Reviews by lotr23

Casey Affleck is an immensely talented actor. He's demonstrated it before, but he validates it in THE KILLER INSIDE ME by taking what would have otherwise been a dull noir about a psychopath trying to cover his tracks and turning it into a very interesting character study.

Many actors can only play one or two notes in their performances, but Affleck can look entirely tame and innocent and suddenly become savagely menacing. The ability to make that transition proves crucial to his role as the protagonist of this film, Lou Ford. What a coincidence that his character in this film shares the last name of the villain that Affleck also brilliantly played three years ago (a performance for which he scored a best supporting actor nomination).

The violence in THE KILLER INSIDE ME is extreme and will disturb even people who don't think much of the gore-fest that we see in most horror movies. That's because the violent scenes in THE KILLER INSIDE ME don't feature a psychopath tracking a group of teens and disposing of them. Instead, the aggression takes place in domestic, usually sex-related circumstances, and the physical abuse towards more than one female character will certainly be too much for some to take. However, those who are calling it unnecessary are failing to appreciate the film's uncompromising approach. Considering the incredible rawness and depth of the lead actor's performance, it would've been an injustice to Affleck if the film had tried to sanitize the plot in any way.

The narrative flow of the movie isn't always solid, and while Affleck's voiceovers are effective, the editors could've made better decisions as to where to place particular bits of the voiceovers. There are also some quasi plot holes (why didn't they check inside Johnnie's cell immediately after Lou's visit ended?).

THE KILLER INSIDE ME is somewhat reminiscent of this year's earlier SHUTTER ISLAND in that it has an unreliable narrator, but the difference is that while the main character in SHUTTER ISLAND had little notion of what was truly happening, in THE KILLER INSIDE ME we have a malevolent protagonist who has no problem messing with the audience's minds as much as he does with the other characters of the film. This gives the amazing Casey Affleck all the room in the world to make this movie more than a merely forgettable piece of cinema.

TOE TO TOE manages to deal intelligently with two issues that are often handled sloppily in higher-budget films: teen angst and racial dynamics. The first subject is often handled superficially in movies, by never delving deeply into the demons of adolescence, perhaps because filmmakers are scared of asking teenage actors to make themselves too vulnerable, or perhaps because there's a sense that audiences aren't ready to see certain disturbing things, even if everyone knows that they are things that happen in a high school kid's every day life. As for racial dynamics, movies often end up having the opposite of their intended impact by portraying stereotypes instead of acknowledging the fact that the lines between different ethnicities aren't quite as clear-cut as those who don't like too think too hard would like them to be.

The film's opening scenes are a little bit weak and it may take a few minutes to get all the pieces together and understand the direction in which the film is headed. Those who turn off movies in the first 10 minutes if they don't like them will certainly miss out. Jesse (Louisa Krause) and Tosha (Sonequa Martin) go to the same high school and are on the lacrosse team together. Jesse is white and lives in an upper-class neighborhood, but of course, her life isn't as perfect as you'd assume it is. She hardly gets any attention from her mother, and her dad is nonexistent. Tosha is black and lives in what is described as a "thuggy" neighborhood (inhabited mostly by blacks and Hispanics), yet she seems to be doing everything in her power to break away from all possible stereotypes. As Tosha says, she goes to prep school to get away from her neighborhood, she gets As in math class because most girls don't, and she plays lacrosse because most black people don't.

What Jesse and Tosha DO have in common is that they are both frequently accused of "sluttiness" during the film. Tosha is mocked and called a "$2 whore" for absolutely no reason, but she tries to ignore the remarks and focus on her goal of getting a full scholarship to Princeton. Jesse, on the other hand, is another story... the accusations of "sluttiness" may still be mean, but they are far from fabricated, as Jesse gives blowjobs to a bunch of guys at school and isn't particularly careful about who she has sex with either. The strength of TOE TO TOE comes from how well it establishes this paralellism between two high school girls who, in attempting to break away from the stereotypes that each of them falls into, head in opposite directions and bump into each other along the way, forming a quasi-friendship that is far from the conventional bond that you see between teenagers in this type of film.

