Step Up Revolution

STEP UP REVOLUTION

Amazing dancing + horrible acting = bad movie

2012: Summit Entertainment

2012, Dance Movie, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Summit Entertainment

          Step Up Revolution is the fourth film in a series of movies about dancing. Seriously, that's all these films are good for: fly-ass dance moves. The mind-blowing dance scenes in Revolution are loosely wrapped around a story about standing up for what's right (with a side of a love story thrown in as well). The whole thing is preachy and cheesy. It felt like a kid's movie with its light-hearted message about standing up for what you believe in. The movie itself is terrible: a step up above straight-to-DVD quality. The dancing however was incredible.

          What saves Step Up Revolution from being absolutely horrendous is its new premise. The dance group calls itself The Mob and pulls off all these crazy dance routines that stop traffic, business meetings, and art gallery openings with bumpin' tunes and killer jigs. They are part of a competition to get the most YouTube hits and do so through flash mob dancing. This was the highlight of the film. Seeing how they would wow their viewers, not to mention us in the audience, through a new unexpected dance scenario was exhilarating. First they block a street and dance the afternoon away. Later they infiltrate an art gallery and use camouflage to blend in until the moment when they all start dancing. It's hard to explain without seeing them busting a move. It's like one flash mob dance scene after another except with amazing professional dancers. The variation between dance numbers was what kept the film fresh and interesting amid a terrible plot and hardly a lick of character development.

          The lead actors are all professional dancers so they aren't very good actors. This gives the film credit while also taking some away at the same time. Seeing real dancers is what makes the dance scenes so awesome. But those real dancers can't have actor stand-ins. They all try to act but they aren't too convincing. A few of them are decent actors so that was nice. And a decent actor among terrible ones can make that decent actor seem like Meryl Streep. But like I said, you don't see the film for story, you see it for dancing.

          I must give this film my approval because I was not bored at all during it. Okay, okay, the scenes when no one was dancing were slightly boring toward the end, but it is somehow pardonable. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit (I will also admit that this is the only Step Up I've seen so the idea is still fresh to me) but they made an enjoyable film. I physically reacted to some of the more impressive dance moves, just like I do when something digital blows up with insane realism.

          I must say this is not a "good" film. Actually, I'll go as far as to say this isn't a film at all. It's an enjoyable experience, however, and one that is worth your time. Unless you're all about dancing, the Step Up movies, or really good looking people shakin' their stuff, avoid it. If you like dancing at all, you will enjoy this film. The dancing is the best of the best: superbly impressive. The story is boring and just there to give it a reason for a theatrical release, but you'll be beeboppin' and tappin' a foot as soon as the first dancer pops a hip, drops it down real low.

          Side note: Another thing I liked about this movie was the "protest" aspect of it. The Mob starts by simply dancing to win a competition. But then a greedy contractor decides to tear down The Mob's neighborhood to build a hotel. So they start dancing to bring awareness to their situation. The finale was particularly awesome and truly sticks it to the man.



The Watch

THE WATCH

Low expectations make for a great time at the movies

Just part of the Watch

2012, Sci-Fi/Comedy, Rated R

Distributed by 20th Century Fox

          Walking into a theater with low expectations can make a mediocre film seem great. I remember it happening to me when I saw The Mist back in 2007. I thought that movie was going to be lame (a horror movie in which the antagonist is precipitation?) but saw it all the same. It turned out to be pretty awesome and I believe my low expectations caused me to enjoy it even more. The Watch, starring Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Jonah Hill looked like a flop before it even came out. The repetitive trailers and confusing sci-fi and/or comedy premise made it look flimsy and unfunny. But the result is actually a hilarious time at the movies.
          The problem with this picture is its comedy/sci-fi combination. Although the aliens in The Watch look better than those in some serious sci-fi, it's not an all-out alien invasion movie. And with aliens running about you can't really get too in depth in any character development. So no, The Watch isn't a "good" movie. It won't win any awards. But if you think the lead actors are funny, prepare to laugh out loud through the entire film. The whole thing is one improv scene after another. All the jokes have nothing to do with the story but are hilarious when delivered by these actors.
          Vince Vaughn is less annoying than he usually is because he has free-range here: The Watch is rated R and very raunchy indeed. Almost every joke is inappropriate in some way but you can't help but laugh. Don't be fooled by Ben Stiller's restrained character, everyone else acts like a maniac. Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, and Richard Ayoade all play eccentric individuals who join "the watch" for various reasons. They are all interesting enough to keep the film fresh for its short run time. Will Forte has a small but hysterical role as a cop.
          If you liked films such as Ghostbuster, Evolution, or Paul, this movie could be for you. It doesn't have a terrific story but the gags are hilarious and each actor delivers a solid performance. If you feel like laughing at mindless, not to mention raunchy, jokes for two hours you could do much worse than The Watch. Although I will say it is a bit underwhelming in a summer of epic action films, so wait for it on DVD.

