Sports movies are always going to be a hard thing to pull off. While we love sports, and we love sports stories, a movie about sports takes away probably the best part of sports–the unpredictability. In a film, the fate has been determined. Besides, in most sports stories, you know that the team usually wins–unless that’s not the point. If it’s a movie about a bunch of losers, they will end up winning the big game. If it’s a movie about people coming together, the team can lose the big game and it’s OK. In a film like “Remember the Titans”, you get both scenarios and it carefully balances two stories of a football team coming together, and race relations coming together in a volatile time in this country.

“Invictus” is similar in its approach. It takes place after the apartheid is over in South Africa, and Nelson Mandella (played by Morgan Freeman) has been elected president. Meanwhile, the other central character of the film, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), is the captain of a very bad national rugby team, known as The Springboks. Mandella attends a game, and watches them get brutally outplayed by England; the blacks in the crowd root for England, while the whites root for the Springboks. He notices that the strain of the culture is still very apparent, and he wants to do something about it. It so happens that South Africa will host the 1995 Rugby World Cup, so Mandella mandates to Francois that the Springboks must win the World Cup, in order to bring the country together.

The problem is, half the country abhors the Springboks and everything they stand for. There is a meeting by the Sports Board that wants to get rid of the Springboks name and colors (green & gold), as they represent the apartheid, and the Afrikaans. Mandella tells them to forgive, and that changing the name and colors only makes this about revenge and not forgiveness.

Mandella does not have a lot of support at first. His security is also blended with whites, to the dismay of the blacks who are protecting him. There is no question the film tries to display the intolerance in the country. Meanwhile, the Springboks have gotten a new coach who wants to train them harder, and the team doesn’t agree with these new practices, and thinks that there’s too much pressure put on them. Francois wants them to rise to the occasion.

All of this is a great premise, and the film starts with a lot of promise. The problem, though, is that it never seems to come together. It does illustrate the tensions that the country still has with itself, and it even shows the rugby team improve as most sports movies will display as they get closer to the big game. But it just seems like Clint Eastwood, normally so well at developing characters and atmosphere, is just throwing things onto a canvas and hoping it all sticks. Some if it does, but not enough for it to resonate. I never felt a part of this film. I felt like an outsider, and that’s not how I felt when I watched “Remember the Titans”. I think I know why.

Mandella, in the film, as a character, has no real flaws. Denzel Washington’s character in “Remember the Titans” had things in his own life that provided challenges. Mandella doesn’t have full support, but no one necessarily opposes what he does. His doctor tells him to rest, but nothing really happens when he disobeys. Mandella was a great man at that time, but I’m sure he had his flaws. I think the movie shows him to be too much as a saint. And if he’s your main character, it just doesn’t work. The other central character, Francois, also has no visible flaws. And we don’t get enough “locker room” insight to watch the chemistry of this team grow, and watch them come together to become a greater team. That has to happen in a sports movie.

So that’s primarily the issue. The film doesn’t really have a focus. It does a good job with certain images of what post-apartheid life was like in South Africa. There’s also a very poignant scene in which Francois tours the prison that Mandella spent 27 years of his life in, and envisions Mandella in that cell, and working in the yard, while Mandella recites “Invictus” in his head. But overall, the film just misses and doesn’t bring it all together.

There are a few other issues I had. First, it’s the sport itself. I don’t really understand rugby. This is not a country that really embraces it as a major sport. The scenes displaying the game seem to capture what the game is–but I don’t really know what they’re doing. In that regard, it’s hard to follow whether you’re supposed to get really excited, or really tense. How does the point system work? Or the time? It seems to use a time scheme much like soccer (which I do follow) but the overtime rules went over my head. Also, I still don’t understand the scrum part of the game, and that becomes essential in the climax of the film. I was lost. I think the film could have done us a favor and give us a few scenes of strategy and play that showed exactly how the game worked, from soup to nuts (did I just use corporate speak?).

The other issue is smaller but it really bothered me. The music. Well, not so much the score–that was beautiful. It was the really cheesy songs that just took away from the drama. Usually that doesn’t bother me, but this was not background music. It was distracting, and I thought it just took me out of the mood of the film.

On the bright side, the performances by Freeman and Damon are exceptional. Damon pulls of a South African accent which is probably one of the more difficult ones to pull off. I give him credit for that. Freeman, as usual, is excellent as Mandella.

It’s a bit of a disappointment that this film didn’t hold together as well as I had hoped. Compared to “Remember the Titans”, I think that film just executed better because it stuck to a theme and stuck to its characters and showed them to be human beings as well as heroes. I can’t believe I’m giving more credit to a Disney movie than a Clint Eastwood film. I never thought that day would come. But I guess anything’s possible.