Tosha battles with her family and neighbors who get in the way of her attempt to get out of the "bad DC neighborhood" she is currently in, while Jesse tries to get the acceptance/love that she doesn't get from her mother by wallowing in what are obviously meaningless sexual interactions with boys at school. An event involving a slanderous remark that is written on someone's locker makes everything spin out of control, and it is here that the film seamlessly intertwines its treatment of teenage frustration and racial tensions, and does a particularly good job at it.

When a movie employs a few contrivances to reach its resolution yet never veers from being emotionally effective, the scale still tips in the movie's favor. The way in which some things are "cleared up" during the last act of TOE TO TOE is a little too convenient, yet none of it takes away from the film's dramatic resonance, especially in terms of Jesse's story. Her last-minute reflection of her debauchery and her plea to her mother at the end while she's getting in the cab make for heart-wrenching material. The movie's ending is hopeful and feels far from dishonest. TOE TO TOE explores two very interesting issues (never sacrificing the strength of one of them to focus on the other), and it also introduces us to two young actresses who have lots of potential.

In 2008, Jason Segel gave us laugh-out-loud brilliance with FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, a film in which the comedy was consistently solid and bolstered by a surprisingly effective dose of dramatic insight on relationships. That film's pleasures were many, not least of which was the delightfully crazy and hedonistic character Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), a British rock star who specializes in drinking, drugs and sex and doesn't really care for anything else. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL featured some incredibly well-played scenes between Aldous and a subservient waiter (Jonah Hill), a hardcore fan of the singer, who did everything in his power to please Aldous.

So uproarious were the interactions between Brand and Hill as they played their respective characters that they have been brought back in GET HIM TO THE GREEK for a spin-off of sorts, in which (of course) Brand is reprising his role as the thoroughly unorthodox Aldous, while Hill is playing a different character, who is not so much subservient as he's forced to take on the seemingly insurmountable task of getting Aldous to a concert in Los Angeles. Yes, drugs, alcohol and women are indeed the obstacles that get in the way of this wacky road trip, but not for a second does it get old. Brand and Hill play off each other so well that GET HIM TO THE GREEK can't ever be a boring film.

"Imagine a white, African Christ from space," is among the first lines delivered by Aldous in the film (in reference to himself), which gives the audience a perfect idea of the delightfully offensive humor that they're in for. The film features a hilarious slow-motion sequence (after the two characters have consumed absinthe, of all things) at a dance club, and an insanely gross method to conceal heroin in order to get through airport security. As with the latter case, drugs are often the, um, butt of the joke in GET HIM TO THE GREEK. There's a particularly well-written scene in which a character goes up to hotel reception with the objective of asking for drugs, and the way the request is made is incredibly funny.

The first half of GET HIM TO THE GREEK offers exactly what will be expected by those who are hoping to see more of Brand and Hill humorously play off each other. The second half offers something a little different. The film becomes more dramatic, dealing particularly with the way in which celebrities' agents and managers sometimes manipulate the celebrities they represent, even if it means causing physical/emotional harm. Since Brand and Hill both played supporting characters in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, they never had opportunities to take part in that film's more dramatic moments, but they do in GET HIM TO THE GREEK. I don't have much of a problem with that, but I must admit that it's a little awkward that the movie transitions from comedy to drama in a somewhat jarring way. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL seamlessly balanced comedy with drama as a side dish, while GET HIM TO THE GREEK goes from balls-out comedy to surprisingly deep drama (neither is handled poorly - I'm simply saying that the transition was a bit unexpected). The scene in which the transition from comedy to drama starts to take place is probably the scene in the film towards which I have the most mixed feelings. It's a quasi "fight sequence" between four characters, two of whom have (of course) smoked a "Jeffrey" (which is WAY more intoxicating than a mere joint). The scene itself feels strange and disjointed, though I appreciate the fact that it's played to the tune of "Come on Eileen," and that a character later describes the scuffle as "Kubrickian," which it kind of was.

Audience members' enjoyment of the first half of GET HIM TO THE GREEK will, quite simply, depend on how funny they find a line like "Press 7 for fellatio," while their enjoyment of the second half will depend on whether or not they can appreciate the new, tragic spin that is given to the character of Aldous Snow during the climax of the film. I can't deny that it feels like GET HIM TO THE GREEK consists of two different movies that were attached to one another, but I also can't deny that I enjoyed both of them. In the midst of all the sequel/remake/reboot craze that currently afflicts Hollywood, here's a case in which it's actually worthwhile to meet up again with a character we've seen before. Can we please just ban the SEX AND THE CITY girls for good, and green-light more projects like this? I think ALDOUS SNOW: THE CONCERT MOVIE would have tons of potential.

