Reviews by lotr23

Let's get something out of the way before I get into discussing anything else: it's not exactly fair to compare FUNNY PEOPLE to either THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN or KNOCKED UP. While all three films were helmed by the same director, and while they feature a lot of the same actors, you'd really have to be blind not to notice that Judd Apatow is trying a different approach with FUNNY PEOPLE. While the comedy is still very much present, this is more of a dramatic piece, whereas Apatow's two former films were more comedic, with the dramatic elements staying more in the background. I'm issuing this as a warning to those who are expecting FUNNY PEOPLE to make them constantly laugh their asses off with Apatow's signature mixture of sweet and raunchy humor: you'll be rewarded, for the MOST part, but prepare for something a little deeper as well. FUNNY PEOPLE is more my kind of movie than Apatow's prior two cinematic efforts, because it is a character study, and a very good one at that, despite the fact that it stumbles a little bit during its last act. Apatow is aiming for greatness, which he doesn't necessarily achieve here, but in my mind, I think it's best to think of this film as transitional - now that he's done this, there's no doubt that he'll continue refining his craft and moving into deeper thematic waters in future films, and that's very much something to look forward to.

The trailer would lead you to believe that FUNNY PEOPLE is about a comedian who is diagnosed with a terminal disease, eventually discovers he's not dying, and then as a result of this, he starts relishing life a lot more and becomes a better person. Thankfully, that's not what happens here, and thank God that Apatow can resist succumbing to conventionality (as opposed to so many other filmmakers). FUNNY PEOPLE is more grounded in reality than the trailer would have you believe, because actually, even after George Simmons (Adam Sandler) discovers that he's not really sick, he continues making a lot of the same mistakes he made earlier in his life. The best evidence of this is the fact that, during the trailer, there's a point at which we hear George saying "I feel like I'm finally in the moment"... yet those words are never actually said by him during the film. Sure, it's evident that George learns from the whole experience, but he's still the same person, which makes FAR more sense. If George went through a 180-degree transformation during the film, FUNNY PEOPLE would be every bit as blah and unrealistic as the majority of comedies that get tossed in multiplexes nowadays, but it's far from that.

What I've been saying about the film's largely serious undertones may turn off those who are looking to laugh, but rest assured that there are some hilarious moments to be found in FUNNY PEOPLE that make the title epithet feel like an understatement. The average comedy shows you all of its funny moments in the trailer (usually because those are the only funny moments it has), but the opposite happens here, particularly with the scenes involving George's interactions with the "creepy accent" doctor - we see PARTS of this in the trailer, but most of the truly uproarious parts of it are reserved for the actual film. There's an incredibly funny set of scenes involving George's visit with his assistant Ira (Seth Rogen) to a sort of convention of MySpace employees, in which many a truth is spoken in jest about people's obsession with their number of "online friends," and there's a particularly great line involving a comparison between MySpace and Craigslist. However, the film's most solid success in the comedic department comes with the sudden spurt of cameos that we get during a scene in which George goes to a bar after discovering he's no longer sick. I'll try to keep myself from spoiling as much as possible, but it's hard to give props to this particular scene without doing so: there's an uproariously funny moment that intercuts between a conversation between George and rapper Eminem and a conversation between Ira and Ray Romano. Eminem's dead-pan line delivery is brilliant, and when the scene ends with Ira saying "I thought everybody loved you!" I nearly fell off my chair. This intercutting between the two conversations, combined with the way the two are melded to make for an awesome punchline, is perfect further evidence of the already-known fact that Apatow is a master of comedic timing.

As I explained, though, the drama takes precedence in FUNNY PEOPLE, which may or may not disappoint fans of the director's earlier work. The most admirable aspect here is the fact that Apatow generally avoids conventionality in the dramatic elements just as much as he does in the comedic elements. George's "girl who got away" Laura (Leslie Mann) starts sort of re-connecting with him as soon as she finds out he's sick, and once George gets the news that he's not dying, he's apprehensive about saying this to her, as he fears that she'll just go back to being mad at him. Therefore, he asks his assistant Ira to give her the news, and at this point, I was watching with trepidation, fearing that the movie would succumb to the cliche and have the news literally change Laura's mindset completely. Fortunately, Apatow's cinematic world is too grounded in authenticity to let that happen. The event of George thinking he was going to die was simply a way to ease her back to him, so that they could reminisce about their past in some truly wonderful scenes that are strewn with a deep feeling of nostalgia. Unfortunately for George, Laura is married with two kids, so getting back to her won't necessarily be that easy, and that struggle is what essentially comprises the film's final act.

This flaw is more minor than some critics are making it out to be, but yes, FUNNY PEOPLE is a little too long, and the tone is just a wee-bit awkward during the final scenes. There are two moments in particular that feel forced. The first involves the viewing of a video of one of Laura's daughters performing a song from the musical CATS - this scene (in particular, George's demeanor during it) is used in order to have Laura supposedly have a realization, but it simply doesn't feel as genuine as most of the other dramatic moments in the film. The other scene that was handled poorly involves a character arriving at a precise area of an airport at an all-too-specific point in time, and while this is the only contrivance in the film, it still sticks out, and I can't help but feel like Apatow could've found a better way to handle this thread of the plot. I don't have a problem with films being too long as long as they need to be, but FUNNY PEOPLE didn't really need to be as long as it is - the great ideas that it gets across could've been transmitted just as effectively if it had been half an hour shorter. However, these are minor nitpicks that still don't stop everything else from making this a very good film.

Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann are absolutely terrific in FUNNY PEOPLE, and if the Academy were kinder to comedies, these two would at least be in contention. I thought this would be impossible, but I totally FORGOT about the generally stupid and silly characters he's played in so many of the duds he's been in. The ONLY time I was reminded of it was when a particularly amusing line was spoken by a character, and it's a line that establishes a nice parallel between Sandler's character George and the actual actor: "He's really funny. I don't know why his movies aren't." Sandler's work is amazing because he manages to be believable as the uber famous comedian he plays (which one expects wasn't hard to do), but he also manages to be great during George's moments of vulnerability. Not since PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE has he given such an effective performance. One of my (minor) complaints about KNOCKED UP was that Leslie Mann was so good in it that I kind of wished we got even more from her in that movie, and thank God that she has such a meaty role in FUNNY PEOPLE because, like Sandler, she's predictably good in the funny sequences, but she's also terrific in the dramatic moments. She has some tough serious scenes to deal with, and she never hits a false note (one scene in particular during which she cries is absolutely heart-breaking).

The supporting department is solid as well. Many have complained that somehow Seth Rogen's significant weight loss has made him less funny, which I don't really agree with, though (of course) Apatow milks this perception in the film, with two instances of people telling him he's less funny now that he's skinny (when Jonah Hill says "Go lose some more weight, you look weird," I laughed incredibly hard). Jonah Hill is well-cast because, as we know, he's most effective at being funny whenever he plays characters who get easily flustered and start yelling and complaining all over the place. One of the biggest surprises, though, was Jason Schwartzman, whom I've never been too impressed with (he's given largely bland performances in the past), and here, he does a fantastic job as an actor who stars in a crappy sitcom, yet is totally self-indulgent in flaunting his fame - the most brilliant aspect of his performance is the fact that he doesn't become cookie-cutter annoying or a villain of the film per se, and instead, we sense that there are a probably a lot of insecurities under all the boasting.

I said at the start of this review that it wasn't fair to compare this to Apatow's prior efforts, but if it's necessary to do it, then I'll say that KNOCKED UP has been the best he's directed so far because aside from being his most effective combination of sweet and raunchy humor, it also had a lot of deep, intelligent insight on relationships. But FUNNY PEOPLE is still wonderful, and I feel that it's really great that Apatow is moving towards more profound fare, and even though he's doing that, I don't believe he'll ever lose his expert handle on comedy. While the film drags unnecessarily during its final reels, what comes before that is more than enough to make up for it, as it is a delightfully well-crafted blend of gut-bustingly funny and emotionally affecting scenes.

During the final moments of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince one of the characters says the following: "It was a waste of time. All of it." While it'd be a little bit harsh to say that those words sum up my sentiment toward the film, there are certain ways in which that's not far from the truth. Why? Because the most recent entry to the Harry Potter film franchise is nothing but a bridge. It exists solely for the purpose of connecting what has happened prior to this film to the story's final chapter. That would normally not be such a bad thing, except that, in this case, the bridge takes 2 and a half hours to cross, and the crossing of said bridge feels more like a meandering, aimless voyage than like a fully enjoyable cinematic experience. I'm trying to avoid hyperbole, but a big part of me wants to simply yell: "NOTHING happens in this movie!"

For the most part, the film is simply a compilation of scenes that aim to be funny while focusing largely on awkward romantic/flirtatious interactions between several of the characters. I'm not joking. That is exactly what most of the scenes are like, and to give the impression that the main story is actually moving along, we get occasional scenes in which we obtain explanations that are only going to matter once we get to the next movie, but NEVER is it unclear that not much is actually happening. During the first 45 minutes or so, I was totally thrilled because I thought that all this lightness that came with the somewhat awkward romantic humor would simply serve as a refreshing preface to the more intense moments that were to come... but they never came. It's because of that reason that, once the movie was clearly about to enter the climax, I was getting hopeful, because the pundits have praised the climax as being the film's strongest asset. Unfortunately, while I agree that it brings some much needed intensity to the uneventfulness that preceded it, it's too little too late, and it's certainly not enough either. It never feels like the stakes are high, since well, at times, it doesn't even feel like there are any stakes involved whatsoever.

The film that preceded this one (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) was very, very good. It was similar to this one in its somewhat subdued nature and in not focusing as much on action-based sequences, BUT it still felt like something was actually happening, and the film stood on its own. And, of course, Imelda Staunton's villainous presence was a wonderful asset.

