Movie Review: SLITHER

SLITHER

2006

R

"Don't let them in your mouth!"

-- Bill Pardy

Slither is a 2006 horror-comedy written and directed by James Gunn that serves as a well-made, contemporary B-movie. When a meteorite containing an alien parasite crash lands in the woods outside Wheelsy, South Carolina, it may have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for the drunken shenanigans of Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) and Brenda Gutierrez (Brenda James). Grant stumbles upon the creeping crawling creature which shoots a dart into his stomach that maneuvers its way into his brain. Over the next few days, Grant develops a number of rashes, and his personality begins to change, much to the concern of his wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks). As more time passes, Grant's condition worsens, and it's apparent that something truly alien has started to take control of his body. He goes on a rampage, killing a number of pets and livestock around the community, and he attacks and kidnaps Brenda. In an effort to catch Grant, Starla and the local police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) lead a group of deputies and townspeople in an effort to find him. Little do they know that Grant has laid a trap for them that will unleash an entirely new terror on the town of Wheelsy, and possibly, the entire world.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film back when it was set to be released, and I thought it was an interesting idea for a revamped B-movie. At the time, I wasn't necessarily gung-ho about seeing it, but as time went by and it managed to scare up some relatively positive reviews, I got it in my mind to give it a view. It never really dropped off my radar, but I wasn't as into the horror genre back then as I am now, so I just never took the time to give it a chance. But now, with it much more accessible to me than it has been in the past, I figured now was the best time to take this horror-comedy in.

Like many B-movies, Slither takes a look at what might happen if there were some sort of alien attack on humankind. This time, we're delving into the backwoods of South Carolina, taking a look at how one small town responded to a vicious parasitic attack on its populace. Needless to say, the film ends like so many others have before: with a very large body count and enough gleeful gore to satisfy the gore-hounds. The screenplay offers a good send-up of your classic horror B-movies, and once you can settle into that frame of mind, you can let the mindless entertainment ensue.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect too much in terms of storyline. It's a humdrum tale of people reacting to a given situation, and that's exactly how it should be. Because of this, however, three other facets need to step up in order to make this a successful film. First, we have to have believable characters with whom we can mildly relate. Banks and Fillion fill those shoes well enough, and although I wouldn't go as far as to say I cared for their characters, I did find myself rooting for them to make it through. Second, the dialogue needs to be catchy and fresh. Slither also succeeds here. The dialogue felt realistic, and it did enough to keep me smiling from start to finish.

Finally, a successful horror-comedy has to deliver the scares as well as the laughs. While it's not as side-splittingly funny as, say, Shaun of the Dead, there's still plenty to laugh about here and there, and most of it comes from dialogue. Kudos to the screenwriter, as well as the actors, for having the comedic timing and sensibilities to pull this one off. In terms of scares, there aren't really any moments of suspense or times where you'll jump out of your seat. In true B-movie fashion, Slither instead goes for the jugular, almost literally. It attempts to shock you by its level of gore, and I do have to say that the filmmakers created a rather disgusting creature for all of us to "enjoy."

Because Slither manages to succeed on its three most important facets, it has to be considered a successful film. Each of these facets help make it an entertaining and mindless romp, and it should never be taken as more than such. Just know going in that you're going to be in for some slightly sickening images here and there, so those of you with an easily upset stomach might want to beware. Aside from that, throw Slither into your "movies to watch" list because it's a hell of a good time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: AMERICAN PSYCHO

AMERICAN PSYCHO

2000

NC-17

"I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?"

-- Patrick Bateman

American Psycho is a 2000 satirical thriller directed by Mary Harron that serves as a film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a young Wall Street executive named Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) living the yuppie culture of the 1980s. Believing himself to be better than his peers, he delves into materialism and greed so that he can stay ahead of the curve, all while trying to "fit in." He admits that his emotionless lifestyle leaves him very bored, and that has led to a sort of nighttime blood-lust that's slowly creeping into his everyday activities. His homicidal desires reach a peak when a colleague named Paul Allen (Jared Leto) proves himself to be better-off than Bateman is, and in retaliation, Patrick crafts a plot to murder him. This experience only goes to further Bateman's string of psychotic episodes, leaving him in a state where he can't quite determine what's really and what's imagined.