At one point towards the end of DEAR JOHN, one of our love birds says: "We've been sitting here talking, but no one's actually saying anything." Until that point, I wasn't sure what to say about the film's utterly vapid script, but thankfully, that line proved to be pretty helpful. The screenplay for DEAR JOHN doesn't have a single original idea in it, and since I haven't read the source material, I must assume that either this is a poor adaptation or the novel was just as uninventive.

The first act of DEAR JOHN gives one very little hope for what is to come afterwards. The development of how the two leads meet and supposedly start falling in love with each other is very much on-the-surface. This is where we're supposed to start rooting for John (Channing Tatum) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) to stay together... but... well, it's impossible to root for a pair of lovers when you don't even feel anything. I don't know if this makes me insensitive but I hardly felt anything during DEAR JOHN. I suspect that girlfriends of guys who have gone away for duty will (inevitably) relate to this material more than I will, but there's very little material here to help the average viewer achieve an emotional connection with the plot.

The montage that follows the first act is actually an improvement. It features John and Savannah exchanging letters while he's on duty and she's at college, and we get to hear voiceovers of the letters. This is the kind of thing that often doesn't work in movies, and I'm surprised by how well it works here. Sadly, this is basically the only good segment of the film. The scenes merely gloss over John's experience as a soldier, while Savannah's college life gets but a tiny bit of screen time.

When the next "letter montage" comes, the film makes the poor decision to show text instead of voiceovers, but this doesn't compare to the poor decision that the film makes at one of its most pivotal moments. John hasn't received letters from Savannah in a while, and all of a sudden, he does, and we obviously know something "bad" is coming. We're just not sure what. Then we hear it: "My life without you has no meaning, John." My instant reaction is, of course, "Oh my God, she killed herself! Great twist! I didn't see that coming. I thought this was just gonna be like all those other movies, in which the guy dies in a heated battle while the girl waits for him back in America." Of course, a couple of seconds later, my inference gets disproved when John speaks to one of his fellow soldiers and tells him what the letter actually said, which, to say the least, is way less interesting and way more conventional.

If there's one conclusion I can finally make after watching DEAR JOHN, it's that Channing Tatum can only give a good performance if he's under the direction of Dito Montiel. The only films in which he's been able to shine are A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS and FIGHTING. Every other performance he has given has been cringe-worthy, particularly when he's required to display emotions and cry, and his line delivery in this particular film is often dreadful. Amanda Seyfried holds her own, but she's displayed more talent elsewhere. But the worst sin of all is the fact that the magnificent Richard Jenkins is relegated into a role in which he hardly gets to do anything, and what's worse is that it's the type of role in which a great actor like him could've done wonderful work. Too bad.

DEAR JOHN is sappy and flimsy. Unfortunately, it's more flimsy than sappy, which is a bad route to take, because sappy movies aren't always bad, but flimsy ones obviously can't escape rottenness. I appreciated the early "letter montage" and I guess I liked the somewhat open ending, but neither of those two things can make up for how vacuous the rest of this cinematic experience is.

Surprisingly enough, the people who are going to be most disappointed (or at least underwhelmed) by IRON MAN 2 are those who are part of the movie's ostensible target audience, that is, those who are looking for tons and tons of consecutive, loud action sequences. I'm not a part of that group of people, which is why I had no problem with the fact that this movie dedicates its first hour and a half to exposition and dialogue-based scenes, while reserving the kick-ass action for the last act. It's hard to complain, though, when that hour and a half of dialogue and exposition features Robert Downey Jr. being as brilliantly irreverent as he was in the first film.

Justin Theroux's screenplay features so many one-line zingers that it puts to shame the so-called "wit" in the recent (failed) attempt at a franchise that was THE LOSERS. If there's a flaw in IRON MAN 2 as far as the dramatic component is concerned, it comes in the scene involving our protagonist watching a video of his father... it's something you'll easily see coming, and it seems to tie up a plot thread in a far simpler way than I would've hoped.