There are many people (especially those who are die-hard HP fans) who will argue that it's not the movie's fault because, well, not much happens in the sixth book (which some feel is the weakest in the now completed series), but my rebuttal is that that's no excuse, because a film HAS to stand on its own, regardless of whether or not it is an intermediate chapter, and regardless of whether or not its source material isn't particularly strong. The fact that so little happens in the 2 and a half hours that comprise Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is just more evidence of the fact that it exists for the mere sake of sucking up as much cash as it can from the devotees who will flock to see it no matter what. That's been proved even more by the decision to split the final book into two films. Here's an idea: if you knew that Half-Blood Prince had such a weak plot, why not include parts of the final book in the Half-Blood Prince movie, so that the film itself doesn't feel like such a blah nexus to the final chapter?

After everything I've said, it may seem odd that I still gave it a 5, but to be honest, once again, the performances are solid, the atmosphere and set design are great, and it's still very much appreciated that the story has moved into darker thematic waters. I'm sure that the fervent fans of the books and films will totally eat the film up, because they'll love any excuse to get to watch their favorite characters interact in a set of cute, amusing situations, which is exactly what we get to see in the film. Unfortunately, those of us who are looking for something more substantial than that are going to be disappointed. This sixth entry to the film franchise is entertaining, but it constitutes a thinly-plotted component of the overall story. Despite having such a long running time, it just doesn't feel like a complete cinematic experience.

There's no doubt that the general critical consensus that He's Just Not That Into You spreads itself way too thin with its unfortunately large number of subplots is entirely accurate. Had all of the stories been well-developed and had interesting characters (as was the case with Love Actually, which covers similar terrain, but is far superior), this film may have been more successful at accomplishing what it sets out to do. Sadly, there are too many loose ends, too many things that feel rushed and sitcom-y, and for the most part, this outweighs any insights that the film has on the trials and tribulations of dating and relationships.

The first thing I should probably say is that I'm probably not part of the target audience of this film, because I don't have much experience with dating and relationships, and I'm assuming that the movie's aim is to have people who watch it (especially women) go, "Oh my God, yes! That totally happened to me with this one guy I went out with!" However, even from an outsider's perspective, the authenticity of the film's examination of the dynamics of love feels mostly hit-and-miss; some moments feel genuine, and some don't.

If I'd had a say over how to put together the reels of He's Just Not That Into You, the movie would've focused solely on TWO of the stories that are covered in the film's running time (which exceeds the two hour mark). These are the stories that work best in the film, as they've got some of the funniest and most dramatically effective moments, and they're also blessed with solid performances. The first of these two involves that of a married couple composed of Janine (Jennifer Connelly) and Ben (Bradley Cooper). Ben is at the supermarket one night, and meets Anna (Scarlett Johansson) whom he finds extremely attractive, but immediately warns her that he's married. They try to do the whole thing of having a straight guy and a straight girl be friends with absolutely no romance involved whatsoever, but fail miserably, once they decide (for some odd reason) to go swimming together... naked. This story is refreshing because it handles infidelity in a surprisingly unconventional way, and the events that lead up to Janine discovering what happens aren't necessarily what you'd expect. The story's ending is also surprisingly grounded in reality, despite how downbeat it is.

The other story that I would've kept in the film if I'd had power over the editing is that of Janine's co-worker, Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin), one of those overly perky/needy girls, who stays glued to her cell phone and her e-mail inbox to see if she gets a call or message from the most recent guy she dated. It looks as though she's the overly clingy type who will have a hard time finding a guy, because they'll generally get turned off by the fact that she doesn't play hard to get in the least bit. Gigi goes to a bar, hoping to run into the guy she most recently dated (and who has, unfortunately, not called her back yet!), and at the bar she meets Alex (Justin Long), an ostensible sage of relationships, who explains to Gigi all the signs that indicate that guys are just, well, NOT into her. From that point on, Alex becomes the guy that Gigi goes to for dating advice. The fact that their relationship ends up turning into more than that, while predictable, is one of the film's most interesting developments. Gigi's eventual retort to Alex's supposed wisdom, in which she pretty much declares that it's okay to make a fool of yourself when it comes to love, is among the most refreshing insights offered by the script.

Sadly, the remaining subplots take away quite a bit from the effectiveness of the two I just described. Beth (Jennifer Aniston) and Neil (Ben Affleck) have been living together for seven years, yet haven't gotten married, and Beth is starting to wonder why Neil hasn't popped the question. Of all the subplots in the film, I thought that this was the one with the most POTENTIAL, because it can lead people to evaluate their own views on this situation, especially since we live in a society in which some are starting to just try out living together before making the official commitment, and some people are even predicting that perhaps marriage will be a rarity (or even become extinct) in a few years. Unfortunately, everything that happens to Beth and Neil feels like straight out of a sitcom, from the unnecessary filler of Beth's father's health problems, which is a failed attempt at getting us to become emotionally invested in what the filmmakers probably realized was an emotionally weak plot, and ends up going nowhere, to the perfectly pat conclusion of the storyline (which is a bit of a cheat, if you ask me). Also, the fact that this segment feels so sitcom-y would've perhaps been okay if the actors involved in it weren't too well-known, but (although I don't normally complain about things like this when it comes to movies) the fact that the segment involves A-list celebrities like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston just makes it awkward, because it just feels like this mediocre material is way beneath them.