My rating:

Family value: Any child under the age of 13 may find this boring, or won’t know much about the apartheid. The film doesn’t really go into the history of it, and it may confuse them. There aren’t too many bad words and there’s no sex or any amount of violence to keep you from taking your kids. I don’t know how they’d react to the rugby, a sport that very few American kids can relate to as far as I know.

This has to be one of the most well known children’s books of all time. Anyone who is anyone remembers this book being read to them by teachers, or their parents, when they were growing up. Alongside our various “Ramona” and “Berenstain Bears” books, was an old library copy of “Where the Wild Things Are”. I remember very little about the book, except the monsters.

The film, directed by Spike Jonze (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “Being John Malkovich”), explores the book’s very thin idea about imagination, and creates a real world surrounding an imaginary one reminding me a bit of “The Neverending Story”. In fact, the beginnings of both movies were similar. A young boy with a big imagination is an outcast among his peers and comes from a broken family. In “The Neverending Story”, the character Bastian skips school and falls into the world of the book he’s reading. In “Where the Wild Things Are”, Max loses himself in a far-off island inhabited by big (and somewhat scary) monsters who are facing a crisis.

The film has an uneven feel to it at first because we’re not exactly sure what to like about Max. He’s obnoxious and likes to run around and scream a lot. But what exactly is his problem? Is it the fact that no one listens to him? Is it that he has no friends? We’re not even really sure if he does or not. But I guess we’re supposed to feel sorry for him. I’ll admit that I didn’t really, at first. When he first reaches the island with the monsters, they’re having problems with a monster named Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini); and, like Max, they’re not really sure what his problem is, either. But he’s throwing a temper tantrum, and Max joins in. Carol takes to Max, thinking maybe they understand each other–and Max convinces the monsters that he is a king. Carol makes him their king, and like in the book, they have a “rumpus”.

At this point in the film, I was really lost on what this was about. It seemed to have no direction. Because the screenplay didn’t flesh out Max’s character enough, we’re only left with a bunch of howling creatures and a howling boy set against a howling soundtrack.

But once the plot unfolds with bringing a conflict in, it does take shape and in the end, redeems itself. A character, KW, has two owl friends named Bob and Terry that for some reason Carol doesn’t like. What you don’t find out is why–but I believe that may be the point. Carol is just being selfish and while he wants everything to be the way it was–with everyone together–he refuses to change himself or be more open minded. In Max’s real life situation, he is exactly like Carol. He’s broken away from his family because he doesn’t want to adapt or accept change.

At least, that’s what I got out of it. The film’s major flaw is the directionlessness of the first two acts. It has moments of fun and laughter, but because it seems to have no purpose, it’s empty and hard to follow. I could see not only the children in the audience squirming, but the parents were just as clueless and impatient. The film finishes strong, however, and James Gandolfini’s fine performance as Carol saves the movie, in my mind. His intensity and sadness provide depth that allows you to feel something for him.

Overall, the film is a good one–but I’m not sure what kids will take away from it. If they’re not incredibly petrified by the monsters, they might be confused by what is going on during the movie and wondering why the monsters are depressed. But if they get the fact that the movie is about selfishness and why it’s important to open your mind and change with the situation, then the film has done its job.

I just think it could have been done a bit better.

My rating:

Family value: As I indicated, the monsters may scare younger children. There are some intense moments when we are first introduced to them. Again, kids may be confused by the plot so get ready for a lot of questions. I hope you can answer them. If not, just tell them to drink their soda and enjoy the movie anyway.

It’s not very often we get an animated film that isn’t directed toward kids. But it’s even rarer when an animated film that isn’t directed toward kids can find an audience. With Shane Acker’s new “9″, co-produced by Tim Burton, they try to find the middle ground. It’s a shaky ground, but the film does find a groove–thanks to some amazing visuals and creature designs.

The story of “9″ is fairly underwhelming–after all, it is based on a short film that Acker made, and even though they brought in some good screenwriters (Pamela Pettler being one, who co-wrote “Corpse Bride”), the narrative still somewhat suffers from all-too-familiar characters and plot lines that are fairly derivative and predictable. The voice actors featured are impressive: John C. Reilly, Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, and Crispin Glover. They do their best to bring life to these characters; but, in the end, you still need to give them an ample arc in order for them to emerge from mere stereotypes.

Wood plays “9″, the 9th “stitchpunk” in a small collection of rag-doll like “creatures” designed by “The Scientist” (voiced by Alan Oppenheimer), and his objective is to…basically, survive. There was a massive war between humans and machines, because a military power got hold of The Scientist’s work and used the machines for warfare–of course, the robots rebelled (those pesky things) and it demolished our world. All that is left are the stitchpunks, and even they are close to extinct. The reasons for these creations are not exactly clear, but The Scientist wanted to preserve as much of the human spirit as possible.