Added to Downey Jr.'s charisma is Gwyneth Paltrow's consistently genuine turn as our hero's love interest, the great Sam Rockwell in a delightfully twisted villainous performance, and Mickey Rourke taking sleazy to levels that I suspect not many actors could achieve. Scarlett Johansson doesn't have much to do in early scenes except assume the femme fatale persona, but there's a pretty rewarding scene towards the end in which she quickly dispatches a bunch of people (this won't be too impressive for those of who, just a few weeks ago, witnessed what a certain Hit Girl can do, but still).

Once again, there's the obligatory "after the credits" scene, which may or may not satisfy people as much as the one we got from the first movie. Basically, my suggestion is to stay for it only if you're a fan of Thor. Is that a spoiler? I don't really think it is, but well, sorry if you feel like I spoiled something. It's not much of a revelatory moment, anyway. There aren't many signs that there'll be an IRON MAN 3, but there are a heck of a lot of references to the upcoming AVENGERS franchise. Personally, I'd pay money RIGHT NOW to be able to see Chris Evans ordering Robert Downey, Jr. around, but I guess we'll have to wait a little bit.

Overall, I think the IRON MAN 2 experience is basically just as satisfying as that of the first film. It may leave something to be desired for those who would've preferred more action sequences during the film's first two acts, but for my taste, this approach was very good. The build-up is fantastic, and the final battle sequence is intense and well-made, and doesn't simply consist of pieces of metal clanging against each other (you'll have to wait for the next TRANSFORMERS movie if that's what you're looking for). Regardless of whether the IRON MAN franchise continues, or if we'll simply see the character of Iron Man transferred over to a new franchise, you have to be thankful that this superhero has been portrayed by such a versatile actor who has made these two films so much fun.

Hollywood's current craze with comic book films made it inevitable that something this bland and uninspiring would eventually weasel its way into multiplexes. While I respect filmmakers who want to jump-start a franchise to create a story that will hopefully gather a fanbase that will look forward to subsequent sequels, it's hard to respect an attempt to start an original franchise by making a film that has nothing original in it - seems a bit contradictory, doesn't it? What I respect even LESS is the film's "incomplete" ending which is so blatantly obvious in begging for a sequel. This is one instance in which I can say I'm thoroughly glad that the box office returns for a film were bad.

"You liking the angle of the dangle?" Yes, absolutely, but I'm not liking THE LOSERS in the least bit. In fact, getting at least a glimpse of "the dangle" would have made my personal experience of watching THE LOSERS much better (not so for the 14-year-old boys that the film is aimed at, but ah well). The quote I included at the start of this paragraph is one of the few instances of wit that actually works in this film (as opposed to a bunch of other lines that fall horribly flat), and the quote is uttered by Jensen, who is played here by the steaming hot Chris Evans. If you had told me that the ONLY good thing about THE LOSERS would be Evans' performance and line delivery as a computer geek who has trouble talking to girls, I would've never believed it, but that's exactly the case. The sequence in which his character enters a building dressed up as a messenger, then goes up an elevator, and finally delivers a speech about certain "experiments" that the government performed on him is easily the only worthwhile material to be found in the movie, and that's too bad. Fortunately for Evans, as most people know, he's got what will hopefully be MUCH better things coming in the future. Aside from being my personal celebrity crush, I feel that he's been underrated as an actor for years, and I can't wait to see him as Steve Rogers.

The problem with the rest of the cast isn't so much that their performances are bad as it is that the script gives them no room to achieve even a second dimension. This isn't the type of film in which character development matters that much, but you really have a serious problem when two characters could easily be interchanged because you can't really tell their personalities apart. In order to please its target audience, the film features an awkward sex sequence (all PG-13 material) in which we essentially get to see several butt shots of Zoe Saldana. My suggestion for those looking for, um, stimulation is to search for pictures of her online, and for those who actually want to see her talent, look no further than the two amazing films she did last year (AVATAR and STAR TREK), both of which are way too many notches above THE LOSERS. She really has no room here to display any acting prowess.