Then there's Mary (Drew Barrymore), who is overwhelmed with her focus on trying to obtain dating prospects solely through the Internet. While an attempt to analyze how relationships have been affected by the whole craze of online matchmaking websites may have been quite interesting, this subplot is severely underdeveloped, and ends up doing very little other than making the film unnecessarily longer. But it gets even worse. At her place of employment, Mary has these three friends who constantly watch over her online search for Mr. Right. And guess what? Not only do these three friends happen to all be gay, but they're all of a different race, which is very clearly an attempt by the film to cover all of its bases with every possible stereotype and perhaps to "make up" for the fact that all of its leads are white. This becomes even more obvious in a separate segment in the film during which two random black women talk about their views on love and dating. It's all just a sickeningly obvious attempt to try to ensure that the film isn't skewed towards the white demographic, even if that couldn't be further from the truth.

Initially, one may be skeptical of the message that He's Just Not That Into You tries to get across, because it seems to be saying that women are these powerless creatures who have no say over their dating prospects, as they have to wait and see, and hope that men will take the initiative to call them back or whatever, so that the progression towards romance can continue. However, I think that what it ultimately tries to convey is that women have simply landed into that sticky spot because if THEY are the ones who take the initiative to call the guy, then they're coming on too strong, and they'll turn the guy off. Gigi's story is effective in getting that across to us, and her interactions with Alex prove to be a satisfying watch. The Janine/Ben/Anna triangle is a solid portrayal of the causes and consequences of infidelity, and it would've made for a strong counterpart to Gigi's story. If the movie had ONLY contained these two stories, it would've been an effective depiction of the early stage of relationships (courtship and dating), with its counterpart being an effective depiction of what married life can often devolve into. It's too bad that the other stories in the film feel like poorly-inserted, extraneous nuisances.

In this case, using terms like "extremely outrageous" and "hilariously offensive" seems unnecessary, since everyone who's even slightly familiar with Borat should know that that's what they're in for with Sacha Baron Cohen's latest, um, outing. While there are differences in terms of why each of the two films are mostly successful comedies, the approach taken by Bruno is identical to the one taken by the former film: utilize truly over-the-top, "I can't believe he just did that!" situations to make satirical statements about the general close-mindedness that plagues America.

The trailers are leading people to believe that Bruno's satirical focus is strictly on homophobia, when in fact, that's only half of it. This film also has a lot to say about people's obsession with becoming famous and about the senseless things that make the public idolize certain celebrities. There's a ghastly moment in the film in which the title character interacts with this former reality TV star who behaves as if she works for one of those TMZ-type shows that scrutinize celebrities' lives, and the things that are said here are abominable. Another scene features an unwitting Paula Abdul talking about her love for humanitarian work... while sitting on someone. Sure, she leaves quickly enough, but the fact that she even agreed to SIT on the guy is ridiculous. Sadly, both of these moments seem to have been unscripted. There are other things that happen in the film that I simply can't believe were honest statements from people; the most notable of these involves an audition of sorts that Bruno holds for children, and it shows parents supposedly trying as hard as they can to have their kid be able to get a part. If you pay attention to the scene, and to the cuts between the point at which Bruno asks a question and when the parent answers it, it really does look like editing did come into play. At least I hope it did, or else the film can be used by Social Services as hard evidence against several parents.

One of the moments at which I probably laughed the hardest involves Bruno's conversation with two total bimbos, during which they talk about possibilities of which type of charity to become involved with. The biggest snort/LOL for me came when they mention the "Save Darfur" effort (and their inability to pronounce it is hilarious enough by itself), and their belief that Darfur is located in Iraq just makes everything even more hysterical-yet-horrible. This is an instance in which Sacha Baron Cohen's wit and intelligence come into play, because he essentially prompts them into it, by saying "So, is that, like, near Iraq?" I promise that's as far as I'll go in spoiling anything; I just had to reveal what made me laugh the hardest.

I believe that, in general, Borat was more effective at keeping a steady tempo of laughs. Despite being a collection of skits, Borat felt like it had a more fluid storyline, whereas Bruno often feels like not much more than a mere collection of skits, funny as they are. The former film also benefits from having less instances that felt staged. Now, I gave Borat a 6, and I'm giving the same rating to Bruno, and this is because there are TWO strong points that Bruno has over Borat that make things sort of balance out, thus making both films fall into the same rating.

First of all, while it's not all that easy to make me sick, I have to admit that I found the infamous hotel room scene in Borat to be almost unendurably disgusting, nearly ruining an otherwise brilliant comedy; Bruno benefits from not having a scene that goes quite that far in terms of sexually repulsive material. There is a sequence at a swingers' party in which the black squares are, once again, necessary to cover up things that would garner the film an NC-17 rating, but in this case, the things that are hidden from us are "normal" things that you'd see happen on a porn video or whatever, rather than something out of a "Fat Hairy Men" fetish site.

