Filim Review: Man on Wire (2008)

Grade: A

Man on Wire is without a doubt the best film of the year going unwatched. While unborn babies can already recite lines from The Dark Knight, this James Marsh masterpiece of a documentary has been left to the arthouses of America's cities. But for an hour less than TDK, you're going to get the same amount, if not more the suspense, the disappointment, and the glee. Sure, it's unfair to compare these drastically different films, but the only point I'm trying to make is that this film is a must-see, and is a guaranteed to leave you entertained.

The tagline reads like this: "1974. 1350 feet up. The artistic crime of the century." And honestly, that's all you really need to know. And through that tagline, Marsh and more importantly, our protagonist Philippe Petit relive and retell the beginnings, the struggles, and the stories to it's most detailed and wildly entertaining form. And from their memories forms a story that seems innate: it's the American dream to reach and conquer the impossible, or in this case, the World Trade Center.

You can say that this is one of the better post-9/11 pictures (next to 25th Hour), despite being a story of pre-9/11. By glorifying the towers and soon after, conquering the towers, the picture shows that the human spirit is in fact greater than those towers, that nothing could bring it or us down.

But if you receive none of these revelations, count on this: it's just flat out delightful. You'll find yourself squirming in your seat as our hero dances on a tightrope, sweat dripping down your palms while a Frenchman shows you how to be an American. All in all, Man on Wire is a wonderful work of art that shows not only the audacity and bravery of the American spirit, but the childlike beauty of the human spirit as well.

Film Review: Tropic Thunder (2008)

Grade: A-

Tropic Thunder is the funniest movie of the year, a refreshing comedy that surpasses the overdone Apatow and McKay projects of the past few years, as Stiller delivers again in his first directorial film since Zoolander.

It's the story of a bunch of pre-madonna actors making the most expensive war film of all time till the studio's pressure forces the director to lead his cast into Southeast Asia to encounter real villains, real guns, and real death. But unlike many comedies with an interesting premise, it's not ruined in the trailers, as everything I have just explained happens in the first 20 minutes or so. After that, you're not really sure what is happening, going on for the fun, ridiculous ride with the fake actors.

From the get go, you're already laughing -- with a commercial for Alpa Chino's Booty Sweat and three trailers that's highlighted by Robert Downey Jr. and surprise cameo Tobey McGuire's film with the tagline (I've been a very very bad boy). And after that, it's a non-stop laugh-out-loud film that's headlined by their three big stars (Stiller, Black, and Downey, Jr.), but much of the credit must be given to the supporting cast. The two other soldiers in the film -- played by Brandon T. Jackson and Jay Baruchel (from Knocked Up) -- are sensational and at times, outshining Stiller or Black (who is my only knock on the film, just plain annoying as opposed to adorably annoying).

The only performance better than Downey Jr.'s incredible portrayal of a dude playing another dude disguised as another dude is Tom Cruise, who is more than a cameo in his role as the studio executive. I don't remember the last time I've laughed that hard at a movie theater, as every body movement and line he says is delivered with such comedic force I'm not sure anyone can resist him.

Add to that former-G.I. played by Nick Nolte (yeah, Nick Nolte!), special effects man played by Danny McBride (this is the month of Mr. McBride), studio executives' right-hand-man played by the always dependable Bill Hader, first-time director Hamlet 2's Steve Coogan, and Stiller's agent played by Matthew McConaughey (he doesn't even take his shirt off!).

Tropic Thunder is a comedic stroke of genius, a satire at its best and not even close to a spoof. The difference is in its intelligent script only multiplied by its ridiculousness. It's in the same league as Thank You for Smoking, just masked in a different way. For the first time, you were having fun in a film that was obvious the actors were having a ton of fun as well.

After a summer of disappointing comedies that sell themselves as comedies but aren't very comedic, my hats off to you, Ben Stiller and the rest of the gang of Tropic Thunder, the funniest film since Hot Fuzz.

Film Review: Pineapple Express ( 2008)

Grade: B

It's hard to explain to the majority of people who love it -- still laughing hysterically hours after they've seen the movie -- why...well, how do i put this...not very funny. Pineapple Express is labeled Superbad: The Sequel because it reunites Seth Rogen with Evan Goldberg for another raunchy coming-of-age buddy-buddy film that sparks off from a wrong-place, wrong-time moment. But for me, the similarities end there.

Superbad was about a couple of innocent high school kids who could only fantasize about a life better than their own, the one that's marketed on MTV and by Freddie Prince Jr. -- girls, booze, parties, sex, rebellion. And not so much the opposite -- nerds, porn, and family parties. The rauchiness and the language is in almost every way excusable because they're kids and they don't know any better. But best of all about Superbad, it was relatable. We've all been there, part of the reject crowd or at least not in the incrowd through our puberty-filled childhoods. And for boys/men, the relationship with another boy/man where you show your love but never say your love is a day-to-day affair for us.

Compare that with Pineapple Express, where childhood innocence is more or less replaced by adult stupidity. Substitute puberty with weed, and you've got the pair of Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) and Saul Silver (James Franco). There's the same coming-of-age male love story that happens once again, except this time it's between a drug dealer and his client. I don't relate to that because I'm neither of them and most people wont either. But the difference between me and others is I prefer something real whereas you may prefer the absurdity of this concept and relish in it. If so, my hats off to you.