          Side note: The least likable character ends up being Ben Stiller's. I thought Vince Vaughn would be unbearable but he's funny enough. It's Stiller's character that makes him so unfunny. He's the anchor for the rest of them. And the rest of them are hilariously out of control.

Retro: Wrath Of The Titans

WRATH OF THE TITANS

Who gave this bad sequel to a bad remake the green light?

2012: Warner Bros. Pictures

2012, Fantasy/Action, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures

          I have no problem with watching a bad movie once. Each film deserves at least one viewing before we call it trash or gold. A bad movie should not be the starting point for a franchise, though. This sequel is surprisingly worse than its predecessor, Clash of the Titans. That 2010 special effects driven bore-fest could have been revitalized by a stellar sequel. The premise had serious potential. Anything involving Greek myths and good effects has my support but Clash of the Titans was lame and Wrath of the Titans is even more tiresome. I'm shocked while watching these films at how boring and hollow they can make Greek mythology feel.

          The movie takes a whole bunch of Greek myths and throws them together for an adventure film with no wit or ingenuity. It stars Sam Worthington, a normally excellent action star, as Perseus: half-god and son of the almighty Zeus. This film picks up ten years after the original and Perseus now has a son and lives quietly as a fisherman after saving the world from the Kraken. Hades gets a menacing plan to unleash Kronos, the most powerful entity on earth and the father of the most powerful of the Olympian gods, from Tartarus and wreak havoc on Greece. Perseus then attempts to stop him from doing so along with Andromeda, played by Rosamund Pike, and Poseidon's son, played by Toby Kebbell. The whole movie is just lame, hollow dialogue pushing the plot forward and cheap digital monsters attacking the protagonists.

          Sam Worthington reprises his role and nothing has changed about his two-dimensional character other than his hair. The best part of his performance hs simply that he looks like he belongs in a Greek mythology adventure film. No one else in the cast can claim the same thing. For some reason I don't buy any of the actors chosen for the B.C.E. Greek setting. Toby Kebbell, playing Poseidon's son, looked like he belonged in a comedy, not a gritty action movie. Rosamund Pike also looked way out of place. Her hair was too pretty and clean and she looked goofy with a sword and armor. All the actors use phrases and words that are popular now and don't belong in any Greek mythology setting. The casting was terrible. I was waiting to find out who would play Kronos and then it turned out to be a digital effect...so that was a letdown.

          These films have the right idea, they just suffer from poor scripts and worse digital effects. There was a great shot in the beginning while Perseus is battling a Chimera that was excellent except for the creature itself. It looked so fake and digital that I couldn't help but be distracted. The film has most of its action scenes in broad daylight so hiding the poor creature effects becomes impossible. The film suffers greatly for it because epic action is all it has going for it. There is no scene here that tops the Kraken battle at the end of Clash. You can tell that the makers tried to top it with a giant digital Kronos made of lava but it didn't leave the same impression on me.

          Lackluster action, poor digital effects, and a story that is so meaningless you don't care about the outcome make this film totally not worth your time. Watching it I realized I may have demanded my money back had I seen it in IMAX 3D as it was released earlier this year. The whole film feels like a late 90s B-movie with one campy, cheesy scene after another.

          Side note: There is one sequence that breaks from the boring endless digital creature action. Tartarus in this film is a giant, ever-changing labyrinth. The scene where the characters first encounter the maze is brilliantly conceived and the most entertaining five minutes of the whole film. Also, this movie displays a great take on the Minotaur.