Secondly, there is a sequence in Bruno that I suppose you could call the film's climax, and it takes place at a wrestling arena in Arkansas. This sequence is somewhat akin to the instance in Borat when he goes to a rodeo and sings the American national anthem and changes the words... but it is... ten times more outrageous... and ten times more brilliant. The sequence is just fantastically mounted, and I'm extremely glad that they saved it for the latter part of the film. It gets the movie's main ideas across perfectly, and it makes you feel incredibly amazed at what a risk-taker Sacha Baron Cohen (and his sidekick of sorts) is. The sequence is executed perfectly and the fact that Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" plays during it makes it that much more brilliant. Even if, while watching Bruno, you feel like the film is not quite as funny as you expected it to be, don't walk out - this part is well worth waiting for.

Many will (once again) hail Cohen's cinematic effort as the best comedy of the year. While my preference in that category is still I Love You Man, that's more as a result of my taste in comedies (which is why I can't wait for the release of Funny People in a few weeks). Still, there's no doubt that Bruno is totally audacious, frequently perceptive and often very funny. It goes without saying that you're well-advised to stay away from it if you're easily offended, but everyone else will more than likely enjoy the Austrian fashionista's ventures, or "wentures," as he would say.

While the gangster film sub-genre has never been one of my favorites, my predilection within that sub-genre has always been for the movies that favor dramatic development and dialogue-based scenes rather than those that go for having extended chase and/or shoot-out sequences. This is probably the reason why, despite the fact that Public Enemies falls short of being great, I was still able to enjoy it, perhaps more than someone who may have been looking for something more action-packed (like Michael Mann's last effort, Miami Vice, which I found to be underwhelming).

As the main character, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is developed so well by the film into a three-dimensional being that we're able to both sympathize with his struggle and occasionally root for him, as well as feel outraged by the crimes he commits: he steals money from banks, but makes it a point not to steal anyone's personal money directly, and at one point in the film when he is arrested, we witness crowds of people actually cheering him on. Of course, this type of film wouldn't be able to succeed alone on solid character development if it wants to be entertaining as well, but thankfully, the heist sequences are handled with a great deal of finesse, as are the moments in which our protagonist is either being followed by the police or is on the verge of being caught (the best of these is an extremely tense moment at a red stoplight). Only one of the shoot-out/chase sequences (the one at the Little Bohemia lodge) doesn't quite work well: the gun-firing goes on for way too long, and it then moves on to a somewhat unengaging car chase - and yes, this is an important sequence because, once it ends, Dillinger is essentially "alone," so it does help with making things more complicated and upping the emotional stakes of the plot, but I don't feel like the sequence itself was put together by the editors as well as it could've been.

Unsurprisingly, Johnny Depp continues to exhibit versatility as an actor by once again inhabiting the role he gets to the best of his ability. He doesn't take the easy path of portraying Dillinger as a thug who's made of stone; in fact, he displays far more vulnerability than actors normally get across when playing characters like this one. Sadly, the script works so hard on developing Dillinger that it doesn't leave much room for us to get to know Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), one of the officers in charge of tracking down the infamous bank robber. Bale gives a somewhat stiff performance, largely because he doesn't get much room to do anything beyond that. Marion Cotillard is a pleasure to watch as Billie Frechette, one of those girls in charge of checking people's coats, but more importantly, she's the woman that captures Dillinger's heart and never lets go of it (the scene in which Dillinger essentially removes her from her job at the coat-checking station and takes her with him is great). While Cotillard is entirely successful in her performance in terms of getting Billie's emotions across to the audience, her accent is a bit of an issue on more than one occasion, and it definitely feels like she could've done a little more work with her dialect coach.

The fact that Public Enemies runs a hefty 2 hours and 20 minutes and manages to remain involving for the good majority of that time is definitely commendable. Some have expressed complaints about Mann's usage of the shaky-cam device, and I have to admit I was apprehensive about that prior to watching the film, because I'm not normally a fan of that sort of thing, but I didn't find it to be a problem at all - truth be told, Public Enemies is very well-shot, and the impeccable set design makes it an even better visual experience.

It wasn't until I got back home tonight from watching Woody Allen's latest film, Whatever Works, that I found out online that today is Larry David's birthday, so I guess the first appropriate thing to do in this review is to wish the comedian a happy birthday. I've had many a laugh thanks to both Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, and he probably deserves most of the credit for that amusement. It's interesting that I just happened to go see Whatever Works on David's birthday, especially because, in the film, Allen employs the "Happy Birthday" song as a way to channel his well-documented hypochondria through the film's main character, who is played by David, and sings the song twice as a way to time himself while washing his hands.

During the movie's first scene the "fourth wall" of cinema is broken, as we get a monologue from David's character, the curmudgeonly Boris Yelnikoff, who we find out has the same nihilistic view on life that we've seen displayed so often by characters in Allen's films. The monologue goes on for way too long and the ideas become repetitive (you almost want to say "okay, we get it, you hate the human race"), but the good thing is that David oddly manages to be funnily charismatic as this crotchety character, so it makes the overlong tirades that Allen went on while writing the script feel bearable.

