Inception Review

Inception:
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Released in 2010



Your day is going well. Shockingly great, even. That band you wanted to see, you know the one whose closest show was located three hours away, has just revealed a new date in the town adjacent to yours. Why anyone would play in Closter, New Jersey, is besides the point, because they also resurrected Jimi Hendrix from the dead and he will be jamming at this show as well! The opener is Radiohead. Winston Churchill and Marilyn Monroe have speaking engagements on top of that. Wait. You begin to question the origins of this situation. You do not remember necessarily how you were confronted with this joyous news, only that it seemingly came to be. The patterned, hardwood floor snaps to black nothingness. As your eyes fly open, only to find yourself lying on your disheveled bed with its tousled sheets, disappointment pours over you as you realize it was merely a dream, a fantastical figment of your subconscious. This was a pleasant dream, but there were undoubtedly some dark secrets hidden deep within. The line between reality and fantasy becomes increasingly blurred, leaving us wary of where, or who, we really are. Such is precisely the concept of Inception, Christopher Nolan's latest mindbending thriller with huge setpieces and an even larger imagination. 


It is not easy to condense Inception's storyline to a mere few paragraphs, as well as leaving out any spoilers, so it is best just to provide the bare synopsis.  Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a master at a very specialized form of espionage:  entering the subconscious of those his employer specifies, and then stealing critical, secret thoughts. Cobb is estranged from his children and his mysterious wife, Mal, whose fate is left in the balance until the end of the film. He is given a chance to reunite with his children if he accepts the job the wealthy Japanese magnate Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers him. Fittingly, the task is near-impossible. Known as "inception," it is the process of implementing new thoughts into a person's subconscious, as to make it seem that the subject thought of them himself. The subject is Robert Fischer Jr., played by Cillian Murphy, who is the son of an ill energy tycoon and Saito's main competitor. The job, and its rewards, seem straightforward enough for everyone to agree. Obviously, as in any dream, nothing every works that easily.

The film opens with a spectacular action sequence, which this film is full of, as Cobb and his partner, Arthur, a suave Joseph Gordon-Levitt, invade the mind of Saito in order to extract an important piece of data. The "rules" of subconscious engagement start to materialize. For instance, the sleeping Cobb is kicked into a bathtub, while the Cobb in the dream is surrounded by a world that suddenly fills with water. The opening hour or so focuses on exposition, which may seem to be a slogging introduction to some, but I equated it to a tutorial for a video game. Before you can master an action game, you must learn the basics. Same goes with this original, very different take on the human dreamscape. The film introduces the rules of this unique form of combat, such the need for an architect, or someone who builds a complex dreamworld in order for the subject to have difficulty realizing that this world is a foreign creation. Other neat ideas include the fact that the "dream invaders," let us call them, experience pain inflicted in the dream upon their true, grounded self, though a death will simply wake them up (the exceptions to this rule prove interesting). The different levels of a dream (yes, they dream within dreams, and continually stack them), are given different standards by which time is measured, though pounding music with a defined cadence will apparently resonate equally.  A recurring motif that plays a critical role in the movie is the totems that these agents use to ensure them that they are back in the real world. Arthur has a red die, while Cobb has a silver spinning top. This mechanic is an original way to explain the realities, or lack thereof, of the dreamworld. 

It is not often for a movie to have such an intriguing premise, yet deliver on nearly all counts. Inception does this, and, while it is not completely flawless, it is the most refreshing, intelligent sci-fi film since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I found myself grinning and shaking my head in disbelief when plot strands would tie together so well, or just at the genius behind many of the mechanics. The interesting thing is, this film spells out so many rules and details about the laws the world occupies that it makes the viewer believe they conquered all the small storytelling nuances. Of course, by the ending (and what an ending it is), as one analyzes the bigger picture, many questions are left unanswered. Some are left up to your own interpretation, while the established fiction can answer the rest. Naturally, the whole process of subconscious extraction is never fully explained, which is perfectly fine. A suitcase filled with cryptic lights and circular dials holds a number of tubes that, presumably, are inserted intravenously into each dreamer, who then are left unconscious and free to bob around without much resistance. Explaining the science behind the whole process is about as necessary as revealing the true nature of the Force in Star Wars (and don't you dare bring up midi-chlorians). 


A number of different influences run throughout this film. An obvious pick is The Matrix, where the worlds are built upon unreal creations of people's minds as well. A liberal use of slow motion is shared between the two films, though it is integral to the storytelling of Inception in a sense. There is also, somewhat shockingly, an "Architect" in both, though the roles are reversed. The Architect in The Matrix seemingly knows all the answers, while Ariadne (Ellen Page), the architect in Inception, is the audience surrogate, new to the practices of these agents and as initially bewildered as the viewer to the process. The heist and spy nature of the film can be traced to Ocean's Eleven or James Bond (the ski sequence is an obvious throwback to Spy Who Loved Me), both involving a wide range of diverse, wisecracking characters. Traces of Blade Runner can be felt, as the uncertain nature of certain characters hangs in the balance. And of course, Christopher Nolan's greatest film (which may still hold the title, though only time will tell), Memento, is the lifeblood for the script itself. It is worth noting that Memento, which chronicles its events backwards, is dwarfed in complexity by this film and its limitless intricacies. 

In the same way as The Matrix, this film is paving new ground in its special effects. Every visual trick is incredible, such as when Paris folds in on itself and Cobb and Ariadne nonchalantly walk vertically, upside-down, and every which way on the circuitous grid. However, Nolan does not garner all the respect just for the computer wizardry he accomplishes but for his steadfast commitment to live-action effects, with limited digital tampering. A freight train storming through the city streets is something that could only occur in a dream, yet the scene was actually filmed on a expansive stage, not on high-processing computers.  The most stunning feat is the zero-gravity hotel scene, in which Arthur fights and flies through long, spinning corridors. This is not the first time that actors have ran, or danced, on spinning setpieces; Fred Astaire dazzled audiences in 1951 with his Royal Wedding ceiling dance. However, nothing of this scale has been done before, and the added fact that the actors are floating the rest of the time is simply stunning. I should give a shoutout to the sound design as well, which, like any Nolan film, is impeccable. Notice the crisp "clank" sound when the taxi runs over an assault rifle on the ground, or the cacophonous shattering of glass. Hans Zimmer's pounding score is sometimes overwhelming, but it fits the epic feel with heavy brass and bass. In the end though, it is the visual feats of wonder that resonate. Neo's first bullet time scene, or Terminator 2's mix of computer and physical effects were revolutionary for their time, and this is the modern equivalent.

No amount of special effects can counter a bad script (ask a bare, DVD version of Avatar) or flat acting, but Inception encounters no such problems. The screenplay, penned by a likely exhausted Christopher Nolan, is imaginative and rife with emotional conflict. That's not to say that it is without fault (a few events at the end could qualify as deus ex machina), but few screenplays have dared to venture in such risky, complex territory as this one, while simultaneously aiming for huge audiences. While it is the mind of Fischer that the specialists invade, the story ultimately belongs to Cobb. DiCaprio impresses once again with a demanding role that calls for action hero antics on top of perpetual psychological dilemma. His character is deeply flawed, as his relationship with his wife can attest. The memories he holds of his wife are of questionable authenticity, and once the answers are provided by the conclusion, the ending proves even deeper than initially expected. Many parallels can be drawn between the mind-centric roles of this film and Shutter Island, another Leo DiCaprio vehicle, but it is safe to say that he has been in two of the best films of the year and supports them with ease. 