The Dark Knight Rises

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

A great film, one that all should see, but ultimately a disappointment

2012: Warner Bros. Pictures

2012, Action/Adventure, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures

          What's the point of this review? Like The Avengers, you've probably already seen TDKR. I'm a little late here so I don't expect to change anyone's mind on whether to see this much-anticipated superhero action film. Whether I say it's good or not, or whether you think it's good or not, this series will go down in movie history as one of the greatest, grandest, most controversial, and most tragic trilogies of all time. Also like The Avengers, TDKR will change superhero movies forever. It sets a new bar for what we are to expect from all these men in tights soaring across the screen. TDKR is an excellent superhero movie. It's not perfect, but it ends the legend nicely...or does it?

          Yes, a fourth film is alluded to. I really wanted Nolan to put this money-making series to bed for good once the credits rolled, but he throws a final punch that leaves you begging for more. A famous Batman character is introduced within minutes of the final frame and it's the character itself that makes me hope more Batman films will come in the future.

          The film is exhilarating and action-packed. Nolan has a way of making every scene feel intense, like danger lurks around every corner. His Batman films feel like one continuous experience that we journey through along with the characters. The opening scene is absolutely brilliant and throws you into that Nolan/Batman feel immediately. The execution of the film was just right: it felt like the first two films. The stakes somehow felt lower, however, than those we feared in The Dark Knight.

          I haven't always felt this way, but this film undeniably suffers from the absence of the Joker, or an actor willing to commit as wholly as Heath Ledger did for that role. Bane is a cool villain but he is honestly not that interesting to look at nor eccentric enough to top the Joker. I adore Nolan's use of practical effects and focus on the human element, but Bane needed something more to set him apart from the other baddies in films like this. His voice was interesting, and I believe we deserve to know what he looks like under that mask. After that ridiculous display of digital flesh on Harvey Dent's face, Nolan could have given us a little bit more to look at on Bane.

          Other new characters leave little to swoon over. Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was nice and interesting but a bit too tame. Hathaway did a great job, but Catwoman is a little more evil, a little more feisty than that. With a nearly three-hour run time, there should be no shortage of proper character development. Marion Cotillard's character sort of felt like it just needed to be there for a certain twist at the end. I found the twist and her character to be boring but necessary to the story. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Blake was an excellent addition to the Batman universe, and one that I've been hoping for for a while now. He was my favorite new addition to the Batman saga. There are too many new characters in TDKR but Blake really feels like he needed to be included.

          The story is somewhat of a letdown. On its own it doesn't work. As a standalone picture, this Batman film is out of focus. But when looked at in light of the entire series, it fits nicely into the overall story being told. Even though Bane technically raises the stakes higher than those in TDK, it felt less dangerous. The Joker was perfectly menacing and felt just so evil. Bane is a threat, but something about his plan felt lame. This is one problem I have with the whole series. It's so silly and unrealistic. If a city in America had all these lunatics running around, the government would step in and stop them. TDK didn't feel as far fetched as TDKR does. There are a few fight scenes that take Batman back to his roots that were nice. The scenes in which he and Bane all-out fist fight are great and a return to what we see in the comics.

          Overall it's an excellent film and a rightful ending to a legend that just won't die. I look forward to hinted-at sequels but TDKR definitely feels a bit tired. It had me wondering what Nolan will tackle next. Inception was a teaser for his new and non-Batman abilities in this exciting high-tech film world we now live in. TDKR is exciting and culturally important so go see it. Just don't expect it to be as good as its predecessor.

          Side note: Anyone who thought this film would make more money than The Avengers was dead wrong. Batman is stale in comparison to the new and exciting cross-over characters that Marvel has finally decided to indulge in.

          Another side note: I have always been a bit hesitant about that flying Batmobile that we saw in the trailers. Now that I've seen the film I can say that, Yes, the flying "Bat" is somewhat over the top and sticks out like a soar thumb in such a grounded superhero tale.



Retro: Lockout

LOCKOUT

For every Inception, there are about ten Lockouts

2012: Open Road Films

2012, Sci-Fi/Action, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Open Road Films

          The genre of science fiction in film has seen some particularly stunning entries in the last few years. Through technology and innovative uses of digital effects we have seen exhilarating films such as Avatar, Inception, and District 9 blaze into theaters recently. Science fiction will,however, always attract those B-movie directors and writers who see sci-fi as ridiculous, thus allowing them to make ridiculous movies in the genre. Science fiction should be compelling, intelligent, and awe-inspiring, yet films like Lockout reduce it to explosions, hollow characters, and stupid dialogue.