The funniest parts in the action-comedy (dryhumping, Craig Robinson's lines, foot out the car windshield, hit-and-run, and the dumpster) were already shown during the trailer. And the most action-filled parts were simply not that well...action-filled. If the duo were cops, this film would fit more under Starsky and Hutch (Ben Stiller version) rather than Bad Boys.

Perhaps what is most disturbing to me is the realization that I have been Seth Rogened out. And by that, I mean he plays the same character in every movie, a character that started out brash and funny, but now is just overused and annoying. He's always profanity-laced, yelling on behalf of common sense everywhere while lighting one up. Even though the rest of the world hasn't caught on yet, mark my words: there will be a major backlash on Seth Rogen in the next year or two in the same way that Will Farrell is feeling it now. He may feel like he's on top of the world, but comedy masters fall from the mountain top very quickly unless they reinvent themselves. That's the difference between Jim Carrey and Mike Myers.

I sound much harsher than I really should, though. There were still a few enjoyable aspects to Pineapple Express, the main one being James Franco's performance. I haven't really followed his career though others have told me to keep a close eye. And I'm starting to see what they're talking about. Compared to Rogen's shouts, Franco's high-all-the-time character is brilliantly charming and induces a smile on your face whenever he's onscreen.

This is a film that I desperately wanted to like and even love. But it was one of those films where after half an hour of forcing laughter, it gets draining. And instead of fitting in with the rest of the comedy-induced crowd surrounding me, I just had to admit -- I don't think it's funny. I said it -- go ahead, sue me.

Film Review; Be Kind Rewind (2008)

Grade: B-

Be Kind Rewind is a sweet, easily-lovable indie film about Mike and Jerry who must remake their old versions of popular titles after Jerry's magnetized body erases the tapes. From Ghosbusters to The Lion King to Driving Miss Daisy, we get the treat of seeing Michael Gondry's rendition of Mike and Jerry's rendition of everybody's favorite movies.

It's chuckled-filled, but never hysterically funny. It's amiable, but hard to fall in love with. Mos Def and Jack Black are cute (the others look like they're trying too hard to be cute) and though the film is a one-joke premise with a predictable conflict, Gondry proves once again that he's a visionary director, using his quirkiness to his own advantage. He gives us a refreshing break from the run-and-bust Hollywood-style filmmaking in a much greater way that Mike and Jerry ever could.

Be Kind Rewind is a nice way to spend 90 minutes of your time, but luckily for me and for you -- you've left this off for DVD or VHS, whatever is your thing.

Film Review: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

Grade: C-

There are movies like The Mummy 1 and 2 and the National Treasure series that are so dumb you start to enjoy them. The more ludicrous the plot, the better. Bask me in your corny lines and predictable endings, just take me along on an adventure ride through an imaginary real world Disney asked us to dream.

And then there is The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which is actually dumber, cornier, and more predictable than any of the predecessors. But there's no sense of excitement, no laugh-out-loud or wow moments to cloud the terrible film you're watching. Just don't go blaming Brendan Frasier though. He seems to have a knack and a curse for using terrible material and running with it -- carrying the likes of Blast from the Past and Bedazzled with his broad shoulders. He could not save George of the Jungle. No one is that good.

Sure the absence of Rachel Weisz from this film hurt and newcomer Luke Ford as Frasier's son doesn't help at all. Probably the greatest flaw was a guy who's last few films included XXX, Stealth, and The Fast and The Furious -- all films capable of making you hurl.

Explorer Rick O'Connel and his wife are back from an uneasy retirement, only to find themselves saving the rogue like-father-like-son Alex in China. With the help of money-hungry backstabbers, the O'Connels find themselves in the middle of an ancient Chinese emperor with mystic powers awakening (Jet Li). Now the race is off before he awakes his army. In essence, the script has the same skeleton as Hellboy II, except Guillermo Del Toro's fantasy world is replaced with story ideas and special effects that should have been left for dead.

There's a scene when the heroes have no way of fighting the dragon emperor, and to their rescue comes abominable snowmen. To which everyone in the audience and Brandon Frasier scream out, "ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN!?!!?!?!?" That was the greatest part of the movie, when Frasier said the same thing everyone else was thinking -- maybe at that point, he was telling us that everyone involved in the picture knew how bad this film is going to be.

Maybe it's a film that had to be done -- just to satisfy the What Ifs of a popular movie franchise. This stamps The Mummy series as dead, to be left in the coffin and never to be resurrected again. And for that, I'm thankful at least.

Step Brothers (2008)

Grade: C

Okay, so part of me did not want to give up on Will Farrell. And there were plenty of reasons not to. The trailer alone is funnier, the premise is funnier, the supporting cast is funnier, and it's a summer movie as opposed to the not-so-beloved January movies. And what I got was a replay of most boys' lives between the ages of 5 and 10, except you threw some violence and a couple of curses...okay a lot of curses....okay a shitload of fucking curses.

If you laughed at the last sentence (and imagined Will Farrell saying it), then Step Brothers is the movie for you. Hell, it might be the best movie you've seen all year, if not the decade. But for the others, that's about all you can look forward to. A sad fact considering Richard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen play the parents, and random cameos are made from Seth Rogen, Ken Jeong, and Horatio Sanz.