But the bigger problem with THE LOSERS is that there's really not a single exciting, different or even slightly cool action sequence. All stuff we've seen before, usually done much better. There's a lot of poor editing here, and it'll be obvious even to people who don't know much about editing. The plot takes some ridiculous (yet never surprising) turns, the worst of which features one character committing betrayal, followed by another character who commits betrayal, and then the one who FIRST committed betrayal suddenly shows up on-screen as if everything was easily resolved. But without a doubt, the biggest sticking point is the horribly obvious, sequel-begging conclusion, which is what makes me so glad that there likely won't be one. I watch any movie that Chris Evans is in, but when a movie is this lame, it's easy to wonder whether the money was well spent on the ticket.

As a final note, I also have to point out that even though the majority of the cast is non-white and one of the main actors is Hispanic, the movie has a few subtle (yet easy to spot) lines that convey a clearly derogatory tone towards Hispanic culture complemented with a tone of white American superiority (notice the use of the word "rotting" while the characters are in Bolivia, followed later by the line "Welcome to the land of the living," and the context in which all of this is said). Any doubts I had about giving this a 4 instead of a 3 were quickly dispelled once I remembered that. It's hard to find it shocking, though, considering how brain-dead the film as a whole is. It's the worst I've seen in 2010 so far.

CHLOE gets a 6/10 due to the fact that I'm doing something with it that I rarely do with movies, because I feel like the circumstances call for it. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. There are a lot of factors that have me almost convinced that something "weird" happened while this movie was being shot that made it fall way short of greatness.

For its first hour, CHLOE was well on its way to being a magnificent portrait of a marriage plagued by that pesky emotion that is so often examined on film: jealousy. No movie that has covered that ground has ever come close to beating out the staggering brilliance of EYES WIDE SHUT... but CHLOE at least looked like a solid attempt for its first hour. However, during the final third it takes such a drastic, inconceivably senseless plot turn, that I'm convinced that something out of the director's and actor's control happened.

Catherine (Julianne Moore) and David (Liam Neeson) are a wealthy couple. He's a professor and she's a gynecologist. He goes on trips for lectures sometimes, and recently, a few things have happened that have made Catherine suspect that David may be cheating on her. Enter the mysterious, beautiful Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), who never expressly says what her profession is, but one gets the feeling that she'd prefer to be called an "escort" than a "prostitute," as she goes out on dates with men and then later has sex with them. This time, though, she's approached by a woman with a business proposition. Catherine wants Chloe to "pretend" to seduce David to see if David responds positively to Chloe's approaches, thereby confirming whether he's really into the habit of cheating on his wife.

Chloe accepts this, and soon, she and Catherine are meeting up periodically so that Catherine can pay Chloe to hear about all the things Chloe "does" with her husband. Since Chloe narrates these things, we never know for sure whether Chloe is actually doing anything with David, or if she's just lying to Catherine... but that's not important, nor is it what makes the movie appear to be a brilliant piece of work at first. What IS important and what DOES make the film have all the potential in the world for greatness is Catherine's reactions to the stories that Chloe tells her about what she does with David. In what should be the film's most pivotal and intense scene, a desperate Catherine takes Chloe into a room, craving to be able to feel what her husband hasn't been giving her for years. We realize that the "heat" in their marriage is gone and that Catherine misses it terribly: "I want to feel what David does to you." Chloe agrees to oblige her, which leads to a scene that guys will probably salivate over (with Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore baring it all and doing more than just kissing), but more importantly, the scene is fantastic in portraying the bottled-up angst that Catherine has felt for years. As we watch the scene, it's clear that this isn't a "lesbian thing," but rather a way to give Catherine the satisfaction she hasn't had for so long... but then something really strange happens in CHLOE. The film contradicts the message that it was apparently trying to deliver in this scene, and instead descends into a stalker thriller. "WTF" has never been a more applicable reaction.

Of course, the main reason why I feel so certain that something strange happened during the filming of CHLOE is because it did. Last year, we discovered that Liam Neeson's wife (actress Natasha Richardson) perished in a completely unexpected accident. This happened DURING the filming of CHLOE, and we later found out that Neeson actually agreed to return to the film, despite the terrible real-life event that had happened to him. The reason why I suspect this of causing the inexplicable shift during the film's last half hour is the fact that those final 30 minutes seem to tweak things so that Neeson's character, David, doesn't have as much emotional involvement in the film as he should have, based on the plot line that the film was following before. In fact, the film's final showdown (a frankly lame violent sequence that is worse than some of the stuff you see on cable) features a curious contrivance that leaves David out of the proceedings, and instead adds Catherine and David's son Michael (Max Thieriot), even though his involvement in this particular moment makes little to no sense. Chloe's ultimate "decision" during this climactic sequence makes even less sense. I could be making a severely unfounded assumption, but there's just too much here that makes me feel like the film's final act was entirely reworked for Neeson's benefit, and yes, if it was because of his wife's untimely death, of course it's really sad and we should be understanding of it, but it doesn't negate the fact that it makes the cinematic experience of watching CHLOE's final moments entirely jarring and confusing.