          For every brilliant Inception, there are numerous sci-fi films like Lockout that are just plain bad. Examples include Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, Repo Men and almost all the Resident Evil movies. These films tent to skirt on intelligent dialogue or interesting story and just blow things up. Lockout does this, although a few inspirational moments save it from being unwatchable, not to mention an excellent lead actor (Guy Pearce), delivering a good performance in a bad movie. Pearce plays CIA agent Snow who, instead of going to prison, is offered a very delicate and top-secret mission to save himself from bondage. High above the Earth, a high-tech,maximum-security prison orbits our planet and houses thousands of criminals sleeping through their sentences in stasis. The president's daughter goes to the prison to interview one inmate about stasis and how it negatively affects the brain, causing hallucinations and insanity. All Hell breaks loose when the inmate breaks loose and the prisoners take over the space prison. The president's daughter is trapped and Snow is sent in to save her.

          Although the president's daughter thing is cliche and has been done a million times, this plot honestly could yield a terrific film. Especially when we consider the fact that the film was co-written by Luc Besson, director of the sci-fi classic The Fifth Element, along with The Professional and The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. His writing didn't help the plot. It's pretty stale and cliche. The only thing that sets it apart from other films like it is the setting: an orbiting space prison. Still, this unique setting is not fleshed out and feels boring. The movie starts out chaotic and uninteresting so the viewer may become bored right off the bat. The prisoners who take over could have been so disturbingly creepy and interesting but they just aren't. There are a few moments of inspired insanity from those actors portraying the inmates, but they are subdued by a dumb plot and bad dialogue. The film tries to get tragic and multi-layered by introducing two inmates who are brothers who have a slight power struggle but that also felt cliche and irrelevant to the story. This film, I'm realizing now, should have been an R-rated experience. The gritty setting and relentless inmates have to be somewhat tame because of the PG-13 rating, and this diminishes the danger they are meant to represent.

          Guy Pearce turns in the best performance in the picture. It isn't amazing, but that's because the dialogue and script are so weak. I've seen/heard much worse from some much worse sci-fi films, but that's no excuse to be lazy with writing a sci-fi film with potential like Lockout. Snow is relentlessly mean to Emilie, the president's daughter (played by Maggie Grace), because she is privileged and he doesn't want to be on the mission anyway. They had a few great characterizing moments together, but they were bogged down by just as many stupid moments. Some of the action in this picture is top-notch, while some was just daft. There is a motorcycle chase scene in the beginning that looks so incredibly fake but was displayed with a consistent visual style that was nice because of its undeniably original look. Every space scene tickled my fancy because I adore sci-fi, and they did space travel nicely here: better than I would have expected.

          There are a few moments of truly original sci-fi at work but overall, this is a daft picture. It brings barely anything new to the sci-fi genre and the story needs work. I liked the ending very much and it sort of saves the film from being terrible. All in all I would say rent this if you need some pulp nonsense to fill your time. The visuals are cool and interesting, the action is adequate, but the story and most of the dialogue suffer greatly. It's a shame because the film had so much promise. It delivers somewhat, but ultimately falls short.

          Side note: If you like Guy Pearce, you should rent it. If you like science fiction, you should rent it. If you've ever played Dead Space you should difinitely rent it. This film is for geeks only.

Savages

SAVAGES

Oliver Stone's newest is high-octane, hyper-violent, summer fun

Blake Lively's makeup has nothing to do with this movie.

2012, Action/Drama, Rated R

Distributed by Universal Pictures

          Everything about Savages is a success. What did you expect? Violence? Check. Sex? Check. Stylized action? Check. Lots of stuff blowing up? Check. People smoking refer? Check. If you expected anything more than what was just listed, look elsewhere. You won't find it in Oliver Stone's Savages. Oh, except a pretty good story: it has that too.

          The only issue one may find with Savages would come up in any comparison to its cast and director's previous films. Savages is minor Oliver Stone. He has made some clunkers, yes, (W., World Trade Center, etc.) but normally he pushes boundaries, makes a film no one saw coming, and just blows you away (JFK, Natural Born Killers). Savages finds itself somewhere in the middle, closer to his good stuff, though. It is gritty and feels real. Characters are fully realized and there is no stopping the violence or drug use. It's a great and exciting R-rated action film, but does, in the end, feel somewhat disposable, like I'll never watch it again. It also benefits entirely from its mid-summer release.