It's one of those comedies where it looks like the actors are having more fun than the audience, hoping that they can evoke some sort of jealousy for you all who aren't having as much fun. As for Farrell and John C. Reilly, the film feels like they're riding off of a wave of Talledega momentum that has already passed over a year late.

And while most of the funny parts are not ruined in the trailer, a good amount is. You will be guaranteed a few hearty laughs, but none in succession or none so loud that you'd fall off the seat. You'll leave the theater emotionless, without a grin on your face (and really, isn't that the whole point of these comedies), and you'll say to yourself, "I could've probably waited for the DVD."

The search for a Will Farrell masterpiece continues, one that can relive his fleeting moments as Chazz Reinhold. At least he's headed in the right direction after Semi-Pro. Though that's not saying much.

Film Review: Semi-Pro (2008)

Grade: D+

I'm not sure why I watched it months after it was torn to pieces from critics and viewers alike. But there's a part of me that will always go see a Will Farrell movie, almost as a sign of respect for the decade of laughter he provided me on SNL. I don't want to believe that his comedic genius is dropping, don't want to admit that maybe he wasn't that funny to begin with, don't want to admit that I'd rather see him in dramas even though I thoroughly enjoyed Stranger Than Fiction. So like a Jets fan convincing himself they have a chance to win the Super Bowl this year just because they have Favre, I convince myself that this Will Farrell movie will be good just because another year has passed. And the final verdict was that...no...no it was not.

Granted, I laughed loudly a couple of times during the film, but I also did that in The Departed, American Beauty, and Braveheart. That doesn't make those films comedies. But Semi-Pro sells itself as one and past the couple of laughs that total of to a minute of screentime, we're left with a story I don't care about, another wasted performance from Woody Harrelson, and more proof that Farrell should cut his work by at least half, so he actually cares about honing the characters he plays. Whereas 6 hours worth of character development was enough for Craig Buchanan or Tom Wilkins, it's just not enough for a feature length film.

Semi-Pro feels like one of those unfunny SNL skits -- you know the ones that feel painful to watch, as forced giggles make their way to the screen for a skit that everyone knew should have been cut. Except this skit lasts 90 minutes without a laugh track, a commercial break, or even Jimmy Fallon's laughter as an extra. Seriously, where is Jimmy Fallon when you need him?

Film Review: 27 Dresses (2008)

Grade: D+

Ah, how I long for a good chick flick, a genre that I will defend to its death or at least till a divorce do us part. But movies like 27 Dresses make that job awfully difficult. They conform to all the chick flick stereotypes with all the negative connotations.

Predictability is often welcome in a good chick flick, because it welcomes the commonplace, the settings and people and feelings we are used to. But when predictability meets absurdity (a woman who is not only a bridesmaid 27 times, but double stuffs the weddings too), it makes the head spin a little. The chemistry never works for Katherine Heigl and James Marsden, a shame after Heigl's hit performance in Knocked Up and Marsden's first role as leading man instead of charming man who gets dumped (Enchanted, X-Men (all three), Superman Returns, and The Notebook). Everything feels forced, trying to tell jokes that are never funny and relating a story that is never touching.

It doesn't even reach the chick flick status of being so dumb and stupid that you enjoy it. It's a chick flick in search of an identity, not knowing how to be unique and bankable at the same time. I'm not sure what this type of film appeals to, maybe if you were a girl that has dreamt about marriage since you were four...or maybe if you've felt like a girl who has always been neglected. If the former, then I feel sorry for you. If the latter, the film still shouldn't work for you because 9 out of 10 actual girls will choose James Marsden over Ed Burns (in the year 2008). Sad for me to say this, but maybe the movie would've been better if Marsden was the charming who gets dumped.

It's a film to leave at the altar, or else you'll feel cheated later on.

Film Review: 21 (2008)

Grade: C

I am a sucker for anything that involves Vegas, gambling, or college kids. Not just films that involve those aspects. Anything. So when 21 came along, satisfying all three genres, I was getting more excited than hitting a set on the river against bullets. Throw in one of my all-time favorites, Kevin Spacey, into the mix and you've got yourself a winner...right? But like many cheap thrills in Sin City, this one comes away as a disappointment.

What made this film so bad was not just because it was bad, but because it had such a great premise to work with and failed anyway. A bunch of genius college kids who bring down the house in Vegas. You could've went with any angle on this story, but 21 ditches the true account for a below-average thriller that comes off hardly believable. It substitutes thinking man techniques at the casino for silly MTV-style montages stolen from The Real World: Las Vegas. It substitutes built-in suspense for dissatisfying drama. It even substitutes a blackjack team comprised mainly of Asian men for snappy dressed, good-looking men and women stolen from Gossip Girl.

I think the actors even realized how ridiculous the film was becoming. They thought they had signed on to an intriguing storyline, but as it was clear the true story was being botched, Spacey's and Lawrence Fishburne's acting went down the tubes, working on autopilot to save this stinker from up-and-coming overpaid actors (Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth) flopping at roles every chances they get.

Unlike the great Rounders, 21 dumbs down its movies, never fully respecting the story or the audience that expects it. It cheapens everything down in an effort to achieve Hollywood blockbuster success, and for that, it fails to be a good movie or a Hollywood blockbuster success. The film is another example of why "based on true story" movies should be kept under close watch and only made when we have to, and also an example for why remakes are necessary...for at least the bad movies anyway.