My first interaction with American Psycho came with Bravo's television special "30 Even Scarier Movie Moments," which aired in October 2006 and served as a sequel to their original mini-series, "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments." The 2006 special included the scene where Bale's Bateman murders Leto's Paul Allen, and that little snippet of a scene managed to hook my interest. I soon hunted down the film and gave it a view, and I was instantly confused about what it all meant. It was quite a bit to take in, and over the years, I've managed to see the film on a few other occasions. And yet, even after this particular viewing, I don't quite know what's going on during American Psycho.

At its core, the film is truly a satire about the materialistic and greedy culture of the 1980s. We see a number of Wall Street businessmen doing their best to stay ahead of the curve their colleagues set, all the while delving into basic carnal needs to satisfy their lives' emptiness. Bateman does the same, but takes his methods of satisfaction to an entirely different level with his need for violence. For the first half of the film, all that seems fine and dandy. However, as soon as Bateman goes through with his plot against Allen, we see the strings of his sanity start to come a little bit loose. He's not sure exactly what's real in his life anymore, and by association, we as the audience aren't quite sure either. It all leads up to a very vague finale that's probably leaving the interpretation open and on the table. I can honestly say that three-quarters of the way through the film, I'm sure I know what's going on, but as soon as the final scene fades to the credits, my ideas have changed, and I'm not sure at all.

What is grounded in reliable fact is the strength of the central performance from Christian Bale. While the film offers strong, albeit small, roles from familiar faces like Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Reese Witherspoon, Chloë Sevigny and Willem Dafoe, this is really Bale's vehicle, and he's the one who demands all the attention. Even in the more mundane scenes, where we see Patrick going through his every morning routine, you can't help but be encapsulated by Bale's character. At times, he manages to show absolutely no emotion on his face, and given that's the character's biggest identifier, I have to say I'm always thoroughly impressed. As Bateman spirals into insanity, however, Bale becomes a little more over-the-top, but never so much that he becomes unbelievable. As strange as the character may seem today to today's audiences in 2012, Bale always makes Patrick Bateman believable.

At the end of the day, I'm not quite sure what the real drawing power of American Psycho proves to be. Bale's performance is enough to keep me watching, but I think it's the open-endedness of the ending that will keep bringing most viewers back. I've heard many a fan argue both sides of the spectrum, and I have my own ideas as well, but I'll refrain from going into detail about them here. From the outset, American Psycho was toted as a big deal: at its debut at Sundance in 2000, it was hailed as the "next Fight Club." And while I don't think it quite measures up to that 1999 masterpiece, I do think that, given enough time, American Psycho will be held with the same such clout and respect.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: DEATH RACE 2000

DEATH RACE 2000

1975

R

"Even the fearsome Frankenstein has a one-hundred percent red-blooded American sense of humor."

-- Harold

Death Race 2000 is a 1975 B movie action film directed by Paul Bartel that presents a strange dystopian future. After a massive financial meltdown and a military takeover, the United States has transformed into the United Provinces of America, a land where church and state have become one entity, and the government has become all-powerful. To satiate the mass public's hunger, a series of horrifically exciting sporting events takes place throughout the year, and the centerpiece of these events is the Annual Transcontinental Road Race, more commonly known as the "Death Race." Each year, five racers make their way across the country in the hopes of reaching New Los Angeles first. Along the way, they are awarded points for mercilessly killing any innocent bystanders they might pass by. In the film's race, two-time winner Frankenstein (David Carradine) is back to defend his title, but he'll have stiff competition from the likes of Machine Gun Joe Viterbo (Sylvester Stallone) who's ready to take home the crown once again. Little do the racers know that a group of anti-government rebels has set out to stop the race once and for all.

When I was a child growing up in the early 1990s, I can distinctly remember my aunt making a number of crude jokes about scoring points for hitting pedestrians along the side of the street. The number of points would vary from person to person, but I can recall my fear as I pleaded with her not to take such action. Now, I may just be reading into it, but I would say there's a distinct possibility she may have gotten such an idea from Death Race 2000, which employs a similar strategy for the racers. At the time, I obviously didn't know that such a film existed, but after the release of the 2008 remake Death Race, this source film came into my consciousness. And now, I've finally had the opportunity to take in this cult classic.

