspian escapes into Narnia and forms an awkward alliance with the four kids and a small band of Narnians to reclaim their lands once and for all and bring harmony to the different races.

Prince Caspian is a very good summer movie. Adamson defies expectations in the first minute, as we are introduced to the political intrigue and attempted executive of the title character. Almost immediately, you can tell Prince Caspian has an entirely new and grittier look; the colors are more pronounced, the film less glossy, the picture more intriguing. When the action starts, Adamson dives into the middle of the battle with few reservations. Pushing the PG rating to the extreme, Caspian is amazingly violent, brutal and intense, even though Adamson clips away the split second before any blood or gore is shown. Nevertheless, that doesn't pass on the chance to imply hundreds of deaths, betrayals and even a beheading.

The best scene of the movie is a man-to-man fight between Peter (William Moseley) and the evil King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). Adamson pulls out some Gladiator-esque imagery to deliver every brutal punch and sword slap, somehow managing to avoid showing any blood in the process.

Beyond the action, the rest of the movie is pretty good, too. I liked the political meandering many of the characters take, and the writing in general. The film establishes several quality characters, especially that of Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage). The character development in general is quite good as well.

The only real similarity to the first film is the running time, which once again is overly long. After the explosive start to Prince Caspian, the movie slows down considerably as it sets the stage for what is to come. This is fine, but Adamson takes a little too long to get to the point. The movie is never boring, but the trimming of a few minutes here and there could have done wonders.

My only other complaint is that the character of Prince Caspian is pretty much a wuss. I haven't read the book since I was a kid, but I have to imagine that by the end of the story he's proven his worth at some point or another. In the movie, Caspian is a wimp from beginning to end. There's no defining moment for the character where he proves to the world - and the audience - that he is ready to be king, and this is a problem. I sure as hell wouldn't want him being responsible for my safety.

Nevertheless, despite a few flaws, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is an amazingly good film. Exciting and at times brutal, the movie is engaging and entertaining, which is more than I can ask for with a summer movie such as this. Highly recommended.