And that’s basically what this film is about, in essence. Above the clankiness, drab, and soulless “machines” there is a soul inside, and who can’t relate to that?

As I had said before, it’s the visuals that steal this movie. It’s relatively short, so even the thin plot line is stretched only a bit too much to be noticeable–but you will be amazed by some of the creations and creatures and robots, and imagery in the film. Some of it is very scary. There is one robot creature in particular that acts as a snake, called The Seamstress–it has the head of a broken doll face. Everyone knows broken doll faces are extremely creepy. They still stare into your soul! The detail is amazing. It’s almost as if you’re watching a video game at times–a very well made video game.

But overall, that’s really all this is. It’s a spectacle. Maybe I’ve grown out of the wonder element of films like this (in a way it reminded me of “The Dark Crystal”), and a younger audience will find more meaning out of this than I. But I would say, it is certainly watchable at any age–above young children, that is. The film does get a bit intense at times.

All in all, it is a worthy film. It’s probably going to slip into cult status and be forgotten about by mainstream America, but that seems to be exactly where it fits. It’s a great movie to look at, just not to think too much about.

My rating:

Family value: As I said before, younger children would probably be too disturbed by some of the creatures and intense moments–so be aware of that. The conundrum is that some of the characters and situations are very cute, cuter than a pre-teen or teenager would appreciate. But any child under the age of 10 would most likely think of the nightmarish visions over the more uplifting content of the film.

I find it hard to believe anymore that there can be a “twist” or “secret” that hasn’t been revealed on the internet regarding “Harry Potter” but apparently that was the buzz leading up to this film’s release. The book series has eclipsed anything I’ve ever grown up with as far as sales and interest from kids, and it’s certainly shaped a generation the way that, say, “Star Wars” did from the late 70′s to mid-late 80′s–and in some ways, still shapes generations today. But with Harry Potter, it’s the books that have done the good; the movies have merely profited on what was already a good story by J.K. Rowling.

For those who are tired of the hysteria, you’re not out of the woods yet. While this may be the sixth installment, and there is only one left, it is going to be split into two movies. While I find this exceedingly unnecessary and unfair to my wallet, the only thing I can hope for is that it allows the characters to breathe more life into a film series that has lacked so much character depth, that by this installment, it was almost too late to care about the characters.

Almost. With a better than average script by Steve Kloves (who has written previous Harry Potter installments) and good pacing from director David Yates (who also directed the previous film, “Order of the Phoenix”), “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” finally brings these characters to life to the point where everything feels real. There is much more humor in this film, especially in the beginning, and it’s done purposely so that by the time it gets serious, you are ready to take it seriously. The laughs will also keep the kiddies in the seats that may not understand the more adult themes that are going on.

Relationships are the centerpiece of the film. Everything from awkward high school boyfriend/girlfriend to deep friendship, and mentor/student, is explored. The kids are growing up, for sure. But the most important relationship, and the biggest reason why this film works so well, is the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore. This was the first time I actually accepted Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. I really didn’t like the pick at first; I felt his demeanor to be too stiff, his eyes too dubious and lacked the sensitivity and innocent loveliness that gave Dumbledore such a glow (as Richard Harris did). But he really brings his best and most heartfelt performance here, in a very important chapter in the series as he and Harry embark on a journey to stop Voldemort.

We never really see Voldemort in this film, either. We don’t see a lot of things we saw in the previous films, and I think that was actually quite refreshing. The film looks different from the others. It feels different. The characters’ actors have grown (except Emma Watson, she is utterly hopeless as an actress) and the film is so much more about anticipation than it is execution. There is  a lot of build up. In a way, it’s like “Empire Strikes Back”, although the climax doesn’t really involve a battle (although in the book there is one).

The film is either boring or incredibly engaging depending on what you’re expecting. If you appreciate what the story is telling you about coming of age, not only as a boy into a man, but as a hero as well, and you want to take the journey with the characters, you’ll have a feast. If you want the special effects extravaganza and a lot of action, you’ll have famine. While there are a few intense scenes, most of the film is dedicated to the growth and maturity of Harry and his little brat pack.

While Harry Potter may be derivative and at times, shallow, the film series is proving it’s not how you start, it’s how you finish. I suppose we’ll have to wait for the final (2) film(s) to make the ultimate decision on whether it’s a success, but the last 2 films have proven it is at least a possibility.

My rating:

Family value: If your kids have been into the HP series since the beginning, this will be no different. Obviously as the story has grown, it’s become more intense. There is one scene in a cave that will really have your kids below the age of 12 slamming their hands in their faces. Just make sure they don’t hit their faces too hard, or gouge their eyes out on accident.