To start, I would like to remind everyone that this is, in fact, a B movie. For those of you who aren't quite sure what that means, I'll offer you this definition from Wikipedia:

A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film. 

In a sense, the "B movie" genre just refers to any film that might not be entirely mainstream or big-budget. They're usually aesthetically pleasing but offer little in terms of screenplay or acting, but at the same time, many B movies manage to garner quite a cult following. Death Race 2000 falls into that category, and it has been praised by many as one of the more entertaining B movies ever made.

The storyline actually offers an interesting look at a fictional future where the government has become so powerful that it completely keeps the public at bay. In a way, they use their graphic sporting events like the Annual Transcontinental Road Race to instill fear into the hearts of the people, reassuring them that the government is still in charge. Throughout the films, it almost seems like we have two separate stories moving forward. On one side, we have the race itself, which proves to be the more entertaining half of the film. One the other hand, we have the story of the resistance trying to stop the race and bring down the government. Where the screenplay truly succeeds, however, is in the blend of these two stories. When they finally come together, it proves to be a clever twist that was only slightly expected. For that, I think the film should be applauded. The script also succeeds in crafting interesting and relatable characters that the audience can cheer for or against readily. There's a clear sense of right and wrong, even when the characters bounce from side to side.

I also think we're getting a rather splendid cast. Although the actors seem to be a bit over-the-top, I think that's more a telling sign of the genre rather than their ability. Carradine turns in a fine performance as our lead, bringing a steady presence to the screen. Simone Griffeth plays opposite Carradine as his navigator Annie Smith. She brings a decent performance as a woman whose allegiances are constantly suspect. We're getting an entertainingly fascinating turn by a pre-Rocky Sly Stallone, who works as one of the film's main antagonists. Sure, it's just a lot of anger and screaming, but within the constructs of this film, it works wonderfully. The rest of the racers are portrayed by Mary Woronov, Roberta Collins and Martin Kove (whom you might recognize from 1984's The Karate Kid), and they all bring decent performances. I also wanted to give credit to Don Steele, who portrays the race's announcer, for being perfectly annoying in his part.

(Fun fact: Carradine reprised his role as Frankenstein - in a vocal cameo - in the 2008 remake.)

At the end of the day, Death Race 2000 is a fun-filled, silly adventure into a fictional dystopian landscape. It offers plenty of action, explosions and gore, and it's sure to have you rolling with laughter. It's miles ahead of the 2008 remake, so do yourself a favor and give this one a view first. Don't think too much about this one, though. Just sit back and enjoy the ride (pun intended).

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: THE WEATHER MAN

THE WEATHER MAN

2005

R

"Hello, America."
-- Dave Spritz

The Weather Man is a 2005 dramatic comedy directed by Gore Verbinski. It tells the story of a TV weatherman named Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) who is desperately attempting to land a job on the nationally-syndicated show Hello, America. Recently separated - and possibly divorced? - from his wife Noreen (Hope Davis), Dave has a slew of issues that are keeping him from both pursuing his dream as well as being happy as an individual. He is constantly working to impress his father Robert (Michael Caine), an accomplished and awarded author who develops a rapidly-spreading case of lymphoma, leaving Dave little time to gain his ultimate approval. At the same time, he must handle the troubles of his son Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and his daughter Shelly (Gemmenne de la Peña), who are both struggling to find happiness in their own lives. As his world starts to spiral out of control, Dave tries to keep everything together as Hello, America comes knocking at his door.

Since this film was released in 2005, I've always been drawn to watching it. Whenever there proved to be a time, however, I usually dismissed it and chose something that seemed a tad bit more entertaining. Fortunately for the film, I have finally taken the time to sit down and give it a view; unfortunately, I cannot say that all my waiting was worth it.

I'm going to start with the acting because that's where I have the least issue. I know that there are plenty of people out there who are adamantly against Nicolas Cage as an actor, but I do think that he has quite the performing ability when given a proper script and character. One need only look toward films like 2002's Adaptation. or 2005's Lord of War, where he was able to bring forth fantastic performances. Sure, in recent years, he's delved into some questionable roles, but my opinions and views of Cage are not for this time or this post. Rather, I would like to say that he's serviceable here in The Weather Man, but I think he could have brought a little bit more to the screen. Our supporting cast works well, with special mention going to ever-splendid Caine and to the young Gemmenne de la Peña, who proved to be one of the better actors on-screen. Davis and Hoult are okay, but they're not really bringing much. Also be on the watch for a relatively funny cameo from Bryant Gumbel as the host of Hello, America.