The rest of the cast is varied but no less impressive. The youthful Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who balanced elation and melancholy perfectly in (500) Days of Summer, is an ideal partner to DiCaprio. He plays the sane(r) man to Cobb's rapidly spiraling mind, and this is the first blockbuster for the young man that will surely launch a career of many more successful films. He exchanges entertaining banter with Eames, played by Tom Hardy, the typical British bloke. The two provide most of the comic relief in the film, which is not terribly often, but humorous when it appears. Ellen Page, who narrowly missed an Oscar for Juno, excels in her role that begins in perplexed naivety to end as the only one besides his wife to truly understand Cobb's psyche.  Her genius draws her to Cobb's attention through Miles, played by Michael Caine, who stops by for only five minutes total. He apparently is one of the main minds behind this "subconscious security" process, so when he sits behind a desk in a 19th century lecture ampitheater, it does not really meld with his character's reputation. Still, there is no harm in Michael Caine, and I would have welcomed more screentime. Avatar's Dileep Rao is the chemist behind the operation, supplying the sedatives for the subjects. It is strange, however, that these complex chemicals are simply stored in some dusty old store, which seems a bit off the mark. Nonetheless, Cillian Murphy plays his extremely critical role with an apt blend of wealthy elitism and frightened disorientation. A larger Tom Berenger, somewhat similar in complexion to Mickey Rourke nowadays, is the righthand man to the Fischer family, and proves to be a key point in successful inception. A scene when Eames, who is a "forger," alters his appearance to become a physical manifestation of Berenger's character is clever as the sparse editing makes the effect seem lifelike. 

Letters From Iwo Jima's Ken Watanabe, one of the greatest English-speaking Japanese actors in Hollywood, is excellent as the wealthy, occasionally quite humorous catalyst to the whole operation.  He not only assigns the operation but proves to be a vital figure in the mental unraveling of Cobb. The chief figure in Cobb's life, however, is undoubtedly his wife, Mal, played by the beautiful Marion Cotillard. Her performance is never consistent because Cobb's projection of her constantly vacillates to fit his mental state. Cotillard, who won an Oscar for La Vie en Rose two years ago, nails the emotional nuances of this complex role no matter the situation. She can be frightening, romantic, philosophical, or just smooth like the best Bond girls. Cotillard has not had a bad role in her career, and the transition to blockbuster films has not mitigated her talent at all. If anything, she is getting better with each new movie. 


As much as I would like to call Inception perfect and close shop with that, it is not. No film is really, but there are a few qualms I should note. Mulholland Drive this is not, and while that will please most viewers who do not want to be savagely assaulted by perverse images and jagged storylines, it is almost too straightforward for a dream world. Dream logic is, well, devoid of any real logic, so the ease at which the agents move around the world and control themselves does not really align itself with the true science of dreams. The one problem that was notably apparent, however, was the bland nature of the dream worlds. As my opening paragraph attests to, dreams are supposed to be discordant, senseless and fantastical scenes that center around an impossible notion or ideal setting. Instead, the settings of these dreams are just city streets, hotels, and snowy fortresses without any conflict. The straightforward nature of these dreams is the only way a mainstream audience would be able to digest them, and there is already enough abstract content to deal with, so I understand where Nolan is coming from with these alterations. These minuscule flaws have little to no impact on the final product, but I feel obliged to express my thoughts. 

Inception is a rare beast. The visual effects are astonishing and unlike anything you have ever seen before. Better yet, its wholly original and brilliant story qualifies every action scene as intrinsic to the progression of the plot, and not merely pedestrian eye fodder. Christopher Nolan may be the greatest filmmaker of the new millennium, as he combines the old, traditional ways of making classic films - huge soundstages, stuntmen, and, most important, a limitless imagination - with the technology of today, and, never leaning too heavily on either, crafts a product that is irresistible to every form of audience. In Inception, your dreams are never safe. But this film proves that the Hollywood dream is alive and strong.


Final Verdict:
4.5 Stars Out of 5

The Antithesis Of Twilight

With high-priced dreck currently filling the theaters, and unfortunately making enough money to assure the continuation of said trash, what can a poor boy do? The Last Airbender and Grown Ups are just slow, agonizing trainwrecks condensed to a film reel. Same with almost everything else out there, with Toy Story 3 as the only, very notable exception. So, what is left? Another installment in the Twilight series, this one called Eclipse, was just released to a critical beating, but that did not stop the lines of eager teenage girls from making this film another commercial smash. What gives? This franchise does not capture the real essence of vampires and werewolves, so I instead watched two films that did. These two were Daybreakers, an interesting take on vampire mythology, as well as The Wolfman, a modern retelling of the classic "werewolf" story. The results were mixed, though I am sure I enjoyed them much more than a sparkling Robert Pattison.

Daybreakers:
Directed by Michael & Peter Spierig
Released in 2009


What if vampires ruled the world? Now calm down, we are not speaking of dreamy boys who are willing to fight to the death over a pretty, disillusioned girl. This is the real deal:  pale, cold creatures with fanged teeth who fry upon sunlight, disappear in mirrors, die when struck by a wooden stake to the heart, and, of course, drink human blood. Their real, sole advantage is that they can live forever (as long as not encountering an aforementioned obstacle), which entices the majority of the world to convert to Transylvanian ways. Well, it is 2019, and humans, the vampires' irreplaceable life source, are running out. The majority of them are "farmed" in grotesque machines that slowly harvest blood from their bodies,  while the rest are constantly on the run from the vampire hunting squads, in a fashion not dissimilar to the Nazi's Einsatzgruppen. Well, Edward Dalton (Edward, really?), played by Ethan Hawke, has found a way to cure vampires of their condition completely, but how does a world so entrenched in their sinister ways switch back to normalcy? Many lives must be sacrificed as a result.


And, boy, do those people die in fantastic, shocking ways. Countless vampires and humans alike are torn apart, impaled, exploded, burned alive, decapitated, disemboweled, or otherwise bloodily disposed of with frequency. This violence is not going to be seen in an Edward/Bella love story (little girls would be scarred for life), and a scene of mass chaos at the end more resembles a blood orgy than the furtive, "I vant to suck your blood" style of Bela Lugosi.  Any reason for watching this movie will center around the action and, while it takes awhile to actually occur, the ending will more than suffice any gore junkie.