Now, with what I said above, I would normally give the film a rotten rating, but like I said, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, because it seems that the circumstances that may have led to this "reworking" were out of the filmmakers' control. Also, Julianne Moore's performance is (predictably) magnificent and anchors most of the film's pivotal moments. I can't give a rotten rating to a movie that I know I'll want to see again when it comes out on DVD; I'll just have doubts as to whether or not I'll simply turn it off once there are only 30 minutes left on it.

The delightfully bold and infinitely ingenious KICK-ASS is one heck of a brilliant entry to the superhero genre. I have doubts as to whether to even lump it into that category, because the truth is that this film is what you might call a quasi-satire of the superhero movie, with the exception that it really celebrates the genre more than anything else, while subtly and brilliantly taking jabs at its cliches and conventions. The fact that this film's title doesn't end with the word "Movie" was enough of a sign to know that we were safe from having to endure yet another one of those extra-lame parodies, but what I wasn't prepared for was the incredibly fun, well-crafted and intelligent cinematic experience that is KICK-ASS. In fact, this is one of those instances in which I can say that the title couldn't possibly do a better job at describing the film's quality.

We know we're in for something memorable from the get-go. The film refuses to have its protagonist, Dave (Aaron Johnson), simply fit into a high school stereotype. For this type of film, the easy route would've been for Dave to be your standard geek, but he isn't: "I'm just a normal guy. I just exist." It's a great way of getting the average person to connect with him immediately and become engrossed in the film.

The movie's first 20 minutes features lines like "I'm making deposits in the whack-off warehouse" and "Have you guys ever seen One Night in Spider-Man?" If that were it, KICK-ASS would hardly earn its name, but what comes later is a combination of thoroughly exciting, expertly crafted, and yes, ultra-violent action sequences. Aside from how well-staged these are, one of the most impressive things about the film in general is that it's got a fantastic soundtrack that helps liven up even some of the slower scenes. Whether it's because of the music, the witty dialogue or the nimble fight sequences, there's not a dull instance to be found in the entire running time.

For comic book fans, there's a fantastic sequence in which, in a matter of seconds, the film gives us the background on one of its secondary characters by literally showing us pages from a comic book. It's one of those things you just have to see to understand how well it works. Similarly, for those of us who are straight-up movie fans, there's a brilliantly-scripted instance in which our narrator warns the audience not to reassure themselves that this will all have a happy ending, and in doing so, mentions the likes of AMERICAN BEAUTY, SIN CITY and SUNSET BOULEVARD as perfectly fitting examples of the point he's making. It made me feel so grateful that there are still smart screenwriters out there.

Last year, the child actress Chloe Moretz played Tom's precocious little sister in (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, mostly showing up in scenes spewing dialogue that sounded a bit too intelligent and experienced for someone her age. Moretz plays, um, a different kind of "precocious" in KICK-ASS, but then again, if you've been following movie news, you know all about people's objections to the super violent scenes involving her character Hit Girl, an 11-year-old girl who bloodily dispatches bad guys with tremendous ease. The boring prudes who are outraged by this are failing to give the film praise for having the balls to show a character that age engaging in this sort of behavior, yet more importantly, they're failing to note that the violence in KICK-ASS isn't violence for the sake of violence. You'd have to be blind not to note the commentary that the film is making on the YouTube generation here: consider the sequence in which a torture/execution-style event is being shown on a news broadcast on TV, yet it is interrupted because of the overly disturbing images, thus prompting people to immediately turn to their computers to keep watching it. Dismissing KICK-ASS as nothing but a violent romp represents a mistaken view of what is easily one of the most memorable movies of 2010.