          Savages is essentially about these two guys who start a marijuana-growing operation. One is a smart business man type, and the other is the muscle: the one with all the guns. Together they grow and sell the best pot in the world. A Mexican drug cartel has decided that the boys are making too much money and wants some of the pie. The two guys (Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson) have a girlfriend whom they share, played by Blake Lively. A powerful drug lord (Salma Hayek) gets her henchmen (Benicio del Toro among others) to kidnap the girl and force the boys to play nice and cut them in on their profitable operation. Things get violent and explosive from there. I'm sure you've seen the trailer.

          The cast in Savages truely delivers. If you read this blog often you probably know I'm a huge Taylor Kitsch fan. He is superb as the badass with all the guns who shows no mercy. Like I said though, everyone has done better in other movies. Kitsch, I now realize, is much better at playing the lead of an action-packed PG-13 romp. The R-rating felt like a bit too much for him. I wanted him to crack more jokes. Aaron Johnson plays the business end of the grow operation and does a fine job. Those dreads looked believable on him and he played the part well. The two actors bounced off of each other well, also. The two characters were well-written and balanced eachother's "fire and ice" demeanour perfectly. Blake Lively plays the girl that they are both dating. This is an odd love story, one that rarely shows up in a Hollywood film. She explains in the beginning of the film why this three-way relationship works and through that and all three performances I bought it. Not everyone is "just male/female". Proof that this type of relationship is very un-Hollywood is that the last time I saw it show up was in Woody Allen's Whatever Works. Lively is an okay actress. Between her obnoxious character and her decent line-delivery, her scenes were the least enjoyable to watch.

          On the bad guy side, Benicio del Toro shines most brightly. He is pitch-perfect for the terribly creepy henchmen to Hayek. I very much enjoyed how each character, bad or good, had depth. There is a scene where del Toro messes something up and we see him and his boss talk in ways you never witness elsewhere in the film. Salma Hayek was wonderfully evil in her role as the Mexican drug lord. She had many sides to her character as well. Her daughter, for example, hates her, and their sub-plot is interesting and thoroughly fleshed-out. John Travolta, sort of a good guy and a bad guy, gave my favorite performance in the whole film. He plays a cop who helps the boys out in securing information on the Mexican cartel. It's safe to say Travolta hasn't been in any incredible movies recently and Savages will hopefully mark the beginning of his return to great films.

          The action in this film is also a highlight. Some scenes were incredibly tense and in-your-face violent. There is one action sequence in particular that blew me away. It was all done practically, too, because you could tell those were real cars hurtling through the air after being hit by rocket propelled grenades. The action was top-notch, so was the story; what's not to like? Besides Blake Lively's acting...nothing. Go see this movie if you thought it looked good. You will love it. If you saw the trailers and though it wasn't for you...it probably isn't. I thought it was great and totally worth a trip to the theater.

          Side note: Oliver Stone is no stranger to excellent soundtracks (see Natural Born Killers soundtrack). Savages is no different in its ability to manipulate the audience through carefully chosen songs and score. I heard a remix of a Massive Attack song. I heard a cover of a Talking Heads song. Every note of music was perfectly placed with the visuals and story that went alongside it.

The Amazing Spider-Man

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Like a dull tack: utterly pointless

2012: Columbia Pictures

2012, Action and Adventure, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Columbia Pictures

          The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. It's exciting, well-acted, well-directed, and stands tall among some other lackluster comic book adaptations. Unfortunately though, it's the same good movie we saw back in 2002 when Toby Maguire was swinging around in blue and red tights. You couldn't have changed the plot somewhat? It becomes so tiresome to watch the same story unfold before you. This film should be to Spider-Man what The Incredible Hulk was to Hulk. But it ends up being the same thing with different actors and a different villain.

          The one thing that is undeniably different from the original is the fresh cast. Andrew Garfield plays Spidey with a bit more confidence. He is taller, skinnier, and hardly resembles the small but muscular Maguire in Spider-Man. That gives even the digital Spidey a different look from the first movie. Garfield fit the darker mood of the new installment as well. Emma Stone enters the comic book movie world with her role as Gwen Stacy, portrayed by Bryce Dallas Howard in Spider-Man 3. Stone does a great job in her role, tossing Howard's brief late introduction aside as a mere appetizer to the true Gwen. I honestly preferred the Uncle Ben from the original, played by Cliff Robertson, although Martin Sheen did a nice job in the update. I'm a fan of Dennis Leary but he really doesn't belong in a comic book movie. There were times when they would try to let his comedy roots show but the jokes were met with silence usually. The villain, The Lizard, was played by Rhys Ifans. Ifans is a great, diverse actor. I expected nothing but a solid performance and he delivered. All in all the cast is excellent. They do their best to bring new life to a tired franchise.