Film Review: Jesus Camp (2006)

Grade: B+

As a Christian, I anticipate these types of movies (Saved! and Religulous) with an interesting blend of fear and excitement. Fear of the minute chance that its criticism of my faith will ultimately destroy one of it's foundations. And excitement that another perspective can stimulate my growth that exceeds the stereotypes and Sunday sermons.

And though I can say both with disappointment and relief, that I am still the same person now as I was before watching the film, Jesus Camp did deliver on what was expected of it: serving a thin slice of conservative Christian America. Filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady allow the people to a) make complete fools of themselves and b) express their passion for something they will believe to the grave. It's the type of refreshing documentary that understands how to always show, never tell.

Pastor Becky Fischer is the head of the Christian summer camp, trying to raise up an army of Christian soldiers from the ground up. Brainwashing or providing an anti-culture is up for you to decide while we enter the lives of three home-schooled Missouri children whose personalities are sometimes disturbing, and sometimes hysterical.

What was most enjoyable for me were the personal battles raging within during the film. Defense mechanisms fought off subtle claims that a radical love for Jesus was hurting our world. Meanwhile, I have to come to terms with how far insecure Christians will go while forgoing the message of Jesus. Despite all that, it's sad that the audience doesn't see that most of these children turn out okay; we do not become carbon copies of Pat Robertsons in America. Instead, the only adults we see in this film are camp counselors like Ms. Fischer and a weird (to say the least) scene involving the pre-shamed Ted Haggard.

Another fault of this film is voice of God credibility lent to radio talk show host Mike Papantonio. Every fifteen minutes or so, we hear his one-man commentary about the absurdity of neo-conservative Christians until he ultimately confronts Ms. Fischer on his program. But like all radio talk shows, the host always wins, always gets the last word, and always hangs up on the caller. Whatever he says goes, and the filmmakers almost wanted us to trust his commentary.

Not that a documentary should be unbiased, but it should strive to reveal deeper understandings for the motives or the reasons behind what see on the screen. Jesus Camp is interesting and entertaining for sure as an above-average film, but as a very good documentary, it falls just a tad short.

Film Review: Swing Vote (2008)

Grade: C

If Swing Vote was a person, he would be your typical collegiate student spewing out political cynicism on the quad, pretending to sound intelligent while offering nothing original. If only big names could save this drowning campaign, but they don't. Bland performances can't.

Some political comedies fail because they're not funny and they try to achieve too much. This political comedy fail because well, it's not funny and they don't really try to achieve anything at all. Bud Johnson, the all-American loser from Texas, gets a chance to have his vote really be counted for something. And predictably, the two presidential candidates sacrifice their opinions, values, and morals to win. By the end, we have a multitude of Full House realizations. The only thing missing was a Beach Boys cameo. It's okay though, Willie Nelson came through.

In my humble opinion, cynicism is almost never useful or proactive, just an immature, unsophisticalted, and lazy method to filter thoughts. But cynicism reigns king in this film, as their voice of God comes from Mr. Johnson's young daughter, Molly (fitting). Meanwhile, the adults play naive voters who are easily convinced by a politician's tricks.

At its essence, Swing Vote screams for a third political party that can relate to a common man's troubles. So if that was the point Kevin Costner and writer/director Joshua Michael Stern was trying to make, it's a conclusion/solution that's overwhelmingly archaic and simple in this year's political yarn. And if they weren't trying to make a point, just wanting to entertain in the midst of 20-plus debates this year, they didn't do a very good job of that either.

Film Review: In the Name of the Father (1993)

Grade: A-

In the Name of the Father is at its core, a father-son movie, a romantic masterpiece for men. I'm not usually a fan of anything with a "based on a true story tagline," but this is the rare exception when great acting carries a weak script and "true story" pitfalls.

Daniel Day Lewis plays Gerry Conlin, a petty thief who was wrongly accused for an act of terrorism in the UK. And in the same vein as Shawshank, he is imprisoned for life. Except this time, his father is one of the co-conspirators. It may not leave the same legacy as Tim Robbins as Andy Dufresne, but it sure comes close. One could argue Lewis had a tougher role. Whereas Dufresne is a model citizen that is never broken down by a maximum security prison, Conlin is immature and young, passionate and honest, human. We see his growth from disobedient boy to a man carrying the burden and the joy of his father's name.

It never made me want to call my daddy and tell him that I love him. But a sense of Irish pride or male pride or family pride rises up in me, achieving almost the same thing as Braveheart -- the kind of movie men dream about but only get once every couple of years.

Film Review: Michael Clayton (2007)

Grade: B

Michael Clayton is everything that you've heard, well deserving of every accolade given to them. The entire cast is pitch perfect, pulling you to the edge of your seat into the world of law of all things. Clooney, Wilkinson, Swinton, O'Keefe, and Pollack all show you why they are some of most well-respected powerhouses on the big screen. Every change in inflection and volume, every glare and every twitch, they impact the audience and bring life to the script. The screenplay and directing itself is a new kind of a thriller, an intellectual one that questions what we all suspected: the morals of high-venture law.

So why the mediocre grade? Simple. I was bored. I admire those who are able to enjoy this work of art from beginning to the end. It's not a mass movie, and it's not like I'm a mass viewer: just need a little bit of both. Similar to a tree that falls down and no one is there to hear it, what good is a great movie that doesn't hold the attention of the average moviegoer?