It all gets even more pleasant, though, when Evan Rachel Wood (one of today's best young actresses) graces the screen as blissful ignorance incarnate, Melodie. The juxtaposition of Boris' misanthropic and over-intellectual persona with Melodie's smiling southern charm is great. This is a case in which the two actors haven't exactly been provided with the best possible lines of dialogue by the script, but their interaction alone is enough to make the film engrossing. Not only is Wood's southern accent dead-on, but her performance is absolutely wonderful. She impressed last year in her (unfortunately) limited screen time in The Wrestler, and she was even more amazing in The Life Before Her Eyes. She has lighter material to work with in Whatever Works, but she still delivers full-force, and the character of Melodie alone would make for a good film. Once the character of Melodie's mother, Marietta (Patricia Clarkson), shows up about halfway through the film, we start seeing a little less of Melodie, which is a bit disappointing, though Patricia Clarkson certainly makes her character's hard-to-believe transformation at least enjoyable to watch.

Some will inevitably be turned off or outraged that the film depicts a relationship between a man as old as Boris and a woman as young as Melodie. They'll be even more incredulous (at least I was) as they watch Melodie reject the gorgeous (and much younger) Randy James (Henry Cavill) out of respect for her commitment to Boris. The good thing is, though, that the way things ULTIMATELY turn out makes a lot of sense and is pretty grounded in reality. Allen seems to make the point that three conservative, traditional southerners from Mississippi could come to New York and "find" themselves, discovering things they would've never expected they had in them. This may seem like a stretch, but Allen handles it with enough subtlety that it isn't insulting by any means. We even believe the realization that Melodie's father, John (Ed Begley Jr.), has towards the end (and the delivery of the line "God is gay" in this scene is absolutely hilarious). All in all, the film works as a whole because it ends on a surprisingly positive note in spite of the director's well-known pessimistic worldview, and the message that he's trying to get across here is far more accessible than what he tried to get across last year with the incredibly disappointing Vicky Cristina Barcelona, which posed as an exotic tale of romance but was really a prejudiced film that had little to say other than "Americans are boring and obsessed with technology, while Europeans are bohemian and fun."

The banter in Whatever Works is more smile-inducing than riotous (there are perhaps two or three truly laugh-out-loud moments), which is why this falls short of the greatness of the comedic triumphs that Allen gave us with Annie Hall and Crimes and Misdemeanors, despite the fact that rumor has it that the script for Whatever Works was actually written around the time that those two films came out, and Allen just never got around to filming it till now. While the director's recent success with the amazing Match Point remains, well, unmatched by the other films he has given us during this decade, Whatever Works is evidence that he can still turn in quality cinema.

The amount of treacle in My Sister's Keeper is staggering, and the fact that the treacle becomes almost unbearable in the last few scenes ruins what could've at least been a somewhat okay dramatic piece. Sure, Nick Cassavetes' prior films (at least the ones I've seen) are pretty sentimental, but none of them sank as low as My Sister's Keeper to elicit tears. Yes, The Notebook was manipulative, but the charisma of Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling made it hard to avoid getting engrossed in the film, flawed a romance as it may be. Cassavetes' last film, Alpha Dog, had a severely heart-breaking climax that worked perfectly with the raw and gritty scenes that came prior to it, and I felt that that film was wildly underrated (it was #6 on my top 10 list for 2007). Unfortunately, his follow-up to Alpha Dog goes way over the top in its sentimentality, and the worst part about this is that, normally, when movies like these are too mawkish, it's due to mediocre performances, but this is actually a case in which the actors fare pretty well, and instead, it's the script and the pacing that tarnish everything.

At first, the narrative seems like it's heading in a perfect direction. The first scenes of My Sister's Keeper introduce us individually to each of the five members of the Fitzgerald family, which is composed of parents Sara (Cameron Diaz) and Brian (Jason Patric), and their three children, Jesse (Evan Ellingson), Kate (Sofia Vassilieva) and Anna (Abigail Breslin). The film goes one by one with each of these five characters, as we hear voiceovers of how each of them is coping with the fact that Kate is suffering from lymphoma. This initially promising approach falls to pieces when we start getting poorly-edited flashbacks (which is so often the result of indolence in the process of making a cinematic adaptation of a complex novel). The worst of the flashbacks comes when we're exposed to the storyline of Kate starting to date another cancer patient, Taylor (Thomas Dekker). This segment goes on for WAY too long, thus heavily detracting from what is happening in the film's present, and when we return to it, the transition is jarring. The movie also employs fade-outs for apparently no reason at certain moments, as if they were somehow supposed to help clue us into the fact that the movie is moving into "darker" territory.

One of the worst mistakes made by My Sister's Keeper is in its development of eldest son Jesse. Since the main issues of the storyline center around sisters Anna and Kate, the film makes a half-assed attempt to make it seem as though Jesse is a significant piece of the puzzle by giving us a couple of scenes in which he's out on the streets in an apparently troubled state of mind, yet the film doesn't go to any lengths to actually expose his demons. The only truly effective scene involving him in the film is the one in which he returns home late expecting to be chastised, and is then surprised by what actually happens when he arrives. His role in the obligatory big 'revelation' at the end is contrived, let alone the fact that the film tries to convince us that someone would actually be allowed to interject during a court room interrogation. By the way, that's only one of the three or four fallacies that this movie contains about what's allowed in a court room and what isn't.