          The problems arise in this movie when you realize you are watching the same story as in the original. Marvel released Hulk in 2003 to poor critical and commercial response. They wanted to make more money off of it so they remade it and released it as a "reboot". It had a whole new cast and story and had a much better response than the original. The Incredible Hulk, released in 2008, feels very much like a different movie, rather than a remake. The film opens with Bruce Banner already consumed by his superhuman condition. We don't have to watch him get zapped by gamma rays because we already know how that happened from the original. The Amazing Spider-Man acts like Spider-Man never existed. Unfortunately that was all people could talk about upon its release. We all saw Spider-Man. So why did they feel they needed to show us Uncle Ben's murder or the spider bite? Uncle Ben's murder in the update is incredibly goofy. This guy with a gun trips in front of him and Ben thinks "I'm an old man so I should probably make a diving leap for that gun" so he does and he gets shot. It was very odd and made me giggle it was so ridiculous.

          There was nothing incredibly interesting or original that didn't already show up in Spider-Man. The villain was new, but every comic book sequel has a new villain; it could have been Maguire and Dunst fighting off Ifans. The Lizard, one of my favorite villains from the comic books, was also lacking. I'm sick of these all-digital beings in action movies. Even up close The Lizard was totally digital. We need that playful balance between what's practical and what's digital to keep action scenes interesting in films like this. No one wants to see a digital spider and a digital lizard fight in a digital city. It's like a watching a cartoon. Another issue I had with the film was its inability to adapt to the current trends in Marvel movies. Where are the cross-over characters? It was simply Spidey and The Lizard leaping off the comics panels and into The Amazing Spider-Man. The Avengers has set the bar for new Marvel movies, and that's a bar The Amazing Spider-Man fails to reach. 

          This is a great film on its own. The special effects are fantastic, the villain is cool, and the cast is awesome. The movie exudes a certain ethusiasm for its subject that is undeniably contagious. It does run a bit too long and like I said, it's way too familiar. I'm going say don't go see this in the theater. I saw it in 3D, on a massive screen, and still, I can't say it was worth it. I'm still getting over the brilliance of The Avengers, and in mere days, The Dark Knight will rise.

          Side note: The best update from the original Spider-Man is the new Spidey's wise cracks. Spider-Man in the comics makes fun of his villains while he battles them. He always has some wise-ass comment to make before he throws a punch. This was perfectly integrated into the new Amazing Spider-Man.

 

To Rome With Love

TO ROME WITH LOVE

Woody Allen makes a hilarious return to acting...and Europe

Box office mojo

2012, Comedy, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Sony Pictures Classics

          I'm terribly sorry but once again we have a biased review. There are two kinds of moviegoers in this world: those who love Woody Allen, and those who don't. I have seen all but one of his features (there are now 43!) and I can say I am a huge fan. He's the hardest working director in the movie business. He writes and directs at least one film every other year since he began back in the early 60s. He wasn't at the Oscars to accept his award for Best Original Screenplay for Midnight In Paris because he was busy filming his next little gem, To Rome With Love. Sometimes a Woody film comes along that isn't very good, lacking in some way or another (like Melinda and Melinda, Anything Else, Another Woman). But on the other hand, he can create a masterpiece (Annie Hall, Zelig, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy). Peppered throughout his career are films like To Rome With Love: a funny, heartfelt, intelligent, won't-win-any-awards-but-a-damn-good-time-at-the-cinema type of picture.

          To Rome With Love combines all that has been good about Allen's films and makes a sort of short-story collection out of them. Many films take different story lines and make them come together in the end, but in To Rome With Love, the different tales are connected by one fact: they all take place in Rome. This undeniably makes the film feel a bit disjointed, the audience unable to truly connect with any characters because of every one's brief onscreen time. There are no real main characters in this film. The main characters of each story become minor characters in the scope of the entire film. This can be pardoned though, because each story is interesting a unique enough to warrant the existence of the film.