However, while the action starts slow and ends in full, bloody glory by the end, everything else seems to start promising and just end an incoherent, sappy mess. The intriguing premise of the film is wasted by a vapid, slogging middle section that tries to insert uninteresting and failed character development in favor of any appealing action. Apparently there is romantic tension between Edward and human Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), but the pair's acting is usually too stilted and wooden to achieve any emotional resonance. Hawke is a curious Hollywood case as he does not fit any real mold. That is fine, as his performances in Gattaca and Training Day can attest to his range of talent. But here, he is neither truly tough or the underdog you root for, leaving his character bland and unremarkable. For instance, he insists on not drinking any more human blood to account for his growing sympathy for the dying race. When did he have this epiphany and why exactly? These questions are not explained, a fault to the script, and it seems that Hawke is unaware of what his character is supposed to be feeling as well. Sam Neill appears as the dark, soulless antagonist and Willem Dafoe is entertaining as the human with a mysterious past. They both suffer from laughable lines but, hey, you have seen these two actors before and they fill their parts just fine. 


Daybreakers, as a whole, fails to meet the expectations I had for it but it should appeal to anyone who is just looking for a gorefest and nothing more. These are not high standards by any means, so that is why I raise my benchmark for quality. The writing and acting is just subpar, while the ending is plain ridiculous, as if the screenwriters ran out of paper and did not feel like refilling their printer.  It's not that it leaves lingering questions, which it does and is still a fine ploy in my book, but it fails to deliver any closure and comes out of nowhere. This film shows how easy it is to come up with an enticing premise, but also how tortuous it is to devise the most important part: your final impression. 

Final Verdict:
2.5 Stars Out of 5

The Wolfman:
Directed by Joe Johnston
Released in 2010


If you think about it, Hollywood has not devised a memorable, original monster for years now. With the exception of Heidi Montag, when was the last time a new creature shocked audiences? Most of today's supernatural monsters are ripped from comic books or simply retouched versions of Hollywood classics. The latest in this cycle is The Wolfman, an updated version of the 1941 horror classic. Basically, a werewolf terrorizes a Victorian England town and infects the protagonist, causing him to undergo a grotesque transformation from man to beast.  This story has been told millions of times before, but because the original Wolf Man was one of the first to do so we should give the modern update free reign to stick with its ancient formula, right? Well, that is what the screenwriters, Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, believed and the result reflects this unoriginality rather slavishly. 


The star of the film, Benicio del Toro, plays Lawrence Talbot, the ill-fated "hero" whose quest to kill the beast ends up, literally, biting him in the neck. He sets out to dispose of the werewolf after it brutally kills his brother, leaving him and his brother's widow (Emily Blunt) alone, while also bringing them together, if you get my drift. Lawrence's father, Anthony Hopkins as total fromage, has a complicated history with his surviving son, so the events between them after the infection are mysterious, to say the least. The bloody death of his mother during his childhood allows Lawrence to start to put together the pieces of his strange family. 


There's nothing wrong with exposition, especially well-crafted character development, but sometimes it is better to get to the hard-boiled fight scenes.  Unfortunately, this film, just like Daybreakers and countless other mediocre action films, dabbles far too long in tedious scenes of characters conversing in bars or walking through Victorian streets. By the end, Lawrence was waltzing through London with a tophat and cane; I was too delirious to make any sense out of it. It makes me wonder:  do the writers and director really refuse to believe that anything in their film may be flawed? With some editing, this could have been a tighter, more succinct film. Or with better screenwriters, every verbal exchange could have had some more biting wit or philosophical punch with it. 


Saying all of this, there are reasons to watch The Wolfman. Sure, the story moves along at a plodding pace and the script is laughable, but it is worth mentioning that this film is beautifully shot. The cinematography (led by Shelley Johnson) may be the film's brightest aspect, as the foggy pastures and villages of Victorian England come alive with the right blend of cinematic precision and grim obscurity. The Bluray release will please any visual connoisseurs, as will Benicio's fur coat, made with a mix of involved makeup application and computer effects. I am not a fan of most CGI in films nowadays, as I feel most of it looks cheap and detracts from any sense of realism or grittiness, and while this film suffers from exactly that at times (digital bear? why?), the Wolf Man's look is strong and captures the raw essence of the character without too much ostentatious visual flair. The violence is your typical bloody, R-rated fare. Expect more decapitations, disembowelment, the works as the werewolves in this film do not simply kill their enemies but destroy them. Some of the bloodshed is unnecessary (ripping out livers is a little...much), but it should appeal to the horror film junkies this is aimed for, even if the film itself is devoid of any real scares besides one or two closet jumps. 

As for the acting, which should be high considering the talent at hand, do not expect much. Benicio del Toro plays his role well, though there are certain scenes where he lacks any enthusiasm or emotion whatsoever, such as his first appearance where he listlessly performs Shakespeare. Forgivable, but, then again, this is the Oscar-winning actor from Traffic and Sin City. The same can be said for Anthony Hopkins, who hams it up in this role that was clearly just another paycheck. He looks much more Saint Nicholas than Hannibal Lecter this time around, and his penchant for staring blankly into the camera and delivering prolix speech without much conviction makes his performance less than remarkable. Emily Blunt, on the other hand, fits her role well, as she already showed in The Young Victoria that she can excel as beautiful, privileged Victorian women. The script sloppily attempts to jam in a romance between her and Benicio, and it basically fails on all accounts, but her performance remains solid. Hugo Weaving (Mr. Smith(s) from The Matrix) is a London investigator, with an interesting fate, while Max Von Sydow stops by for a scene to give Lawrence a deadly cane. The acting vacillates from pure cheese to satisfactory, if unremarkable, efforts; it is neither below nor above the average expectations. 


The Wolfman is basically mediocre:  not terrible nor is it that impressive, it rests comfortably in the middle. It has a half-decent story, with half-decent acting to accompany it, along with impressive werewolf effects that are balanced with a terrible script. It suffers from many of the same problems as Daybreakers, as its strong opening quickly tumbles to the ground due to the screenwriter's incompetence to create a complete, compelling product. Certain parts of The Wolfman will appeal to classic horror film fans, but it is nothing worth howling about. 


Final Verdict: 
1.5 Stars Out of 5

Toy Story 3 Review

Toy Story 3:
Directed by Lee Unkrich
Released in 2010

As the final scene of Toy Story 3 faded into black, I was bombarded by a deluge of emotions and thoughts. First off, what a phenomenal film, I said to myself. Everyone around me seemed to unanimously agree. Then, I realized how relieved I was that Pixar, the master at animation with an impeccable lineup of feature films and digital shorts, has been channeling their power into good instead of evil. Because if this studio, which has achieved the impossible by making not only an excellent, but the best entry in a beloved series with the third installment, focused their powers on the diabolical then we would all be hopeless. I would gather that I was alone in that sentiment. No matter. The mad geniuses at Pixar have created what, dare I say it, may be their best film yet with Toy Story 3. They take everything they do well - humor, adventure and, of course, tear-jerking sentimentality - and ratchet it up to the tenth degree. 