Throughout the film, we're forced to listen to a soundtrack that contains what seem to be perfectly-selected songs with the purpose of tugging at the heartstrings. It's okay for a while, but during the film's climax it starts to become severely annoying. Then again, that's pretty much true of everything involving the film's final act. You know a movie like this is in trouble when the "final goodbye" scene between the mother and the dying daughter, rather than serving as the film's emotional apex, instead makes you excited about the fact that the movie's almost over.

I do want to give credit to Cameron Diaz for finally doing something different. Over the last few years, she's made it a habit of playing the stereotypical, fun-loving, crazy blonde in all the comedies she's been in, so by starring in something like this, she gets to display range that we haven't seen from her since Being John Malkovich; while her performance isn't Oscar-worthy, it's certainly refreshing to see that she isn't really a one-note performer. However, the biggest standouts are Abigail Breslin and Joan Cusack. Despite being so young, Breslin already has an Oscar nomination under her belt, and while I was disappointed with her somewhat cartoonish turn last year in Definitely, Maybe, she's in top form here, particularly in the very intense emotional moments (it just sucks that she has such terrible lines to deal with). Cusack is magnificent in the role of Judge De Salvo, particularly because her performance actually makes us overlook the movie's horribly obvious contrivance of the judge having lost a child; Cusack balances the deep pain her character is experiencing with a desire to be as objective as possible in the decisions she makes. Unfortunately, the two male characters of the family are hardly developed, which makes it difficult for either Jason Patric or Evan Ellingson to display the talent that would've been put to much better use in a better film.

I've said it a few times in other reviews, and I'll say it again: the fact that a film's plot centers around something important or sad or heart-breaking (or all three of those things) doesn't automatically make the film good. I could sit down right now and decide that I want to write a script for a movie about families who are dying of starvation in a Third World country, but if the way I construct the dramatic elements of the story is half-assed and not compelling, then it's not gonna be very good, and I certainly shouldn't be given credit simply for DECIDING to write about a devastating subject, because anyone can do that. While Cassavetes gave us what many consider to be a ravishing romance with The Notebook, and what I consider to be an extremely well-crafted cautionary tale with Alpha Dog, there's no avoiding the fact that his latest effort is little more than a syrupy exercise in extreme emotional manipulation.

If anyone has been close-minded enough to argue that a woman isn't capable of creating an authentic, raw and thoroughly nerve-wracking cinematic portrayal of war, he or she need only watch Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker to be convinced otherwise. During this upcoming weekend, millions of people are gonna flock to see the Transformers sequel, which I will fervently stay away from; I saw the first one and thought it was one of the loudest and annoying pieces of crap I'd ever witnessed on a big screen, and now the pundits are saying that the new movie is longer, louder and more annoying. No, thank you. Luckily, for those who want a full-on action movie, there's the alternative of The Hurt Locker, which has its dialogue-based moments, but is mostly a compilation of edge-of-your-seat action sequences that are also incredibly realistic.

War movies tend to go over the top in terms of depicting prolonged shoot-outs and explosion extravaganzas, but The Hurt Locker chooses to exhibit more restraint, with action sequences that are devoid of strident blow-ups and instead focus on the strategic approaches taken by U.S. soldiers who are working as bomb technicians in Baghdad. The meticulous way in which they handle their tasks and the trepidation they experience whenever they face a dangerous situation is presented amazingly well in the film.

The film begins with a quote by Chris Hedges, who said that "the rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." It's a fine way to begin this movie, which does a solid job at showing the range of emotions that can be experienced on the battlefield, from the sadistic euphoria of making a kill, to the remorse upon realizing what that actually means, to the profound fear that these few seconds may be your last. Though we meet several of the bomb technicians, the story centers around Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldrige (Brian Geraghty, who was also in Jarhead, so here's a guy who can actually recognize a strong script for a war movie when he reads it). One of these three guys shows a humane side when he actually sort of bonds with an Iraqi child who sells pirate DVDs, and the other two eventually comment on "how weird" it is that he developed that sort of relationship with that kid, and this is because, as we eventually note, they don't really see the Iraqis as people, but merely as pieces of the puzzle in this mission they have to be in until their term ends and they get to return to the states.

The Hurt Locker is particularly scrupulous in getting the technical details right. At one point, one of our characters finds that he can't shoot, but it's not only because of the predictably standard reason of running out of ammo, but because the gun itself is jammed as a result of being stained with the blood of a soldier who was killed, so someone suggests the "spit and rub" approach to solve the issue. All of this is clear evidence that Bigelow was incredibly resourceful in putting this project together. There's a moment in the film that is one of those sad-yet-funny things, in which the guys are shooting and one of them asks "What are we shooting at?!" and someone else responds "I don't know!". While this may seem like a cheap attempt at comedy, I think it's just the script being accurate in terms of showing us the truly chaotic and disorganized nature of shoot-outs, which in real life are certainly not as perfectly choreographed as they are in your standard Hollywood action film.