“The Hangover” did look a lot like “Very Bad Things”–but they are two completely different movies. Where “Very Bad Things” is a dark comedy about the depravity of humanity (who knew Peter Berg was so disturbed?), “The Hangover” is a light screwball comedy that, while it does have some “shock” moments, never lets up its shiny disposition that you should have fun with it. It’s a misadventure.

And, probably one that I should’ve encountered sometime in my life while drunkenly wandering the streets of the south side of Chicago. But somehow, by unbelievable luck–I survived without having to go through the ordeals these poor guys have to. And “The Hangover” is everybody’s worst nightmare come true when you go balls out and get wasted–and in a town like Vegas, so much can happen.

So it was, from the start, a win-win situation, as long as the writers realized how much material they had to work with. I think they got it. I think there could have been more, but I think they got enough of it.

This is helped in large part to Zach Galifianakis’s deadpan, strange, and off-the-wall performance where there’s just so much honesty in his eyes, you can’t help but laugh at everything he says and does. There are also just some laugh out loud moments in the film, some of which you feel guilty laughing about.

Overall the movie does work, but I have to gripe about a few things that didn’t work for me: what was the point of the car meaning so much to the dad? It didn’t add any stakes as we all are aware the car was pretty valuable–and, it was already stated in the beginning that he didn’t want anybody driving it but Doug. It just seemed unnecessary for the repeated lines of “Dad is going to be so mad about the car!”. Didn’t add anything at all. But that’s small, it didn’t annoy me. The chicken. What was with the chicken? It wasn’t even a funny prop. The tiger at least had a pay off and was amusing. I didn’t buy the connection Stu made with ruffies having to do with where Doug was. That was weak to me.

But the biggest problem I had was the ending. Once they found Doug, that was it. There was nothing left on the table. It was a huge dip in the energy of the film, and I just felt that the whole wedding sequence was severely drawn out. And the wedding band? Um…yeah–we KINDA saw that in…”Old School”? It was eye-roll inducing to say the least. I understand they wanted to conclude stuff with Stu and his girlfriend but they could’ve done that in a much quicker way. We don’t care enough about these characters to sit through the ceremonies. Once they had found Doug, and they were headed back to the wedding, you need to end the movie in 5 minutes or less.

Going back to the characters for a moment–while misadventures don’t often allow for a lot of character development, because they wanted to treat this as sort of a buddy movie as well as a screwball comedy, it didn’t work as well because the characters were very thinly drawn. It was as though they just borrowed stereotypes from other movies about bachelor parties and gave them the run-of-the-mill standard personalities. And the weird thing was, they didn’t even act out accordingly a lot of the time. Because Allen (Zach) was such a strong presence, the other characters seemed to spend most of their time just trying to figure him out rather than being who they were. And Doug was a complete non-entity. We had no idea why these guys were friends to begin with. They could’ve used a scene or two to establish their history.

The ending credits were probably the funniest part, and that’s not exactly the best time to have the biggest laughs. But I will give credit–they were hysterical.

Overall, it’s a good time and it’s a fun movie. Yes, obviously when you break it down, it falls a part a little bit more. But I’ve laid out stuff in this review that’s really not even necessary–but I couldn’t get it off my mind. Don’t worry, I am recommending this film and I did enjoy it. But I had to call out the weaknesses.

My rating:

Family value: Vegas. Bachelor party. I think that adds up to…no kids under 18 should see this without a parent, and the earliest age I’d say that’s appropriate is 16. There are some snapshots at the end that are very graphic of male nudity and sexual suggestiveness. This is primarily a guy’s movie, so keep that in mind too.

The “Terminator” franchise is one that I’ve never really been able to fully wrap myself around. I’m not exactly sure why that is. I liked all of the films (yes, I did enjoy T3 even though it was horribly cheesy), and I still think “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” is one of the most spectacular sci-fi action films ever made. Maybe that’s why I don’t look at this franchise with as much affection as, say, the Aliens franchise for example. “Terminator 2″ just seemed to blow all of the other films away, as much as “The Terminator” was a good film. Cameron really outdid himself with the sequel. It was not only a visual achievement, it was a well told story; and, besides Edward Furlong, it was well acted. The story of the rise of SkyNet is interesting, and in “Terminator Salvation”, it comes to fruition.

So let’s go ahead and hop into the latest sequel, directed by McG, and starring Christian Bale and Sam Worthington as both protagonist and in some ways, antagonists of the narrative. The year is 2018, and SkyNet has enslaved mankind, and is running the world with machines–with the exception of a small group of people that are The Resistance, headed by John Connor (Bale). But since this film series has had a bunch of time warps and all kinds of time continuum conundrums, we are introduced to another aspect we weren’t aware of before. This is the both the convenience and the problem with time travel used in films as a device–it can’t help but be a deux ex machina. In this film, though, it doesn’t rely heavily on the time travel aspect–but it does realign things a bit in the canon(not to the extent that the new “Star Trek” film did, though).