If there's a problem with the film, it has to do with the fact that it sometimes cuts corners in the plot development department in order to keep the energy going. When a character's mistake about another character's sexuality is finally dispelled, the relationship between those two people takes a somewhat drastic turn that isn't easy to buy. Later in the film, the tough-as-nails Hit Girl experiences an emotionally devastating event, but because the movie wants to move as quickly as possible into its climax, it doesn't linger on that as much as it could have.

But those are minor points about what is nothing but a thoroughly creative, frenetic piece of filmmaking. This is one of those instances in which the final scene's suggestion of a sequel doesn't make me cringe in the least bit - quite the opposite. KICK-ASS is nothing but unabashed entertainment that also manages to both praise and poke fun at the superhero genre.

For the most part, THE GREATEST is a Lifetime movie masquerading as an indie drama. The film wastes tons of opportunities to move into deeper/darker emotional waters, and worst of all, it rushes into a haphazard, unrealistic ending that ties everything up nicely in a horribly unconvincing way. The simple-mindedness of this script is completely incompatible with the strength of the performances given here. Something just doesn't fit.

There's no doubt that a family's grief over losing one of its members is a perfect vehicle to explore in a drama... but not so when the approach is to simply skirt the surface of it rather than get knee-deep into the characters' demons. Predictably, Susan Sarandon does a wonderful job as a grieving mother who has lost her son, but that's until she's forced to embarrass herself during the film's final 15 minutes, when her character suffers one of the hardest-to-believe changes of heart you'll ever witness in a movie.

As bad as the film's title is at giving you an idea of its quality level, if there are two great things to be found in THE GREATEST, their names are Carey Mulligan and Johnny Simmons. The former scored an Oscar nomination last year for her charming work in AN EDUCATION, while the latter was (once again) one of the few good things of two lame movies that were released last year that I saw (namely, HOTEL FOR DOGS and JENNIFER'S BODY). Despite the strength of these two actors' performances, both are severely hampered by what the story gives them to work with.

Mulligan's Rose can never become a three-dimensional character because all we discover about her is related to her interaction with a character who is now dead, and the film hardly goes to any lengths to treat her as more of an individual. Similarly, a very interesting plot line seems to emerge with Simmons' character, Ryan, who has addiction problems and connects with one of the girls in the support group he joins... but shock of all shocks, both of those things are left hanging. Ryan's relationship with the girl ends when one of those twists we've seen a dozen times in movies happens, but to make matters worse, we see nothing more about that. All of this gives me the sneaking suspicion that certain scenes were cut out in order to avoid some more disturbing subject matters (which would've made this an infinitely better piece of dramatic filmmaking). The film rushes so much into its wholly artificial ending, and in doing so, it does an injustice to both Rose and Ryan by never allowing us to get to know them particularly well.

THE GREATEST is the type of film that features lines like "It should've been her that died!" That's not SO terrible, but it doesn't help when towards the end, we also have to hear "He loved her, didn't he?" This is the type of movie that should make audiences cry, not cringe. The solution is simple: get these four actors back together and give them the dark, unsanitized story that this type of material deserves and let them inhabit fully realized characters. Maybe the end result of that still wouldn't be the greatest, but it'd certainly be better than this. With all that said, though, there's no doubt in my mind that Mulligan and Simmons are excellent talents and I look forward to the better films they'll make in the next few years.

It seems inevitable that movies about family dysfunction always end up falling into the genre of comedy (or "dramedy" as some people prefer to call it). As much as there may be much suffering and negative stuff going on, family problems in cinema have been constantly geared towards making us laugh more than anything else. The reason why (in my opinion) films like LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE SQUID AND THE WHALE are at the apex of the modern family dysfunction film is that they both do such a terrific job of mixing the humor with its characters' dark sides and at making that balance feel so real and seamless.

I don't have the slightest problem with CITY ISLAND in terms of the entertainment department. I didn't look at my watch a single time, which is rare, because I almost always do that when I'm watching a movie, as good as it may be. It is a completely engrossing film. With that said, though, it chooses the safe route of being just light-hearted fun and never getting into the nitty-gritty of some of the particularly dark subject matter that it's got going on. That's perfectly fine, because these characters are a delight to watch, but the fact that the film explores potentially disturbing issues yet chooses to never go deep into them will make you constantly remember that you're just watching a movie rather than seeing the uber-authentic portrait of family crisis that we get in the likes of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE SQUID AND THE WHALE.