I cannot pinpoint what Tony Gilroy could've done differently or how he could've written it differently. But at the end of the day, movies are for someone's enjoyment. And this one didn't enjoy it.

Film Review: P.S. I Love You (2007)

Grade: D

Sometimes, it's not enough to make a grown man get choked up in the middle of the night. Your movie can still suck. It's not enough to cause a phone call expressing my undying love to my girlfriend. Your movie can still be unintelligent. Sparking emotions is usually a clear sign for an effective movie that does what it set out to do. But this is a cheap spectacle, using death and love in the same sentence, the same gimic for a tearjerker gone 90 minutes too long.

There is almost nothing good I can say about this movie. It's an unconvincing film that shows Hillary Swank should stick to Oscar dramas, Lisa Kudrow should stick to television, and Gina Gershon should stick to the 90s. It's told from a female's perspective and it shows because no guy I know can fully relate to any of the three men in the movie. Gerard Butler is charming, no doubt, but can someone be too perfect? Yes and its a no-no in romantic comedies. Male or female. Dead or alive. That's why John Cusack works. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (aka Denny from Grey's Anatomy) serves as the exotic European further proving why British men are better lovers. Problem is his connection to the film is mere ridiculousness. Why does a film try to be realistic and at the same time, hold onto the fantastical chick flick motifs? And Harry Connick Jr. is your bumbling American who plays the best friend who can't get some. And my review of him? Stick to singing. We never care about him, and he remains in the loser fold, never endearing himself to the audience. Leave this role to John Cusack.

And as previously noted, it's too long, running a whole 2 hrs and 10 minutes. That's a mere sitcom away from Batman Begins. That's for a movie that runs on one premise -- getting over a perfect man who died too early in life and in the film -- before the opening credits. I can see why respected actors signed up for P.S. I Love You. It's a new idea for the overdone chick flick genre. It's emotional. And it's got Gerard Butler half naked and Denny fully naked. So I guess it's not surprising that I left this movie feeling cheap, feeling spent and used...with my emotions on the carpet floor, wasted.

Film Review: The Kingdom (2007)

Grade: C+

I wish Peter Berg would stop choosing bad scripts. He always enthralls actors with his innovative directing style -- and I've always thought he had incredible potentil since the mid 1990s. Very Bad Things and Friday Night Lights (both film and TV) are some of my favorite works to watch on both an entertaining and artistic facet. In very few movies do I feel as if I am there, that I ride with the high and the lows of the actors. Maybe it's the way he motivates his cast and crew, and maybe it's the handheld camera shots he uses, but it's clear Berg has a unique and correct vision of how to make non-reality TV seem more realistic than life itself.

But in both Hancock and The Kingdom, he supremely disappoints. And I don't get it. He has much better actors in both films. Bateman is classic. Cooper and Theron are well-respected. Foxx and Smith will make any film better. And I guess I'll just have to blame the screenplays for both pitfalls. And it's a shame. You see glimpses of his genius in both films, but they both fall flat. You never get involved with any character, no matter how much you want to. You sort of see the tension and the drama, but it never fully unfolds in a way that makes you care. Just snippets of great 3 minute action sequences. But even after three or four of those snippets, you still have another hour and 15 minutes of movie time left.

The Kingdom is clumped up, sometimes moving too fast and sometimes moving too slow. Unlike FNL, it never makes sense why the characters or changing or how they're changing. You just see that the movie has to move along, so they change. Berg's next two films won't be released till 2010, will hopefully be long enough for him to get his mojo back. In the meantime, I can just enjoy the imprint of his creativity when FNL comes back in a few months.

Film Review: Definitely, Maybe (2008)

Grade: A-

Sure, it may seem absurd that it deserves the same grade as The Visitor, but it is so hard to find a chick flick these days that at least attempts originality. I am a sucker for chick flicks, but I don't remember the last time I was head over heels for one like this. I might have to go back as far as Serendeipity. Corny? Sure. Predictable happy ending? Sure. But it plays on more realistic variables - divorce, kids, and timing. It's an intelligent script and for once, a romantic comedy told from a man's point of view. Doesn't hurt that that man is Ryan Reynolds, a millionaire's Dane Cook and a poor man's John Cusack. Somewhere in between, he exists, always entertaining and bankable. Like Will Smith, his presence alone takes the film from mediocre to good, or good to great. I'm convinced that Mr. Reynolds will receive a whole lot more accolades before his career is over. O, how far Van Wilder has travelled.

The three female leads -- were a lot more weaker (another reason I'm thrilled to see Reynolds as the key character). Elizabeth Banks played a serviceable role, playing the good girl from back home. But it doesn't she like she tried to develop a character at all -- just reading lines from an adorable script. Rachel Weisz is one of my favorite actresses of all time, but in this film, she seems to try too much. She seems right for the sophisticated lady from NYC, but she's not in the least bit endearing. At least when Banks is there, you want to learn more about her. For Weicz, you'd rather let her go and make another Mummy movie.

And that brings me to the third female lead -- Isla Fisher (previously of The Lookout and Wedding Crashers). Fisher was a pleasant surprise, playing te cute bad girl to perfection, a little bit of tattoo and a little bit of dimple. She's the anti-nymphomaniac from the Vince Vaughn days, and it's easy to see why her striking red hair, her vulnerability in the midst of rebelliousness, and her imperfect perfection can attract Mr. Reynolds in the movie, Mr. Cohen in real life, and Mr. Neophyte right now.