We are first introduced to Marcus Wright, a convict who is on death row and is given a “second chance” by SkyNet to come with them and give his body “for science”. Now we all know what happens when we give into science. Everything. Works. Out. Of course! And in Marcus’s case, he is suddenly transported to the future, in 2018, and in the middle of the Resistance–and gets introduced fairly quickly with another familiar name in the Terminator series–Kyle Reese (this time played by Anton Yelchin, who for the second time in a row is playing the Young Version of a Character, and does a pretty good job doing his best Michael Biehn). Reese is just a teenager, which is set up already because when Connor is listening to his mother’s tapes she left behind for him, she mentions that Reese is a part of the resistance, but is just a kid at the time. Now, the fact that Connor is his son, and he would end up meeting him at a time when he’s actually older than him–I mean, aren’t we talking massive quakes in space and time? Again, time travel rule. Actually, there aren’t any. Forget it.

Marcus eventually meets up with Connor, because he’s on his way to SkyNet to settle a score–trying to find out what in fact happened to him. But there’s a slight snag–see, he’s a terminator too. He doesn’t know it, but he is only half human. What SkyNet did to him was use him as a prototype (I’m guessing) for the T-800 (otherwise known as The Governator). Bonding human skin with machine was their project, and Marcus was part of it. At this point you’d think that would make Connor like the cut of this guy’s jib–but it’s the complete opposite. Connor actually somewhat becomes a “villain” in the sense that, in this film’s narrative, Marcus is the main character and Connor stands in his way because of the fact that he doesn’t trust him since he’s a terminator, and thinks that Marcus has been sent to kill him. This obviously means they’re done professionally.

But that’s all I will give away about the plot. And I didn’t give away much–in fact, the trailer blew the twist. But basically, it becomes a rescue mission for Kyle Reese (who is the MacGuffin, for you film students out there) since he’s captured by the machines and sent to…I don’t know, something like a chicken coop for humans. I still don’t understand what SkyNet needed humans for, except to be real jerks about keeping them alive just to make them do labor. As I’ve learned in life, I would actually rather have robots do labor. Especially construction on the Dan Ryan.

In any event, this is probably the darkest and bleakest of the films, and I did actually like it for what it was. While Bale’s performance was amateur, and he kind of walks around going “Lat-da-da-da-dada-ahh”, the guy that steals the show is Sam Worthington as Marcus. As far as the film’s dark atmosphere, I will say it got to me–there is just something very unsettling about SkyNet as a computer-based empire that just illustrates the coldness and sterility of what life has become for earth. It’s an obvious metaphor for the ubiquitous technology that we depend so much on, and become more and more dependant on as we grow deeper into the Computer Age. The machines in some ways are like insects, and I actually was reminded of “Aliens” at times.

McG’s not all that creative with the storyline and doesn’t really bring anything too original to the table, but he manages a decent script and allows the story to breathe enough to get through. There are loads of references to the earlier Terminator films–some of them work, some of them don’t. Overall, the film is a solid entry into the Terminator series; however, I don’t know how much life this franchise has left in the tank. I don’t know what else I need to see, honestly. The film’s conclusion is good enough to end the series with–then again, I thought the same thing about the first “Matrix” movie and then there were 2 unnecessary and awful sequels to turn it into a “trilogy”. But that’s another story.

Despite some scenes that really depend on you to suspend disbelief (Sci-Fi Action Film 101, people), and some clunkiness in the first act, overall it’s a solid film. Oh, and the film was extremely well shot, by the way. The director of photography was amazing. It was not distracting at all. He should certainly get an award recognition.

My rating:

Family value: Too dark for anyone under the age of 13, but enough action to keep your older kids entertained.

Of course we know where this review should begin. It should begin with what “Star Trek” was all about in the first place, right? That this was a re-visioning of a franchise that began over 40 years ago. That this was something that should’ve been left alone. I mean, for God’s sake, what happened in the last three movies under the cast of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”? After “First Contact”, what did we have? Does any real self-respecting Star Trek fan consider “Insurrection” and “Nemesis” a part of the real Star Trek narrative? Can any Star Trek fan call themselves self-respecting?

OK now I’m being unfair. After all, throughout my childhood, it certainly defined a part of who I am now. Spock’s logic, Kirk’s unapologetic attempts at singing “Mr. Tambourine Man” and “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”, and Chekov’s inability to sound out his “V’s”.

But, that aside, so what about this new, *eleventh* movie in the “Star Trek” franchise? We “Star Trek” film buffs know that any odd-numbered film is going to be bad.