Everyone knows the general premise of the Toy Story films:  a diverse collection of toys come to life when humans are not around. It is a brilliant concept, something everyone as a child must have wondered. It worked for the groundbreaking first film, as well as the sequel which held its ground and then some. Now for the third and supposedly last entry in the trilogy, the toys' owner, Andy, is moving off to college, leaving the expressive pieces of plastic to an uncertain fate. Andy's favorite, and the rightful protagonist, Woody tries to rally the crew to take refuge in the attic, where Andy assigned them. However, the idea of "Sunnyside" Day Care sounds much more enticing, and here the rest of the toys happily spend their time until they realize this is not the synthetic nirvana they hoped for. The story flows seamlessly, even if it is broken into a number of "acts," per se. There is a surprising variety of settings and conflicts the toys get themselves in, but the true scope of the film does not come into perspective until post-analysis, as the movie just rolls along uninhibited. 


Like any Pixar film, the voice talent is stellar. In Toy Story's case, however, it is has always been a degree above the rest. Tom Hanks returns with wit and soulful longing as Woody. His character has been a premier example of the emotional depth animated characters can hold since the series' inception, and this time Woody is even more conflicted, more layered, more multi-faceted. He has learned not to expect Andy's attention anymore, but to nobly surrender his arms and face his doubtful fate, akin to a discharged soldier. By his side is Buzz Lightyear, Tim Allen once again, though more subdued than before. A few malfunctions and some romantic tension keep Buzz in the spotlight, though he shares it with the rest of the cast to a greater extent this time around. Among those around him are cowgirl Jessie (a spirited Joan Cusack), sarcastic Hamm (Pixar staple John Ratzenberger), the dim but sweet Rex (Wallace Shawn) and the finest casting decisions of all, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, voiced by the Master of Venom himself, Don Rickles, and Estelle Harris of Seinfeld fame, respectively. These returning favorites all provide inspired performances, and prove once more to be lovable, vivid characters.

Joining the established cast is a new band of superb characters. Leading is the strawberry-smelling Lots-o-Huggin', or Lotso for short. His chill Southern drawl and penchant for bear hugs means he can only be good, right? Voiced by a hearty, impassioned Ned Beatty, Lotso is the ringleader of the day care's toys, and his warm facade hides a dark past. This backstory is beautifully told through a narrated flashback (by a memorable Chuckles The Clown no less), and establishes Lotso as one of the richest characters in the Pixar canon. Some of his cohorts include a glittery octopus with Whoopi Goldberg's voice, a freaky baby doll, and Ken from Barbie. Ken, played by Michael Keaton, consistently reveals himself to be the feminine fashionista he is, even when adopting a tough guy attitude. He melts at the first sight of Barbie, and awkward scenes such as this and the bookworm (Richard Kind) encounter make his character nowhere near as psychologically complex as others but a key figure for comic relief. 

And much comedy there is to be had. Toy Story 3 is surprisingly hilarious; one of the funniest movies I have seen in some time, in fact. The laughs remain G-rated but will probably appeal to adults more than kids. Of course, there are some clever sight gags, including a brilliant scene involving Mr. Potato Head and a tortilla, but Hamm's unexplained, precise musings on technology, and allusions to classic films like The Great Escape and The Exorcist make this film comical to a nearly universal audience. Apparently a portion of this audience is located in Spain and Latin America, as Buzz has a moment with the Spanish language, complete with subtitles. This scene is both respectful to the Hispanic culture as well as completely priceless, dance moves and all. Coming from a different culture is the thespian, high-brow Mr. Pricklepants, voiced by Timothy Dalton. It is amusing as he believes he is "acting" when his owner plays with him, and tries to stay in character even when said owner is absent. The laughs in this film come at a constant pace, and make for the funniest Pixar film yet.

What is perhaps most impressive about this film, however, is how well it balances all of the emotions it stirs. The frequent moments of hilarity do not in any way mitigate the impact of the suspense or sadness this film presents. Tender, touching scenes have been a skill of Pixar's, seen in the near-perfect intros to both Wall-E and Up, and this film once again reaffirms their prowess.  The general premise of physical atrophy and mental maturity present far more austere dilemmas than in the previous Toy Story films. The toys can save the day and make it back to Andy's house, but instead of being greeted by a youthful boy's grasp, they face a dank attic, or worse. The main reason I believe this film affected me so deeply is because, in a sense, it is presenting my story. I am just a little younger than Andy on screen, and I spent my youthful days absorbed in imagining preposterous scenarios, or playing with an overwhelming multitude of toys. Now, I am faced with circumstances that are anything but quixotic dreams: SATs, college admissions, declaring a major, and deciding what I really want to do with my life. Andy and I shared those innocent days together, but now we mutually have to move forward, to grow up. Anyone in my age group will draw the same parallels, and suddenly the massive time gap between the second and third Toy Story does not seem like an unnecessarily prolonged wait but, simply, aging. It is so basic yet so beautiful in a way; this film arises both the most progressive and nostalgic senses in me. 

There is no doubt that the timing of this film's release is perfect for me, but the emotional resonance will strike anyone. Parents will be wrecked, as shown in that scene of pure simplicity involving Andy's mom and his empty room. There is also a scene near the end, which I will not spoil, that may catch some off-guard, as it may initially seem immature. But, just like a somewhat similar film Where The Wild Things Are, this scene captures the inner child in all of us, showing the immortality of imagination. The introduction montage to Up may be a more condensed, beautiful scene of emotional perfection, but a number of scenes in this film rival anything Pixar has done before. As a whole, it may be their most affecting movie yet. And it is also the funniest! Again, the balance between the two is flawless; neither side is adversely affected by the other. Anyone with a pulse will be somewhat moved by this movie, some more than others, and it is truly an outstanding feat that this remarkable depth of the human psyche is conveyed through computer animation alone.


It is also worth mentioning the traditional digital short that precedes the feature film. Called Day + Night, the short is, unsurprisingly, superb as well as extremely innovative. Combining 2D, hand-drawn animation and 3D Pixar animation, this film is set on a blank, black backdrop with only two mute cartoon characters. The inside of their bodies is filled with a CGI day or night setting, and all of their actions are performed through natural actions. For example, urinating is sensibly conveyed by a running river (complete with a blissful face expression), and quacking ducks symbolize laughing. The short is merely about these two, disparate beings interacting with each other, and the end result is a touching, humorous experience that is unlike you have ever seen before. The short's appearance is so shocking, in fact, that it may take a few seconds to even realize what it is going on on-screen. Day + Night is an original, charming short film, and a fitting lead-in to the main attraction.

So, Pixar has done it again. Toy Story 3 is an achievement in animated storytelling, and a laugh riot in itself.  Third installments in movie series, especially animated ones, are typically a sad occasion, when the quality and reputation of the previous episodes are thrown out the window. Not so for Toy Story 3:  everything that made the first two films modern classics is improved and polished. This is a seriously funny film, one that will make anyone of any age, race or creed laugh throughout. This is also a thrilling film, filled with suspense and that rolling sense of adventure that makes the Toy Story films so appealing to adults and children alike. This is also a sad film. Not in the lugubrious, doleful sense but in a bittersweet manner. Because beneath the animated guise and entire premise about walking, talking, independently-minded toys, lies something real. It is the most intrinsic concept in our human existence:  growing up. Every single human, living creature, even cell in the world goes through this process, yet a computer-generated, 3D, $190 million budget film captures it beautifully. Toy Story 3 will stick with you, occupying your mind as you stroll down life's finite road yourself. 