The opinion that this is the finest cinematic take on the military struggle that the U.S. faces in Iraq is hard to refute. Recent mediocre attempts such as In the Valley of Elah, The Kingdom and Stop-Loss really gave me the feeling that we probably wouldn't see a good film about this subject until a few years after it was over, which is why I was happily surprised by The Hurt Locker. Not since Jarhead has such an effective and raw depiction of the arduous life of a soldier in a Middle Eastern desert been brought to the big screen, and even though Jarhead is better, this is still a worthy addition to the elite list of good war movies. While the film eschews some of the space it had for character development to give more room to its action sequences, those action sequences are so deeply entrancing and eerily authentic that they make the film very much worth seeing.

This movie's title would suggest that there's at least a possibility that the filmmakers have a sequel in mind, depending (of course) on how many fans of Jack Black and Michael Cera flock to see it. While the prospect of a sequel to Year One isn't horrifying, it's nothing worth getting excited about either. The humor here is very much scattered and inconsistent; this is precisely the kind of movie that the fast-forward button was made for, which is why it's highly advisable to wait for the DVD on this one, rather than sitting through it in theaters. After watching Fired Up, Year One seemed like a potentially refreshing piece of amusement, and while it's certainly better, it still falls short of being good.

The fact that the film is set in the first year of human history is just an excuse to try to put an interesting spin on the plot, even though this doesn't really do much for the comedic value, since most of the laughs are found within the banter that our two main characters exchange. Unfortunately, these few amusing moments are lumped between some really terrible, unfunny dialogue and a set of uninspired and poorly choreographed action/fight sequences. Worst of all, though, there are three vomit-inducing instances in which the film resorts to toilet humor: the first goes miles further than it needs to and involves consumption of feces, the second involves flatulence in bed (how creative), and the third involves upside-down urination and is beyond disgusting. The saddest thing about this is that Cera is involved in all three moments, and he's forced to cringe his way through all three of these scenes. He's also the direct subject of the upside-down urination scene, and watching him embarrass himself like this, the only consolation is the knowledge that he has been (and hopefully will continue to be) in other, much better comedic projects. You also have to give him credit for continuing to employ his dweeb-ish comedic shtick so well, and it's mostly thanks to that that the film isn't without its scattered laughs. Jack Black is marginally less successful because, well, he doesn't act - he just gives a lot of wide-eyed stares and mugs for the camera as often as he gets the chance.

The word "primitive" is very fitting here, not just to describe the era and the characters in the film, but also to describe the quality of the comedy, which shows occasional potential, but is mostly amateurish, tired and uninventive.

Fired Up! has a short 90-minute running time, but that's little consolation when sitting through something as bad as this. There was a point at which I couldn't help myself and I just HAD to check the time counter on my DVD player just to see how much time had elapsed and how much was left, and it just so happened that, when I checked, the movie was at 50 minutes. I couldn't believe that I had 40 minutes more to sit through, but I sat through them to see if this really was as bad as it looked. Thankfully, the film didn't get any worse in its second segment, but it didn't get any better either.

This film is chock full of heavily botched jokes. The attempts to elicit laughs constantly, constantly, constantly miss the mark. Ignore the part of the RT consensus that claims this film isn't as juvenile as many others of its ilk; the word "juvenile" is actually an understatement here. That wouldn't be a bad thing if the juvenile humor actually WORKED, but it just doesn't. Here's something I don't understand: Fired Up! gets a 27% on the tomatometer, while Miss March gets an incredibly low 4%. Now, I would never argue that Miss March was a GOOD film, but it sure as hell had a better handle on comedic timing than this piece of junk. The humor was equally childish, but at least some of the material worked, whereas Fired Up! is one failed joke after another. It was embarrassing to watch.

One thought that did cross my mind often while watching Fired Up! was that it's a great thing that Nicholas D'Agostino is a good-looking guy because at least he gives the film a level of watchability. Sadly, in the role of his sidekick, Eric Christian Olsen is far less appealing - all he does is yell and act annoying throughout the entire film. When the obligatory twist on his personality is revealed when his journal is read, all one can do is scoff, because there's no way the character earns this lame attempt at becoming more sympathetic. The girls would've benefited from more screen time, as some of them seemed to have the potential to bring some sort of humor to the proceedings, but of course, the film instead chooses to just paint them as generic cheerleading bimbos. Despite all this, though, the one who comes off worst is David Walton as the stereotypical "jerk boyfriend" of the girl our hero is after, and the problem isn't just that he plays a stereotypical "jerk boyfriend," but that his overacting is painful, with some horrible mugging for the camera and line delivery.

Besides D'Agostino's physical presence, the other positive that I can point out is that things don't unfold as you might expect with the final cheerleading competition (if they had, the film wouldn't have just been bad - it would've been vomit-inducing). But that's not to say that the climax is handled with any finesse, because the last few scenes (during which we get the obligatory moment where the girl finally dumps the jerk boyfriend and jumps into our hero's arms) are handled very poorly: the tone is off, and things seem like less of a "big deal" than they should be in a finale of this sort. There's very little to get fired up about here.