Definitely, Maybe is a good date movie, appealing to those who has gone through too many"almost"s or "this closes"s. And if that doesn't do it for you, at least have some fun guessing around in this romantic whodunit. It won't keep you guessing till the very end, but it at least has you guessing.

Film Review: Lust, Caution (2007)

Grade: B+

If you're not going to admit it, I will. I only rented this movie because of all the conversation about sex. Come on. NC-17 rating and it has the excuse of Ang Lee to go with it. The 12-year old rebel inside of me went along right with it.

But my adult, movie-loving self took over and has now become of the year's bigger surprises. In fact, the only part of me that left disappointed was that preteen, for the sex scenes were more disturbing than anything else (and not just because of the woman's armpit hair). But that was part of Ang Lee's goal -- one of the few films along the Unfaithful lines of using sex to build tension, anguish, and regret.

The story is about a group of college students rebelling against China's puppet government, and decides to concoct a plan to assassinate a top official. They soon find out the plan not only takes longer than expected, but requires more sacrifice -- a woman's heart. That woman played by newcomer Tang Wei was chosen out of 10,000 women, but she's a pro at her work, a prodigy in the making.

Tony Leung Chui Wai gives another winning performance (and at this point, do you expect anything less from the man). I'm not sure I've ever felt so strongly (positively or negatively) towards such a stoic cahracter.

It's not a great film that I would consider watching again in the next few years, but I will say this. Lust, Caution is more evidence of Ang Lee's gift for making cinematically beautiful films in the face of a tragic, heart-wrenching story. Sure, it ranks below Crouching Tiger and Brokebackfor most people, but I find very little distinction here. Maybe it's because I went into this film with far lower expectations than the other two, but I left all three feeling the same way: I cared about the characters deeply, but didn't know how much my heart was invested in them till the finale.

Similar to the protagonist. That's poetic filmmaking at its best.

Film Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

Grade: A

Yes, yes. I know I am the last person in the world to watch The Dark Knight. A homeless guy on Peachtree, two orphans from Myanmar, and a blind psychotic at Arkham Asylum have already given me the Millhouse treatment.

I shouldn't even have a movie blog if I won't watch Batman Begins till Monday night, but in my defense, I work weekend nights and would only watch it on IMAX.

But moving ahead, by now, you've probably been Dark Knighted out by all the fantastic reviews, the fanboys fainting, and the calls for an Oscar nod for Mr. Heath Ledger or the way I will always remember him -- Patrick Verona in the chick-flick guys can like 10 Things I Hate About You.

***SPOILER ALERT*** (just in case you're a bigger loser than I am)

Do I have the cajones to disagree with everyone else and say this was less than very good/great film? I do, but I'm also not a liar. Because even though it does come short to living completely up to all the hype, it definitely comes damn close.

Before I shower the film with praises thay may sound like a broken record by this point, here are a couple of the minor qualms I had with the film. Did Scarecrow really need to be in this one? It comes close to Spiderman 3's too-many-villains disease, and as fun and breaktaking the scene was, it wasn't necessary. That being said, I never actually felt the film was too long, a swift 150 minutes that made the painful 90 minute waiting-in-line moments worth it.

Also, the Lt. Gordon dying, but not really storyline -- I mean, really? Really?? I'm surprised more reviews haven't brought this up. It seemed like a cheap trick from a mediocre Broadway play or a 60s sitcom ruse. Besides, didn't the cop and people around him clearly see the blood stains or lack thereof?

I love Christian Bale to death, but I wasn't sure how much more I could take his gutteral performance as Batman. It was said that Bruce Wayne's development was sacrificed for Batman's development and for me to hear those grunting words that makes Rosie Perez sound comprehensible.

Outside of these issues (and trust me, they're not huge), The Dark Knight is everything I hoped a superhero movie could and should be. Forget campiness, big explosions, and cool gadgets. Comic book heroes speak to the heart of the matter -- the deeply philosophical questions that make us who we are -- heroes or villains, good or bad. Underneath the bright colors, there are a lot of provocative questions and issues for most superhero movies. To ignore all that is like sex without love. Shut up -- seriously, think about it. It's deep. Trust me.

Christopher Nolan is a genius, coming into his own in the action adventure film, showing once again that he is antithesis of M. Night Shyamalan. Whereas Shymalan was thought to be the next Spielberg of our times and turned out to be the Sinéad O'Connor of cinema -- a quintessential one hint wonder, Nolan shows that we were only scraping his genius in Momento.

In terms of Rachel Dawes' character, I'm glad Maggie Gyllenhaal took the reigns of the character, giving Dawes the extra oomph she needed to be a tough DA in Gotham's streets. Katie Holmes is better served as the girl next door when Tom Cruise is your neighbor. That being said, I'm ecstatic that Dawes was killed off, because even though Gyllenhaal did all she could, it seems like the Nolans don't have the Tarentino gift of writing strong female characters into his scripts.

The lighting and sound editing were superb, as I expect to take a few easy wins at The Big Award show next year, but I do not understand the whole fascination with the set. When you think about it, most of the sets were not designed. If you look closely at what's around, that's just Chicago. Seriously. It only seems darker because it was at night and again, the lighting crew was great.