Can we call this the eleventh movie though? This is really, in a sense, before the *first* “Star Trek” movie. Not only that, before the actual first “Star Trek” series itself.

But I’m making this more complicated than it needs to be. The real question is, can a person save a franchise after destroying his own? (J.J., yes I am talking to you–”Lost” come to mind?). Well, the answer…my beloved readers…is…

…are you even bating your breath?

OK fine. It’s yes.

A resounding yes.

This is a fun movie. In fact, it’s half-Star Trek as much as it is half-Star Wars. Strange, isn’t it? I wonder if this means we’ve finally bridged the gap between Trekkie and Star Wars fanboy. Who knows? I mean, we’ve not solved world peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but there’s always a start.

The film takes an abridged view of James Tiberius Kirk and the beloved Spock, who have been pitted against each other because of a rogue Romulan (played intensely by Eric Bana, can we expect less?) who has changed the course of time by going back in time, destroying the planet Vulcan, and expecting to continue his wrath against any other Federation planet–one of them, of course, being Earth. Now I know all of this sounds incredibly complicated, but–

Oh, wait–it doesn’t? Sounds pretty simple, actually, right? Well, that’s okay. The screenwriters agree. In fact, forget the weak first two acts, and appreciate where this film really delivers: Act three, and chemistry.

Yes, what I believe no Trekkie can argue with–is the function of the chemistry of our beloved characters of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, “Bones”, and Chekov. All of them are as lively and bursting they were 40 plus years ago. Special nods go out to Chris Pine (James Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock)–their subtle grasp of their characters is unbelievably well done. But we get to know all of their origins, some in subtle scenes of brilliance (i.e. Scotty) and some in hit-you-over-the-head monologues (i.e. Dr. McCoy). But in the end, is that really the most important thing?

After all, this is a film of the summer. Does it deliver? Of course it does! The ghosts of some of the cast may be rolling in their graves–but that’s only because of their selfish giddiness of wanting to bring that character back themselves. No one in the original cast can look at this young, robust cast, and say that there is something missing. In fact, the casting of this film is the very essence of why this film works.

It’s not the photon torpedos. It’s not warp speed. It’s not the Star Trek-isms. It’s exactly why the show worked in the first place, and what Gene Roddenberry wanted you to understand. It’s because, in the face of all the science fiction and nerdiness, there are faces that you want to see time and time again, and you want to revisit them whenever you can. And that warm place you go, when you’re too much of a geek to understand and join real life and real people–there is the USS Enterprise. And they’re all waiting for you to join them. That hasn’t changed. No matter what century you live in.

My rating:

Family value: With the exception of one scene about 5 minutes long featuring some alien babe and Uhura in their skivvies, this film doesn’t have a whole lot that would be too offensive for the younger crowd. Of course, there are threats of revenge and violence, but it’s no more than any other space opera.

Writer/director Hill goes for dark humor, and it’s brazenly illustrated in this uber dark comedy that has a lot of similarities to his new HBO sitcom, “Eastbound & Down” which I think is a very promising show and I’m glad it’s being continued. Seth Rogen’s character, Ronny, is somewhat like EB&D’s “hero”, Kenny Powers. He is self-unaware, and a low life. But Rogen has more charm to him and has the ability to make you laugh with him, and Danny McBride’s approach to Kenny Powers is a little more cynical.

The film follows the misadventures of a rent-a-cop head of mall security, but not in the way “Paul Blart” did. This has a very different approach. Instead of Ronny being bumbling and stupid, he is focused and arrogant. He is determined to catch a pervert who’s been flashing people in a parking lot. He has a posse of mall security cops that are just caricatures but in a way they are amusing. The main interest is Ronny’s pursuit of not only being The Man of the mall, but also becoming a real police officer, and winning the heart of the perfume & make-up counter at a department store–resident glam slut, Brandi. Fortunately for me, Anna Farris actually plays down her role a bit. While her imposing “Look at how obnoxious I am because I’m being ironical!” demeanor is still distracting to me, she actually did get me to laugh a few times.

Once the pervert has done his deeds, a resident detective (Ray Liotta) comes into the story, and Ronny instantly resents him because he’s “taking over Ronny’s case”. He instantly makes the detective resent him, and the usual ensues: detective takes Ronny to place where Ronny should get killed, but Ronny doesn’t. Ronny gets himself into some trouble while trying to “defend” the mall, and since he has “mental issues”, he isn’t allowed to become a cop. Even his drunk mother, who stands by him the entire time, cannot help his situation. But Ronny does charm the heart of a counter girl at a fast food joint who gives him free coffee every day, even when he “should be paying for it”.  There is a very good performance that may go overlooked but I want to point out Collette Wolfe who plays the counter girl Nell, has a scene that actually made me choke up a bit. I hope some scouts take note–she is very promising.