Final Verdict:
5 Stars Out of 5

The A-Team Review

The A-Team

Directed by Joe Carnahan

Released in 2010

When walking into a theater to watch the latest summer blockbuster, your standards for enjoyment are set much differently than they would be if you were seeing, say, Doubt. An explosion or two, or three or four, and a familiar cast of macho men and pretty ladies are all that is really necessary for a hit. Audiences love it when this plan comes together, to paraphrase Col. Hannibal Smith, but critics usually do not. I like to think of myself as not too snobbish in my opinions (I took Iron Man 2 for the glitzy fun it was), but I have to side with the evil pundits on this one. The A-Team is a reasonably fun time with a few particularly sharp action sequences, but it is drowned in many flat attempts at humor, a ridiculously predictable plot, and, most shocking of all, a lack of real excitement. 

To paraphrase Hannibal Smith again, the plot is so banal and predictable that you can always see three steps ahead. That being said, it is serviceable for this brand of brainless cheese. As we all know, this movie is based off the absurd television show of the 80s. The premise of that series, in which four Vietnam veterans are charged of a crime they did not commit and subsequently fight for peace through covert means, is used here. The only edit here is, instead of the Vietnam War, these soldiers served in the Iraq War, which actually ends near the beginning of this movie. Let's bring that detail to life, please. Nonetheless, the A-Team is comprised of four members:  the leader, Hannibal (Liam Neeson); the philanderer, Face (Bradley Cooper); the brawn, B.A. (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson); and the deranged, Murdock (Sharlto Copley). Throughout the film, their status oscillates between heroic acclaim or unjust ostracization by the military. This fluctuation of stature provides a constant conflict, on top of defeating the antagonists, but, in the end, there were one too many double crosses for a senseless flick like this to handle properly. 

As trailers will attest to and the cast alone shows, this is a man's film. At least, that is what I believe. For every scene of B.A. piledriving a fool, you get about five minutes of shirtless Bradley Cooper. This puzzled me, perhaps more than any other aspect of this movie. Sure, the guy is in great shape and is, to quote Hannibal for the third and hopefully last time, "really tan." But, unless you are a bodybuilding monster like an 80s Stallone or Schwarzenegger, a topless male lead will not appeal that much to the masculine crowd this film is meant for. If it is trying to reel in (Steely Dan references are incessant in this movie as well) a female audience, every other aspect of this film, such as Jessica Biel's near useless role as nothing more than eye candy, screams otherwise. The wise middle ground? Try the guinea tee, a la Bruce Willis in Die Hard, for a mix of muscle and moderation. 

Digressions aside, there is still enough masculinity to appease the average action junkie. Liam Neeson chows on enough fat cigars to make J. Jonah Jameson blush, and the ridiculous stunts (assisted by a nagging presence of CGI) are so bombastic that they will appease anyone who only values spectacle. There are many ludicrous explosions, more so than necessary, but that was the point of the original series in the first place. The special effects and action could be better, as all the hand-to-hand fight scenes are shakily filmed in a way that aims for Greengrass' Bourne films but fails to achieve that sense of palpable grit. It should not be this way, as the director Joe Carnahan also did Smokin' Aces, a movie with a more outrageous storyline but some really innovative, spectacular action sequences. 

There are a few noteworthy scenes to mention, however. It will send any physicist to an early grave, but there is a part in the movie when the team is "piloting" a military tank...in the sky...freefalling...reaching terminal velocity......by shooting the cannon at certain degrees. Hannibal barks the angle placements with such timed certainty that you cannot help but laugh at the preposterous premise this scene holds. Their solution is to land in a small lake, where an old couple is using dynamite to fish no less, so learning to accept the nonsensical science, or lack thereof, is mandatory to get through the film. Less egregious is a Dark Knight-esque skyscraper assault in which the A-Team truly fulfills its potential by incorporating grapple hooks, flashbangs, and a low-flying helicopter into one shocking attack. This scene is the one that sticks out in the end as what the film could have been if everything was done with such care.

Unfortunately, said care was not paid to most of the film. The finale throws (literal) fireworks at the audience with its large setpiece and liberal amount of fiery detonations, resulting in an ostentatious display of soulless action. It adds insult to injury when the screenwriters underestimate the intelligence of the audience when they constantly throw a barrage of flashbacks on the screen just to make sure the viewer knows how certain plot twists relate to previous events. It infuriates me when a sleight of hand maneuver that was furtively done five minutes before is interpolated between the unfolding action, only with an added video filter or two to exclaim, "HEY, REMEMBER THIS? Well...you didn't see that move coming did you?" Sorry, but everyone did. Everyone.

The team of four leads are all fine actors in their own right (though I am not too acquainted with Quinton Jackson's acting career), but the material that they are given does not make them particularly compelling or even comical. The mentally ill pilot, Murdock, is positioned to be the key comic relief for the film, but some of his lines simply fall flat. This is no fault to the magnificent actor filling his role, District 9's Sharlto Copley, as he takes bad lemons and attempts to make fine wine. There are welcome instances when his character is legitimately hilarious, such as his Braveheart parody or any teasing badinage between him and B.A..  When the main antagonist, Pike, not only watches but offers assistance to his own bumbling supposed executioner as he struggles with attaching a pistol suppressor, a successful scene of hilarity is made. But a lack of real laughs is an Achilles heel for any popcorn action film as self-aware as The A-Team, and considering some bad lines even repeat themselves (Enough with the toast points, B.A.), it is obvious more effort could have gone into the script. 

Speaking of Bosco "I ain't gettin on no plane!" Baracus, the UFC fighter slides into the vintage mohawk rather well, but he is still a perplexing character. Mr. T's original portrayal of the character included a fear of flying, which is humorously explained in the [very, very long] intro, but this film takes it farther by attempting to make him a pacifist as well. This leads to an odd character progression in which he starts as a cold blooded killing machine, reforms to an enlightened student of Mohandas Gandhi, but then returns to his bloody ways at the end. This makes him a pretty weak character in a sense, and he is not on screen as much as one would expect anyway. I would be lying, however, if I said I did not grin at watching Jackson kick a hapless, capoeira-twirling enemy into a wall about seven feet away. Now that is why I went to see this movie in the first place.

Bradley Cooper is mildly nagging in his dominant role, perhaps usurping Hannibal for on-screen facetime (sorry, could not resist the pun). He was a great fit for The Hangover, but this dude is not cut out to be the Tom Cruise that seems to be the aim here. On the other hand, Liam Neeson continues to put forth so much effort in roles that demand so little, as he did with Taken two years ago. The delightfully tacky line, "I love it when a plan comes together," is repeated a few times, and Neeson continually delivers it with such defined authority that the perpetually delayed Spielberg biopic, Lincoln, in which Liam plays the eponymous president, seems like the best idea of all time (seriously, get on that). 