          What's great about To Rome With Love is how each story is totally different from one another. Some are traditional Woody: love and adultery. Others utilize fantasy elements to intensify emotion. Alec Baldwin's character, for example, doesn't really exist in the material world. If I'm not mistaken, he is the older version of Jesse Eisenberg's character, showing up only to give him advice in love and life. Sometimes it is unclear as to whether other characters can in fact see or hear him. Elements like that have come up in Woody films like Midnight In Paris, Alice, and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Then there is the classic adultery tale, and of course, the hypochondriac Allen himself.

          The highlight of the film is Allen's return to acting in his own picture. He hasn't done so since the very lackluster Scoop. It was incredibly refreshing to see him complaining and nagging at his onscreen wife, the splendid Judy Davis, a veteran of Woody's films. His story involves Allen as a retired classical music record producer. He discovers a superb opera singer who he wants to manage. Unfortunately, though, he can only sing well in the shower. Allen goes so far as to produce operas in which the singer literally sings on stage in a shower. It's ridiculous, but hilariously and charmingly so.

          To Rome With Love is a very light film. It doesn't have any sweeping statements to make about love, but rather many little comments about life, particularly life in Rome or any beautiful and desirable city. We get to see some of Allen's troupe return to relay his impeccably written dialogue, and some new blood (Ellen Paige, Alec Baldwin, Jesse Eisenberg, Greta Gerwig). Everyone turns in great performances, and the stories are interesting, funny, or heartfelt enough to please any moviegoer. If you know that you don't like Woody Allen's films then you may want to skip it. It won't win awards like the somewhat overrated Midnight In Paris, but it is worth a watch for sure. Then again, it is minor Woody, so if you haven't seen Sleeper, Match Point, Bullets Over Broadway, Radio Days, or Husbands and Wives, skip Rome and seek out those instead. Either way, To Rome With Love is a total success.

Side note: Here's my Woody Allen's Top Ten (in no particular order):

 Husbands and Wives

 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

 Match Point

 Sleeper

 Zelig

 Radio Days

 Deconstructing Harry

 Take the Money and Run

 Sweet and Lowdown

 Bullets Over Broadway

Ted

TED

It's like a two-hour Family Guy episode starring Marky Mark

Notice anything wrong with this picture?

2012, Comedy, Rated R

Distributed by Universal Pictures

          There's a lot to like about Ted...until you see it. It's the first film directed by Seth Macfarlane, creator of Family Guy, but you don't need me to tell you that: the promotional material milked the fact dry. That's really all it has going for it though. If this had nothing to do with Family Guy, I think people would disregard it more ferociously than they did Battleship. It's a pretty dumb movie. Some scenes are laugh-out-loud funny, but you'd expect more from Macfarlane.

          People are calling this movie "original" because there's a talking teddy bear in it. Other than that, nothing about this film is original. The main storyline involves Mark Wahlberg's character living with Ted, his magical talking teddy bear, while also attempting to hold a normal relationship with his girlfriend, played by Mila Kunis. Marky Mark is torn because he loves his teddy bear. They have been best friends (thunder buddies) since Ted began talking and all the while have been inseparable. Ted is getting in the way of Mark's and Mila's relationship. This was the main plot of Shaun of the Dead. Marky Mark just can't let his best friend go so his girlfriend almost leaves him. It's all about his attempt to balance the two relationships to please everyone. It's been done a million times.

          I dislike when movies sacrifice realism for jokes. Not just realism, but also continuity. Why is it that Ted can maul the muscley Mark Wahlberg and beat the crap out of him yet has no defense against the weak and thin Giovanni Ribisi? Because it's funny to watch a teddy bear beat up Mark Wahlberg. That's sacrificing continuity for jokes. I don't approve. Also, I realise that they have been friends for life, but come on Marky Mark, you're dating Mila Kunis: ditch the teddy bear and marry one of the most beautiful women alive immediately. There are so many scenes where he stops giving up his childhood and relapses back into hanging out with Ted instead of Mila. I have no sympathy for a character if he makes dumb decisions like that.

          Some of the best scenes are reminiscent of Family Guy. There are a few moments where we get those classic yet totally random flashbacks that Family Guy tended to employ to hilarious effect. One scene shows how Mila remembers their meeting for the first time and another how Mark remembers their meeting for the first time. They were very different, and cleverly so. 