While the movie is dark, and at times a bit over-the-top, it does have its moments of sweetness. The film works overall. It’s not a masterpiece, and it’s not even as funny as it probably should be. There are some laugh out loud moments, but there is so much depravity going on that sometimes it’s hard to find the humor in it. In the end, it’s still enjoyable and I think Seth Rogen has proven again he can be a leading man and not just a side character. His acting ability has definitely grown.

My rating:

Family value: This may be too dark for some *adults* so I’d keep the kids away for sure.

A girl I was dating once told me she was concerned with a friendship I had with another guy because she was suspicious of how close we were. She didn’t understand that he and I were “like soul-mates”. Not that you should ever tell a lady friend of any kind something like this, mind you–you’re really asking for trouble; but, you know, I was young and stupid. She took it the wrong way. She thought I might have homosexual leanings. But it was nothing like that at all. Put it up on the chalkboard: We don’t understand women, and women don’t understand men. But it’s not really the whole “what they’re thinking” bit that’s all that complicated. It’s just that we don’t want to see eye to eye a lot of times. It’s uncomfortable, and that’s out of fear. She might have had every right to think what she did since I didn’t explain it to her. I might have had every right to think she was being a child for simplifying it so much.

The conundrum of this situation is why “I Love You, Man” may be my favorite romantic (or I guess I should say, “bromantic”) comedy of the 21st century. It takes that very awkward balance of having a passionate, caring, and deep relationship with a woman along with having a platonic, caring, and deep relationship with a man. It begins with Peter Klaven (played deliciously unstable and weird by Paul Rudd) who has little to no guy friends, because he’s always been a “girlfriend guy”, as he’s called by his girlfriend, whom he’s just proposed to (she said yes). Zooey, played wonderfully by Rashida Jones (“The Office”, “Freaks & Geeks”), is concerned that Peter has no Best Man for their wedding. Peter goes to his gay brother, who knows even more about straight men than gay men (wouldncha know?) who tells him to set up a series of “man-dates” in order to find his guy mate so he can have a Best Man.

Predictably, the film progresses into a sort of parallel universe of romantic vernacular when Peter meets Sydney Fife at one of his open houses (he’s a real estate agent trying to sell Lou Ferrigno’s house), and the two hit it off almost immediately. Sydney, played by Jason Segel in possibly my favorite character for him since Nick on “Freaks & Geeks”, is a laid back guy who is a man’s man, and is the perfect “fit” for Peter. The two of them start seeing so much of each other, in fact, that Zooey gets a bit worried that she’s “losing him”. Not to homosexuality, mind you, the film is smart enough not to devolve itself into a “Hey Let’s Do Gay Comedy!” onslaught; rather, she just thinks she’s losing the man she’s going to marry because he’s developed a friendship with someone else. But Sydney does a few things that upset the chemistry, and the two have a falling out, and Peter is left again with no broheim for his wedding.

But bromantic comedies are just like romantic comedies so I think you know how it all ends. Everybody dies!

No, okay. Anyway, the film really does deliver and it clicks on all cylinders, having fun with itself while also telling a very honest tale about love and friendship and all of that sugary sweet stuff that these movies are made of. But it has enough of that raunchy twist to make it workable and not something guys would want to steer clear of. In fact, I think a lot of guys could relate to this movie just as much as a girl could. Maybe this is the one movie that brings us all together?

…right?

All right, let’s move on. The film features other great performances, too, such as the always hilarious and sexy Jaime Pressly as the best friend of Zooey. Her husband, played by Jon Favreau, is a treat as an angry, scoffing malcontent who likes playing poker and mostly hates everyone else, especially Peter (for a reason I won’t give away but it’s somewhat understandable). Thomas Lennon gives an amusing performance as one of the failed man-dates, as does his former “The State” mate, Joe Lo Truglio. And of course, J. K. Simmons can never do wrong, and he delivers an understated funny performance as Peter’s dad.

As you can tell I enjoyed this movie thoroughly, and although it does have some scenes that you will have to accept as simply characters being just that (Slapping the bass, for instance), for me it never lost itself as some recent comedies have (ahem, “Pineapple Express”) and never forgets the heart of the matter. It’s a fun movie, and it’s a much needed get-away movie when you just need two hours to escape.

My rating:

Family value: The film is best suited  for adults since the language is fairly strong, but the teenage kids may find this irresistible so keep that in  mind.

This film has been in the works for over two decades. As early as 1986 there was a draft penned by Sam Hamm (who co-wrote the first “Batman” film in 1989) for a film adaptation of “Watchmen”. For years it was passed around studios, laid around on people’s desks, rewritten by different people, and different directors taking passes on it. The one filmmaker that passed on it that struck me the most was Terry Gilliam, who said, “I’ll make it if I can make it 10 hours long”. Funny line, but I think he meant it.