Vince (Andy Garcia) and Joyce (Julianna Margulies) are married, and they have a daughter, Vivian (Dominik Garcia-Lorido), who just recently started college, and a son Vince Jr. (Ezra Miller), who is still in high school. By day, Vince is a corrections officer (or a prison guard, as we'd call him, but he's not a fan of that term). By night, according to what he tells his wife, he's playing poker, even though he's actually taking an acting class, since being an actor has always been his lifelong dream. Joyce correctly suspects that Vince isn't being honest about his supposed poker games, but of course, she incorrectly suspects that Vince spends his nights cheating on her with another woman. Vivian got a full scholarship to college, but for reasons we don't find out till later, she had to leave school, and instead start working... as a stripper. Of course, her parents and brother have no clue about this, and she has to come home for a week under the pretense that she's on spring break from school. If this family already seems too screwed up, we haven't even gotten to the best part yet: the teenaged Vince Jr. has a fetish for overweight women, which becomes an even more severe issue when we discover that this family has a next-door neighbor who is, you guessed it, an overweight woman.

The above plot description seems like enough for a full-length film, doesn't it? Well, that's not all. During one of his days working at the prison, Vince discovers that one of the inmates is a son he had with another woman (before he ever met Joyce). This is Tony (Steven Strait), and as we find out, he thinks his real father is dead. Perhaps as a way to make up for his mistake, Vince decides to take Tony out of the prison and bring him as a guest to his already uber-dysfunctional house. Indie family comedy chaos ensues.

There are several moments in CITY ISLAND in which the editing is simply brilliant. The film will intercut between what is going on with one character to what is going on with the other, occasionally making for some truly hilarious transitions. Consider the moment in which we're watching the nice-laid back conversation between Vince and one of his acting classmates, Molly (Emily Mortimer) while frequently cutting back to young Vince sitting at home looking up his "preferred" type of porn online. Of course, everyone's secrets are bound to come out eventually and there's more than just a little contrivance and moments in which everything would be solved if someone spoke just a wee bit early, but none of that makes the film any less enjoyable to watch. When Vince finally gets a shot at an audition (for a Martin Scorsese movie!) and he initially attempts to do a Marlon Brando impression, one can't help but consider the irony in that it's Andy Garcia who is playing this character.

The climactic scene in which mostly everything is revealed hits a few wrong notes, but is overall solid. One of the particular touches I liked is that when Vivian reveals why she was kicked out of college, her mother doesn't react with a conventional "angry parent" response, but rather with an understanding "What?! Everybody does that!". I'm kind of curious about why little Vince's unorthodox sexual, um, appetite is given no treatment whatsoever during this scene, but I suppose they considered all the other secrets to be more important.

Andy Garcia is playing heavily against type here, but delivers a strong performance (his work at the audition truly has to be seen for how unexpectedly funny it is). The last I saw him in was in a brief role in the mediocre NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU, so it was good to see this afterwards. Julianna Margulies doesn't have much to do other than yell and be angry, but we suspect that not many could've pulled off this role as well as she does. Dominik Garcia-Lorido gets less screen time than her character deserved. I saw Ezra Miller a few months ago in the surprisingly deep and well-crafted AFTERSCHOOL in which he played a sullen, reticent boarding school kid; conversely, in CITY ISLAND, he delivers some hilariously acerbic lines (there's a scene in which the family of four plus Tony are at the table having lunch, and it's a fantastic scene thanks to Miller's rendition of his dialogue). But perhaps the biggest surprise in this movie comes from Steven Strait, who we saw looking like an Abercrombie & Fitch model four years ago in the terrible THE COVENANT, yet here he's all humble and scruffy (a welcome change). I appreciate the fact that the movie doesn't give in to conventionality much when Tony discovers that Vince is his real father. I was frustratingly waiting for the "You left me! You never looked out for me!" lines that we've heard a dozen times, and I'm glad that the film didn't feel the need to go through all those motions before wrapping up. I'd also like to add that Emily Mortimer is delightful as ever, as much as her role is more minor than anything else (and there's a hilarious moment in which her British accent gets made fun of).

CITY ISLAND is an easy-to-digest cinematic experience because it's got both laughs and pain, without ever letting the latter take over too much.