          Yes it's funny, but it's also really stupid. The only draw is Seth Macfarlane. Hearing his voice come out of something animated after Family Guy is quite the treat, but I wanted to laugh way more than I actually did. I really wanted it to be great but it was just okay in this reviewer's opinion. There is an awesome non-speaking cameo by Ryan Reynolds that had me in stitches. Overall, though, I thought this movie was lacking.

          It's not a terrible film so it's definitely worth a watch. I wouldn't advise you go to the theater for it, but judging by the numbers it has put up, you probably already have.

          Side note: Although I am somewhat negative toward the likable Ted, I wouldn't discourage Macfarlane from further ventures into the world of film. Ted has enough hysterical scenes that have set me looking forward to his second adventure in film land, whenever and whatever that may be.

People Like Us

PEOPLE LIKE US

The surprise sleeper hit of the summer

You won't be so happy when the credits roll. Photo by Heather.

2012, Drama, Rated PG-13

Distributed by Touchstone Pictures

          People Like Us is an incredibly melodramatic movie. There are many plot turns that come up in soap operas as well. Fortunately for the film, it's a film, with a competent cast and director, and a script that screams for Oscar attention. It's partially based on writer/director Alex Kurtzman's life. He found out when he was in his thirties that he had a sister that he never knew about. He then built a story around that concept and experience, and now we have the excellent tear-jerker People Like Us.

          This movie has the power of a whirlpool. It sucks you right in and drowns you in its story, creating empathy for all of its characters. It is essentially about a man named Sam who flies home for his father's funeral. His father was a very wealthy and popular record producer who never had any time for his family. Sam is somewhat bitter about all that. Then he learns that his father's will demands that he take $150,000 in cash and deliver it to his 30-year-old alcoholic sister that he never knew he had. Sam just cut a bad business deal and is in heaps of debt. He really needs that money. All Daddy left for him was his record collection. So he heads off to find out about this sister, learns that she has a troubled 11-year-old son, and was part of his father's "second family." He spends the rest of the movie getting to know this sister without telling her about the money, which she also needs but claims would never take because her father abandoned her and her mother. It's a very complicated story and one that unfolds over a span of two hours. I'm trivializing it here. It is deep, involving, and incredibly emotional.

          Sam is played by Chris Pine, an excellent actor in films like J.J. Abrams' Star Trek and Tony Scott's Unstoppable. He does an fine job in this film. He is the center of the whole story so he carries a lot on his shoulders but pulls it off wonderfully. The only thing I may not have liked about this movie was how Sam waits so long to tell Frankie that they are siblings. The movie is cumbersome as it is at two hours, so I felt he maybe could have sped things up a bit (that's part of the suspense though, because he could take the money for himself). But the whole plot is so complicated and intricate that everything falls into place where and when it should. Elizabeth Banks plays Frankie, the half sister of Sam and mother of the troubled Josh. I was dreading her entrance into the film because everything was so good up until she came on screen. I didn't think she would fit nicely in a dramatic movie like this. I dreaded for nothing. She does an amazing job portraying a strong but struggling single mother. She seems dumb and flaky until she gets in a room with the principle of Josh's school after he blows up the pool and deflects the possibility of expulsion through intelligence and wit. The boy who plays Josh, Michael Hall D'Addario, was also superb. Everyone turned in perfect performances. Jon Favreau, Olivia Wilde, and Michele Pfeiffer also play excellent supporting roles. 

          The end of this movie, when all is said and done, throws one final punch at the audience. The whole movie is emotional and puts the viewer on the verge of tears. Everyone in the movie is a product of the selfishness and ignorance of Sam's father. Not everyone, especially Sam's father, in this film are good people. That's one thing I liked about it. Characters aren't inherently good like in most movies. Everyone makes bad choices and suffers for them, just like real people. In the last five minutes of the film we get a glimpse into who Sam's father really was and how he truly tried to please both of his families. There is one final moment that put me to tears. I can't even allude to what it is but I haven't cried so hard in a film in my whole life. They were happy tears though, so don't worry, the payoff of this film is totally worth it! Go see it. You will not regret it.

          Side note: I saw two girls about my age come into the mostly empty theater and thought, I wonder why they aren't seeing Magic Mike. When People Like Us ended I saw them again and realized that they must have been blown away like I was at how phenomenal this film is. Magic Mike was awesome but honestly, People Like Us is an amazing film, and much better than Mike.