After seeing this film, I know exactly what he means. He was kidding in a serious way. And here’s the long and short of it: “Watchmen” is unfilmable. Now, does that mean this was a bad film? Does it mean it wasn’t as “stunning” as some critics have called it? Not visually adaptable? Well, no. That’s not what I mean. Visually, the movie is extraordinary. The costumes are spot on; Dr. Manhattan is a true vision. The fight scenes are well choreographed.

But a movie isn’t just a bunch of visual shots. I would love to convince Zack Snyder of this, because he seems to think it’s more important to make a music video than a movie. And it made me wonder…so did they pick the wrong director? What went wrong?

Well, let me take a step back. When you think about what Terry Gilliam said–”You’d need 10 hours to tell this story”–he’s right. But wrong. You can’t do that. People would literally get bored. Why? Because they’re watching this, not reading it. A book, even a graphic one, can be enjoyed on a completely different level than a film. A film must have a spine, a theme, a plot, a point. “Watchmen” the book wanders through many plots, many themes, many points. “Watchmen” the film simply meanders and becomes muddled halfway through, because in trying to find itself, it gets lost in so many ideas that the book is allowed to breathe life into.

And that is what I mean by it being unfilmable. I think this was probably the best representation of the book there can possibly be, and yet I feel somewhat unfulfilled saying that the movie was, at best, a disappointment. Was it that I expected too much? No. I don’t even care that they changed parts of the ending to make it easier to understand. That’s natural. That happens with adaptations. And maybe not only Terry Gilliam was right, but the author himself, Alan Moore, said it perfectly: this was meant to be a comic book. Not a movie.

So, as an adaptation, this movie is actually as successful as it could be. But it’s still a failure as a film. Have I confused you yet? Well, try watching the movie without having already reading the book and see how far you get before you start wondering what you’re watching at all. And unless you’re David Lynch, movies aren’t supposed to be that confusing.

We have characters set up from the get go, with the murder of a famed superhero known previously as “The Minute Men” and now “The Watchmen”. He’s known as The Comedian, and his character is probably the heart of the film’s (and a lot of the book’s) theme. The Comedian is sadistic, sarcastic, cynical, hateful, and cold hearted. He, though, is a conundrum. His name is light hearted, and fun. It’s playful. He is a facade. He’s a joke. Behind the mask of a hero, he’s a villain. The film plays with this a lot, and sometimes beats you over the head with that, too.

Then you have Rorschach, who sees through it, and not only sees through The Comedian, but all of humanity. “The whores and the politicians will look up and shout, ‘Save us!’ And I’ll whisper, ‘No’.” He embodies humanity’s paranoia, while The Comedian embodies humanity’s hypocrisy and self loathing. Night Owl represents humanity’s simplicity and a root of normalcy (and blandness); while Dr. Manhattan takes on a whole other perspective: humanity’s struggle with itself and needing a deity to feel second to. Yet Dr. Manhattan questions everything in life as well, and also prefers solitude. But he judges, as well, even if he doesn’t want to.

And so you have all of this at play, and this is where the film gets into trouble. The book takes many paths, and that’s great for a book; but a film doesn’t get that luxury. You have to choose a plot and stick to it. There’s the murder plot of The Comedian; there’s the Doomsday Clock plot; and then there’s the subplots of the old “Minute Men” and the parallels of what was old and what’s new, and older generations fading and newer generations throwing away the past. The film, instead of trying to tie down a plot line, goes in every single direction the book does. And that’s admirable–but it’s a failure. It was set up as a failure. There was no way that approach was ever going to work.

It’s a shame because there are some wonderful moments in the film. The opening credit sequence with Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’” was spectacular. Every scene with Dr. Manhattan was a treat for the mind. Rorschach’s journal entries are thoughtful and well narrated. But while the film tries to throw too much on one plate, it ultimately shatters, leaving audiences baffled more than enlightened.

I think it’s obvious I don’t give this a passing grade–but for some reason, I’m also not going to say I don’t recommend seeing it. I do recommend reading the book first and foremost. If you’re confused by the film, reading the book I think will make you appreciate what you saw more. There are some great things that Snyder does. But while he has wonderful source material to work with, he can only do so much with a 163 minute time limit. I won’t let him off completely, though; there were some things he could have done differently. And there is a sex scene that didn’t need to be in there at all.
So yes, this could have been done at 10 hours. But it would have been just as much a failure because this was never about strength of plot, but about ideas and themes. “Watchmen” will never work as a film, because it’s not meant to.

Maybe it should have been left in production hell forever. But, it’s not a total waste of time. And the soundtrack’s pretty good, too.

My rating:

Family value: This is not for kids.