Overall, The A-Team  is a superficial, fun time at the movies that always feels like it is failing to meet its real potential. Explosions ring left and right, but there is nothing between the ears. In the end, you may feel shocked that you were not actually shocked by any particular scene or plot twist in the movie. We have all seen it before; these are not the droids you are looking for. Adjust your expectations accordingly, for enjoyment can be had here in more than a modest degree, but I pity the fools behind this who did not deliver on all cylinders. 

Final Verdict:

3 Stars Out of 5

Iron Man 2 Review

Iron Man 2:
Directed by Jon Favreau
Released in 2010

"Style over substance." This complaint is often lodged at films that sacrifice an intelligent narrative structure, or even a basic plot, in favor of flashy, eye-catching effects. It is not a compliment for a movie to be described as such, but it is the approach to use when trying to reel in huge audiences. After all, look at Transformers 2:  millions of dollars spent on visual overload while pennies reserved for a senseless story. Now this phrase does not apply to Iron Man 2 but a variation of it: Style over too much substance. That definitely sounds preferable to the former, and it is. The cluttered, unfortunately underdeveloped character plot lines are ultimately just distractions from the energy the fantastic actors and director present. This approach works perfectly fine, and Iron Man 2 ends up a more entertaining, absorbing package than the first.


This sequel picks up exactly where the last left off, when Tony Stark, played with the charisma and attitude that only Robert Downey Jr. can muster, declares to the world that he is, in fact, Iron Man. He becomes a national icon, beloved by the American public and, lacking any modesty whatsoever, believes that this attention is deserved. After all, as he so tersely states, he successfully privatized world peace. In no surprise whatsoever, Stark faces a few new adversaries, both at home and abroad. The United States government is seeking to get Stark's weapons in, supposedly, " the people's hands," to which Tony is vehemently opposed not only because it violates his rights but because no other country is even close to equaling Stark Industries. Cue Whiplash. This Russian brute, whose real name is Ivan Vanko, seeks to destroy the Iron Man due to possibly shameful incidents that haunt the Stark family tree. A failing arms tycoon, Justin Hammer, in an enjoyable, slimeball performance by Sam Rockwell, enlists the help of Vanko to execute the common goal they both share. 

On top of this, Tony deals with the stress of physical atrophy from the machine that is, ironically, keeping him alive, as well as the detachment he is facing from his steadfast support and love, Pepper Potts, played with domineering confidence by Gwyneth Paltrow.  Meanwhile, Lt. Col. James Rhodes cannot tolerate his best friend's self-destructive attitude and decides to make his own decked-out Iron Man after a scuffle.  Yet even stacked atop this is the foreboding emergence of S.H.I.E.L.D., a superhero group led by Nick Fury, the badass motha himself, Samuel L. Jackson. Scarlett Johansson, Stark's new assistant, turns out to be a member of this group under the moniker Black Widow. Obviously, due to the size of this synopsis and the incoherency of it all, the story could have used improvement in editing and less character overload.


The sole flaw of this movie is not necessarily a discordant plot, because it does make sense if you pay attention, but a lack of character development besides the main stars. Iron Man obviously takes centerstage, and there is no lack of the typical superhero sequel middle section in which the protagonist has to overcome emotional and psychological problems, a la Spiderman 2 or The Dark Knight. Whiplash is also prominent throughout, his story being one of pain and vengeance. We see the pain in his character, plus a humorous faux-Russian accent as well. However, other characters like Lt. Rhodes are not as developed as they could have been. Nick Fury appears in merely two scenes, and by now it seems as if the filmmakers are just teasing us to his future involvement in an Avengers movie. Natalie Rushman, Scarlet Johansson in top, sexy form, does not have much prominence to the plot and serves more as eye-candy than anything else. Fine by me, but I will admit it is wasted potential.

The botched character progression is disappointing- because that is something the first did very well- but it is far from fatal. In fact, the movie is so fun overall that these problems are easily overlooked. The reason why Iron Man 2 succeeds so well is because it is full of fantastic, talented actors who are all over-qualified for their roles. Take Mickey Rourke, aka Whiplash, for example. Rourke, who gave one of the finest acting performances in years with The Wrestler, goes beyond what is required, or even expected, for this performance as Ivan Vanko. His Eastern bloc drawl is definitely cheesy, especially as he croons for his bird one too many times, but he brings an emotional depth to the character that is not necessary in a big budget action film like this one. His character seeks to destroy Tony Stark as a personal vendetta, and Rourke conveys this bloodthirsty pain with an energy that only a gifted actor can convey. Pair him aside the star of the film himself, Robert Downey Jr., and you have two actors that are surprisingly alike. Both were hot commodities in Hollywood years ago, but then had a self-destructive period where they disappeared into obscurity. Only in the last four years have these excellent actors, as Tony Stark says of himself in the beginning of this movie, risen from the ashes in "the greatest phoenix metaphor the world has ever seen." The first Iron Man takes the credit for Downey's true return, but now that the sequel contains both him and the other comeback hero of recent Hollywood history, we can enjoy the talents of yesteryear at their top form, today.

Downey Jr. carries the film on his shoulders with ease and grace.  His conservative, playboy character stands in sharp contrast to a more noble hero like Bruce Wayne, but Stark is engaging because he loves himself as much as everyone else does. The opening scene, in which Stark is questioned by a United States Senate committee, shows how Tony believes he is above all others. Senator Stern - a hilarious, sordid and scarily plastic Garry Shandling - demands that the Iron Man suit be transferred to government hands, but Stark associates himself with the observing audience and turns the tables on the interrogators. Downey is a unique, gifted actor who can play with his food before eating it, and all the while with a sly smile. The script, written by Mulholland Drive star and Tropic Thunder co-writer Justin Theroux, gives him some winning lines, but the spot-on delivery is all attributed to Downey. When Tony Stark goes through his internal conflict in the middle of the movie, Downey bares a melancholic spirit, like one who is flying too close to the sun. This performance may not be as shocking or classic as his controversial turn as Kirk Lazarus in Tropic Thunder, but it may as well contain some of his finest acting yet. There's an energy pulsing through the screen when Robert Downey Jr. is on it; the film plays it wise and refrains from taking him off it.

The rest of the cast is stellar, by no means a necessity for a movie of this type. Thankfully, this is a different type of beast. Gwyneth Paltrow is a commanding, occasionally cold, yet commanding figure who, if absent, would leave Tony Stark helpless. Pepper Potts is no longer the naive, bewildered assistant that she was in the first:  she actually bosses Tony around this time. By her side is Happy Hogan, the lovable yet bumbling bodyguard, played by Jon Favreau, also the director.  Watching him struggle to subdue a goon while Black Widow easily clears a room of thugs is an interesting juxtaposition, to say the least. Black Widow, aka Natalie Rushman, aka Natasha Romanoff, is underutilized in her role but nonetheless provides to be a...pleasant sight on the screen. As Stark observes, she is unreadable in her motives, making her an intriguing character. "Rhodey," previously Terrence Howard but now played by a superior Don Cheadle, is given an imposing physical presence and is less of a pushover than the first. In fact, his strict, militaristic demeanor proves to be a main conflict in the movie. However, he still knows how to have fun, and Cheadle, who proved his acting prowess in Hotel Rwanda, is a winning actor. There is no dispute to the mastery of Samuel L. Jackson, who is painfully absent from most of the movie but a scene-stealer when on the screen. John Slattery, the boss from Mad Men, is an insightful father for Tony, revealed in old footage, and Clark Gregg plays a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who tries to control Stark but learns that trapping a lightning bolt is not a facile matter. The last lead actor is Sam Rockwell, who was so robbed of an Oscar nomination in last year's Moon, and will play a character well even when he is an annoying prick. Justin Hammer, his arms manufacturer persona, is a pathetic individual in all respects but given a humorous, pitiful edge by Rockwell. Summer blockbusters often have a large list of high-profile names on their poster, but rarely do all the actors fulfill their potential and deliver winning performances such as this film.