And now on to the film's most incredible feature. Even if the directing was horrendous and they were working on a 10,000 dollar budget, the acting drove this movie. Take the same cast and pluck them into Sex and the City, and I promise you, Michael Caine will play the sexiest Carrie Bradshow you will ever see grace any screen. Since we're on the topic, Caine and Morgan Freeman never share a scene once in Dark Knight, but they play the father/mother role to perfection. They both give the dark film a light-heartedness it needed and Wayne a touch of wisdom whether he took it or not.

For all the talk that Ledger receives for being an actor that submerges himself into every role he plays, people seem to forget Bale's tactics. Despite merging into lead roles for major blockbusters, he remains one of the most underrated actors today, as we often skim over his name to the Willem Defoes, Hugh Jackmans, and Heath Ledgers that play opposite him. As I noted before, I'm not a fan of his Batman performance, which is okay since most of the Batman scenes were stuntmen anyway. But the little time that we see him as Bale, his depiction of a conflicted superhero translates well. IMAX helped.

Gary Oldman -- another unheralded performance by the vet. As Lt./Comm. Gordon, he is the most realistic depiction of a man in reality, who hopes that safety for his family and goodness in society can exist together. He has no extroadinary powers, no riches beyond his imagination, or a tragic experience that has scarred him his entire life. He knows his limits, but he's not afraid to break them. He knows his values, and he's not afraid to hold them. If he's not every man, he's at least the man that we hope we grow up to be.

If Ledger deserves an Oscar nod, so does Aaron Eckhart, another underrated artist that deserves top billing in future Eckhart movies. From making The Paycheck watchable to stealing the show in Thank You For Smoking, he has always been one of my favs, an acting that doesn't reach for gimics or over-the top antics to prove his point. In my humble opinion, he was the best actor in The Dark Knight, giving us a sense of his passion gone right and his passion gone wrong. And even though Comm. Gordon is what every man hope we grow up to be, Dent may be the man that we sadly become. Unable to be completely resolute, not understanding where to draw the line between good and evil, and not having the self-control to hold strong in the face of tragedy. And for that, he isn't Gordon or Wayne (as we're not). And for that, he's nowhere close to The Joker either (as we're not). And true to his name, we dont know where we are or who we are. There's a reason why the most common complain about your friends or enemies alike is that we're all a little hypocritical, a little two-faced.

And finally, we come to teh critically acclaimed Joker, played by Heath Ledger. The toughest thing about watching his role were the inevitable thoughts that a) he's dead and b) this is supposed to be what one of the greatest performances ever, and c) this may have led to his death. So from this, you either become a bandwagoner, praising it as exactly the greatest performance you've ever seen and that anything less than an Oscar nod would be a crime. Or you enjoy being different, saying it dones't match the hype, but if you think about it -- would any performance in the history of film ever match the hype that we all put this film and his performance under? Probably not.

As for me, I fall somewhere in between. He steals the scene once he enters it and you hope for him to return when he leaves it. One moment, he scares the living shit out of you and the next, he fills you up with uneasy laughter. But for me to praise him unconditionally would be to deny having ever watched great movies with great actors with great performances. I can see him receiving an Oscar nod, and he's well-deserving of one, though I would not be shocked if he were overlooked. The point is this -- we still have a good five and a half months of movies left in the year, with most of the Academy favorites coming out in December. Just for our movie-goers' sake, I hope Ledger doesn't win the award; I want to see him get beat out by at least five better performances. And this is no sick way of disrespecting Ledger, this is simply my selfish desire to see better films made with better performances shown.

***Rant Alert***
The premmature obsession fanboys, teenage girls, and adults who don't watch enough movies have over Ledger is mind-boggling. As I was leaving the theater, four 20-something guys behind me literally said, "We need to sit here till the end of the credits, in honor of Heath." And the response was..."Amen." What? Seriously? First of all, he's an actor who gets paid millions of dollars to dress up and act like a clown. And secondly, you didn't know him and he didn't know you, and either way, I doubt he affected your life in anyway. Older actors, boasting a filmography longer than 15 films -- I can understand. But what was it in Ledger's career outside of The Joker and/or Brokeback Mountain made him the Deniro of your life. Was it his 10 minutes in Monster's Ball? Or his second-billing in terrible Brothers Grimm? What about the box office flops in The Four Feathers, Lords of Dogtown, and Cassanova. But I digress...my remarks for our undying love for celebrities must wait till another post, or even another blog.

In conclusion, The Dark Knight didn't change my life or force me to answer tough questions underneath my psyche. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again in the theaters and I'm not even sure if I'm going to buy it when it comes out on DVD. And no, it does not and should skyrocket into the top 5 movies of all time.

But folks, it's not the Bible and Nolan never meant to be God. It's just a movie. And for that, it excels beyond your wildest imagination. TDK may never reach your expectations (or at least my expectations), but like I said, it sure comes damn close.

Film Review: Hancock (2008)

Grade: C-

If Hellboy did everything right with lower than average expectations, then Hancock did everything wrong with higher than average expectations. Hancock had everything going for them -- a bankable actor, a talented supporting cast, and a well-respected and innovate director. And yet, nothing seemed to go right in this movie.