Typically, the star of the show for many will be the action. The acting is where this focus should be directed but the fight scenes are filmed with confidence and filled with visual wonders. Favreau, who also directed the first, is an excellent director who can balance the demands of action with the quality necessity of character development, even if the screenplay does not deliver on all fronts. The explosions look expensive, but do not carry a moronic aura when surrounded by an absorbing plot and cast of winning players. Michael Bay should take a hint here. This film actually outdoes Bay's vapid Transformers movies with the typical "flashy assembly of armor" scene. In the middle of a French speedway, Tony Stark uses the "Iron Man suitcase" (which curiously is light enough for Gwyneth Paltrow to carry without struggle) to put his metallic exoskeleton on. There is a ridiculous sense of detail and liberal use of clanking sounds, as well as the ludicrousness of the situation, that makes this the key scene for the visual effects crew behind the film. Favreau and the team behind him craft a dynamic, truly badass spectacle of what is really pieces of metal scraping against each other. Again, Michael Bay, take note.

Iron Man 2 may not bring that fresh, vivid guise that critics praised for the original, but it delivers with excellent acting and tons of more fun. What more is there to ask for a huge blockbuster like this? This may not be an equal to The Dark Knight as far as superhero sequels go but it ups the ante in every department, usually all to the film's benefit. It is unfortunate that Theroux's screenplay does not contain enough room for all the characters to properly flesh out, but Favreau and the actors take what they have and make something genuinely magnetic.

Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5

Kick-Ass Review

Kick-Ass:
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Released in 2010

Ever wish to fill in the shoes of your favorite superhero? Imagine holding the ability to swing from building to building like Spiderman or using your wealth and intellect to fight crime like Bruce Wayne.  Well, after a viewing of Kick-Ass, these wishes may wane as this somewhat realistic take (note the somewhat) on superheroes is unforgiving in its depiction of vigilante crime fighters. From the first scene to the last, Kick-Ass delivers a unique, hilarious, violent and occasionally shocking take on the often-cliched superhero genre.


Ironically, the film starts out with perhaps the most routine high school plot out there:  an unimpressive, though handsome and compassionate, teen named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) has the "superpower" of being invisible to girls as he deals with hormones, bullying and awkward situations. His lame friends are Evan Peters and the new Jonah Hill, Clark Duke, from Hot Tub Time Machine. He has a crush on the pretty girl - Lyndsy Fonseca, also from Hot Tub - but it does not help that she thinks he is gay. Thankfully, this does not remain the main storyline for long as Dave decides, for almost no emotional reason at all, to become a superhero. He buys a green and yellow scuba costume online and seeks to help those who are ignored by bystanders when they need help most. His moniker? Kick-Ass.


So begins the kinetic, and sometimes disturbing, riot this film becomes. Dave becomes an Internet sensation as a video of him sloppily fighting a few thugs becomes a hit on YouTube. He begins to take requests by those who need help, but he has one particular target held above the rest. When trying to "kick ass" in order to impress the girl of his dreams, Dave runs into the real stars of this movie, Hit Girl and Big Daddy. Hit Girl, the remarkable Chloe Moretz who will be recognized from (500) Days of Summer, viciously - and really unnecessarily - slays a room of goons with a double-edged sword after dropping the C bomb. All the while, a childish chanting tune plays in the background to provide a queasy juxtaposition.  Big Daddy provides support from afar, and the character is captured by none other than the brilliant Nicolas Cage. After this particular event, a millionaire crime boss, played by Mark Strong, perceives these misfit heroes as legitimate threats to his drug ring. His spoiled son, Christopher Mintz-Plasse  - forever McLovin' - dons a costume himself and tries to get Kick-Ass on his side in order for his father to dispose of this nuisance. The plot dips and dives from this point to the end, making for an entertaining, if thematically inconsistent, ride.


The content at hand may shock some with its dark tone and liberal use of violence, not to mention pervasive language. Completely inexperienced and naive Kick-Ass tries to fight off some gangsters only to end up in the hospital. The film does not portray it too comically either; you are left feeling somewhat nauseated. The equally stupid gangsters are portrayed in a different light, as every misstep of theirs usually ends up in a bloody mess but is played off for worthwhile laughs. The actions of Hit Girl and Big Daddy lay somewhere in between. Every time they take the screen, awesomeness is guaranteed to unfold. Sometimes it is comical, such as the first appearance of Hit Girl, or sometimes it is a brisk, well-choreographed slice of action that can be seen when Big Daddy disposes a group of mobsters in record time. The violence is certainly exaggerated, but not over-stylized a la Kill Bill, to provide a proper, concrete disconnect between the viewer and the action on-screen.  These scenes all oscillate in tone and purpose, making the movie a rough, bumpy wooden roller coaster instead of a smooth, comfortable steel one. That is fine for a young, blasé youth like myself, but this practice tends to polarize viewers, the Coen Brothers' Burn After Reading as an example. Wanted, from 2008, pulled off this style better than most, blending comedy with ruthless violence, but it lacked the charm of either of these two films. Take one, leave the other, apparently.

The greatest point of contention for many in this film is the star of the show herself, Hit Girl. The adorable Chloe Moretz steals the show as the foul-mouthed, guiltless killer who was raised by a loving father who forgoes Barbie dolls for butterfly knives.  She is a riot in every scene, and though much of her draw comes from the shock value of what she is doing on screen, she certainly has talent on her own. She has the ability to be simultaneously menacing and cute at the same time, and I am sure she will headline her own film very soon. Nicolas Cage, the actor who is great even when he is terrible, is the obsessed, troubled father who cares for his daughter, even if the two only talk about the obscure names for famous firearms. When he dons his Batman-like costume, he speaks with an indisputable Adam West cadence that is both hilarious and a reminder that, no matter how  kick-ass these superheroes may be, they are ultimately a bunch of comic book geeks. Truly, the film is alive with these two stars on the screen.


The rest of the cast is solid, if unremarkable. Kick-Ass himself, Aaron Johnson, provides an uninteresting narration but delivers a worthy performance. His trials and tribulations, both with and without his costume on, are overbearing throughout, and he convincingly conveys this deep pain. While his pseudonym is the film's name, he is not really the leading character, instead acting as the vehicle to fit in every other character's story around him. The antagonist, Frank D'Amico, is a soulless villain who is hard to root for, but the performance by Mark Strong is certainly better than his super cheesy turn in Sherlock Holmes. He does not cease to chew the scenery, but a more interesting character, one who is intertwined with Big Daddy's past, makes this a far better performance than the bland Lord Blackwood. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who will never live up to his immortal role of McLovin, disappoints as he barely has any notable lines, nor is he too interesting as Kick-Ass's wealthy counterpart, Red Mist. Kick-Ass is an entertaining package, but upon analyzation, it is not hard to notice that the film nearly grinds to a halt when Cage or Moretz are not on the screen.


Kick-Ass will, and already has, offended many and been condemned by family groups and critics alike. Roger Ebert himself stated that this film is "morally reprehensible." Nah. The film relies on shock value, certainly, and can get very, very dark at times, but the only problem that this ultimately creates is a constantly vacillating shift in tone. Hit Girl, near the end, gets brutally beaten by D'Amico, making for another disturbing scene, but this just reveals the film's haphazard pacing, not the demonic intentions. There is no reason to castigate the  ethics behind the movie (named Kick-Ass by the way) because I can state with 100% certainty that no one without a severe preexisting mental condition will turn into an abhorrent cursing maniac, or a perverse, bloodthirsty killer. We Americans are a jaded bunch. With the Internet, we can see anything we want, free of charge. Kick-Ass should not prove too disturbing to a generation that can watch the uncensored 9/11 attacks on YouTube. To those complaining about the "morals" behind this film, lighten up. Kick-Ass may have problems of its own, but it is too much fun to be blacklisted by a cranky few.

Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5

Hot Tub Time Machine Review

Hot Tub Time Machine:
Directed by Steve Pink
Released in 2010

Simplicity is underrated. Films with titles like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire can be clumsy and lead to confusion. Confusion leads to thought, and who wants to think when seeing a movie? Thankfully, the film with the best name in years, Hot Tub Time Machine, is here and allows you to turn off your brain for about 100 minutes and revel in the mindless hilarity. 

The story is, as one would think, fairly self-explanatory. Four dudes (John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry and a newcomer, Clark Duke) are experiencing a nadir in their once-rich lives. John Cusack is Adam, whose girlfriend just dumped him, Craig Robinson is Nick, a hopeful musician who settled down too quickly, Clark Duke is Adam's geeky nephew, and Rob Corddry is the reckless alcoholic, Lou, who shows a surprising disregard for his own, as well as his friend's, well-being. They decide to take a weekend off at a ski resort and have a crazy party in a mystical hot tub, which, to the audience's complete surprise, transports them through time. The new year is 1986, and the guys, with the exception of Clark, who was not born yet, realize that they have to replicate the exact events they did over 20 years ago in order for the "space time continuum" to remain intact and....actually, nevermind, this information is not necessary. Too much thought. Anyway, they first try to adhere to the past but realize that doing so took them to their miserable current existence, so they decide to change things up as a result. The writers do not even attempt to logically explain the science behind the time travel and it is better off because of this. Quantum physics is not what one should expect when going to see a movie called Hot Tub Time Machine.

To put it in layman's terms, this movie is funny. The opening has a eclectic Hangover vibe before it eventually develops as a crude cross between Superbad and Back To The Future. Speaking of that time travel classic, Crispin Glover (the dad from Back To The Future) makes a welcome appearance as the hotel butler Phil. In the present day he is missing an arm, leaving him a vile, offensive brute, but mysteriously has the appendage in the past. The group witnesses Phil run into several close encounters that could result in an avulsion. Lou's disappointed reaction when Phil turns out to be safe is one of the best parts of the whole movie. The laughs come quickly and rank in the upper echelons of recent R-rated comedy fare. 


The cast shows a dynamic comedic range that may provoke thoughts of The Hangover's leading men. Cusack is the straight man, Robinson is the troubled married man, Duke is the nerdy, spineless geek, and Corddry is the outrageous, mentally-troubled buffoon. The combination works wonders, thankfully, as they all have a share of hilarious scenes. John Cusack is, and has always been, a terrific actor and he seems to be overqualified for this role. There are scenes when he convincingly emotes the deep melancholy of his character, and he may follow with a winning comic line delivered with sharp cadence. This role certainly also seeks to remind the audience of Cusack's role of teenage icon in the 80s with such films as Say Anything and Better Off Dead. It succeeds.


The rest of the cast is equally bright. Craig Robinson, the often-harassed Darryl from The Office, shines as a noble yet weak-willed married man who must cheat on his current wife with a girl in the past. Technically, that is not cheating is it? Chevy Chase literally pops out of nowhere for a few scenes as the prophetic "Repair Man" who seems to be the Doc Brown to the group's Marty McFly. Chase, whose physical appearance and movements have made him as much of an icon as his extraordinary comedic timing, does not have many memorable lines but his mere presence only helps the film in the end. Crispin Glover is a pleasure to behold as well, and, with his other recent film Alice In Wonderland raking in hundreds of millions at the box office, it is great to see such an interesting and, daresay it, forgotten actor back in the spotlight. That leaves us with the star of the show, Rob Corddry. I have been a huge fan of Rob since he started on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, so it is great to see him get a big role that shows the world his superb talent. "Lou" is eccentric throughout, whether it be resorting to hiring hookers upon stepping into the room or shooting projectile vomit at peaceful squirrels. Lou also seems to be the one character to take advantage of their situation and current knowledge by placing inordinate bets on obscure events or trying to impress others with his forebodings of the future. At one point he drunkenly shouts "John Lennon will get shot" before realizing that has already happened.

Considering it takes place in the 1980s, there are countless references to that decade shown throughout. The way these clues stack up to the initial revelation of a time switch is rather ingenious, but, for the rest of the film, some of these nostalgiac tidbits seem tacked on.  As Adam walks into a room to meet his smokin' girlfriend in a tight, furry jumpsuit (and it is worth mentioning that, like any R comedy nowadays, there are handfuls of hot women, clothed and topless, here), David Bowie's "Modern Love" plays (an interesting song choice considering the title) and a Duran Duran Rio poster is seen briefly afterwards. This scattershot piling of references actually makes for a superb soundtrack, led by Motley Crue's "Home Sweet Home", but does end up feeling disorganized. This is barely a complaint, however, as anyone who lived through the 80s or appreciates the decade will notice the liberal allusions placed within.

In conclusion, Hot Tub Time Machine is not original or groundbreaking in any way besides in that it embraces its inherent simplicity. The scientific plausibility of the events that occur is briskly ignored, as it should be. The title itself eschews metaphors or romantic imagery and gets straight down to business. What is here is a hilarious, raunchy time warp with an excellent cast of characters. The script is strong for the most part, though The Hangover and Anchorman can lay claim to more "classic" nonsensical quotes. Do not expect the rapid-fire, witty screenplay a la In The Loop either. Nonetheless, feel free to join the dudes in the glowing hot tub. The time will be eventful and you'll ache from laughing.  Just do not drink the water. There's no way it can be good for your health. 


Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5