I should probably blame it on the writers, Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, with resumes filled with television writing credentials. And it shows -- because in essence, Hancock's 90 minutes feels painfully long. The movie should've ended halfway through, and it would've made for a suitable pilot for NBC. And yet, I didn't enjoy either half -- one that we've seen already through the oversaturation of trailers leading up to the July 4th weekend. Meanwhile, the second half takes an...interesting plot twist that seemed more like a last ditch effort to shock viewers. But even the respected actors in this flick can't make sense of the plot.

Here's the quick rundown: Hancock is an asshole. Hancock is a superhero. Hancock gets PR help. Hancock gets love. And then...love triangles, Greek mythology, and horrible villains come to life. What? Exactly.

In any good movie, there has to be a struggle -- maybe against a shark, a terrorist, or oneself. And for a superhero movie, the only reason why we need a superhero is when we see the evil in a villain. But the struggle or the villain was a joke, one without direction or thought. And what's the end product? A film that doesn't know what it is or what it wants to be, so it takes the audience on a ride towards nowhere but the end credits.

Film Review: HellBoy II: The Golden Army (2008)

Grade: A

More fun than Wanted, more laughs than Hancock, and more pow than The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy Part Deux is everything you want from a superhero movie. It excels in all the necessities, while reinventing itself from the Spidermans or Batmans of the Hollywood comic world. There is no doubt in my mind that HellBoy rivals IronMan as best pre-Batman superhero movie of 2008.

Here's the quick rundown: Elf world wants world back from humans. HellBoy gets in the way.

Hellboy keeps his punch and might from the original, but elevates his sassiness and his likability. The first film gives us a hint of his character, but Ron Perlman elevates Hellboy, giving us more of the "more than a hulk" role.

The villain is more formidable this time around, which is essential for any good vs evil movie -- an element for why we already know The Dark Knight will be a great movie and why Batman and Robin was a terrible movie (Mr. Freeze was more like a chilled out, funny iceman than a stone-cold villain).

Guillermo Del Toro once again shines in this film, showing off an imagination Peter Jackson wishes he had in LOTR. I couldn't help to think to myself that the director is either a genius or a freak, maybe a tad of both.

And yet, admist all the fun, the ass-kicking, and the jokes, there are incredibly deep messages in this movie. It brings in free will and predestination, acceptance and rejection, heaven and hell...opening questions and ghosts that will be revealed in the heavily-hinted third movie.

My favorite thing about Hellboy? That it doesn't try or even think about trying to be another movie, creating a different personality for a different superhero. There are no hints of Metropolis, or signs of a Robin sidekick. Hellboy deserves his own aura, his own city, and his own enemies in the closet.

And now, he's getting the well-deserved respect as well.

Film Review: The Visitor (2008)

Grade: A-

I really hate to be another snobby critic that bashes mainstream blockbusters, instead choosing for the marginal indie films. But how can I resist when The Visitor chooses to show, not tell; when The Visitor relies on its silence and its reality instead of the booms and bangs, when The Visitor shocks you in the way that Wanted could only fantasize about.

The characters evolve and change. Good (people) and evil (institutions) are at war. Love is in every scene, but "love" is never uttered or expressed in kisses. Emotions are never overacted or underacted. In fact, you barely you feel like you're in a movie; more like you're getting an inside look to a man's chance encounter with another man.

So here's the quick rundown: Enter grumpy, uncultured, white man. Man returns to NYC home. Enter homeless illegal couple who have been living in man's home. Awkward. Man feels pity. They live together. They bond. Someone gets arrested. Someone fears deportation. Man fights for his new friend.

The Visitor hits home because it never tries to do too much. It allows common life experiences that causes common human emotions and common human reactions to carry through till the end credits.

And the ending? Perfectly imperfect. Translation -- it feels real.

Film Review: Disturbia (2007)

Grade: B

To put it simply, Disturbia is a modern day version of an American classic, except that it replaces heart-wrenching suspense for blood, skin, and a scene nominated for MTV's Best Kiss Award. That's never a good sign.

Now, don't get me wrong. It was an enjoyable flick, the quintessential popcorn movie -- the foreshadowing of Shia LeBeouf's entire career. But when you remake one of the greatest thrillers of all time (Rear Window) created by one of the greatest directors of all time (Alfred Hitchcock), you better do the job to near perfection. Because otherwise, you're a) putting yourself up for a harsher critique than you deserve and b) exposing the studio as a money-hoarders. Which they are, but the best ones try to hide that fact.

So here's the quick rundown: Boy loses father. Boy becomes rebel. Boy is sentenced to house arrest. Pause in film's plot to introduce hot girl and sidekick minority friend. Laugh laugh, kiss kiss. Cue the AWs and back to the film. Boy thinks he sees murder. Boy cries wolf. Boy was wrong. Rinse and repeat. Predictable ending. Boy gets girl (in case that wasn't implied through "predictable ending.)

So what did the film do well? As much as I can bash LeBeouf's movies, I enjoyed his performance. He knows how to pick his summer popcorn movies. And heck, it's the summer. David Morse does a tremendous job as the movie's villain, sending shivers down the spine of every 12-year old and below. And even though Disturbia never trusted the script and the actors to carry the film -- instead chickening out by morphing into a slasher flick -- they at least kept the main pieces of Rear Window in tact.

So the lesson is even when you mess with perfection, perfection's debris will still be good enough to earn you over a hundred million dollars.

The bad news: a sequel is already in the talks.