No, the issue with The Weather Man isn't the acting; it's the screenplay. The films is billed as a dramatic comedy, which generally fashions some interesting films. Some recent examples of splendid dramatic comedies include the 2011 films Beginners and The Descendants. Where those films - as well as other films in the genre - succeed is in their script and their tone, which is ultimately dictated by the screenplay. The storyline in The Weather Man proves to be just a little too muddled for the audience's attention. There's so many things happening all at once that it's a tad bit difficult to maintain one's focus on one facet of the storyline. Should we care about Dave's job aspirations? Or his attempts to appease his father? Or perhaps we should focus on his failing marriage? There are ways to blend all of these things together, but The Weather Man doesn't find a way to do just that.

One of the biggest problems, however, is the issue of one. As the genre dictates, a dramatic comedy will have ample doses of both drama and comedy. Successful films will find a way to blend the two together in such a manner that keeps the storyline flowing seamlessly. We'll be able to laugh at the dramatic moments, and we'll feel emotion at the comedic bits. That's the sign of a great dramatic comedy. The Weather Man, however, feels a little bit jumpy, almost as though it can't quite figure out which type of film it wants to be. One moment, we're watching a drama. The next, we're delving into drama. And we go back and forth and back and forth, never quite getting that wonderful blend that we so desire. Instead, we're getting a choppy look at a man's life that's filled with dry humor, but it doesn't flow continuously. The film just has a strange feel to it.

At the end of the day, The Weather Man is a serviceable film that doesn't really burst off the screen. I had high hopes for the flick, but I do have to say that it underwhelmed. Still, we're getting a solid performance from Nic Cage, and the movie does have its moments. Just don't expect it to blow you away or anything.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: DARK SHADOWS

DARK SHADOWS

2012

PG-13

"They tried stoning me, my dear. It did not work."

-- Barnabas Collins

Dark Shadows is a 2012 comedic horror film directed by Tim Burton that serves as an adaptation of the 1960s and 1970s soap opera of the same name. We meet our hero Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) in the late-1700s as he grows into a young man in Collinsport, Maine, where his family has established a fishing community. Barnabas entertains himself with physical relations with a servant named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), but is real affection lies with a young woman named Josette (Bella Heathcote). Driven by jealousy, Angelique - who happens to be a witch - casts a spell over the young lovers, sending Josette to her death whilst turning Barnabas into a vampire. After informing the townspeople of his true identity, Barnabas is locked in a coffin and buried alive for over two hundred years until he is unearthed in 1972. He makes his way back to his home and finds his descendants alive but struggling to survive with their failing business. He informs Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), the family matriarch, that he shall return the Collins name to its rightful glory. Little does he know that Angelique has survived as well and has turned the town of Collinsport into her own personal gold mine.

To start, I would like to say that I had not heard of the soap opera that inspired this film until I first learned details about the film itself. By all accounts, the soap is a bit of a cult classic, and considering the ideas and concepts behind it, I'm not surprised to see Burton attempting the adaptation. It's right up his alley, really. It's a dark, gothic tale of a vampire looking to seek revenge and restore his family's name, so what shouldn't there be to like, right? Add the fact that this film has all the makings of a typical Burton venture: Johnny Depp in the lead, an appearance by Helena Bonham Carter and music by Danny Elfman. It sounds like your typical fare.

All that being said, I was not entirely impressed with Dark Shadows. Although I was easily drawn into the story and remained engaged until the very end, there seemed something a tad bit off about this picture. Our story and screenplay aren't quite as strong as past Burton ventures, and I think that's part of the problem. While he kinda manages to blend the comedy and fantasy decently, Burton couldn't find the right amount of balance between the two. At one moment, we're locked in the drama between Johnny Depp and Eva Green, and the next, they're both doing their best to make us laugh. It just seemd as though it was very stop-and-go. We had the right amount of each genre, but rarely did it ever blend together in the proper proportions. One moment we're laughing, the next we're wondering whether the horrific deaths should be funny. Another one of the major problems is that there seems to be too many different story-lines trying to intersect one another. Now, having grown up watching my mother watch "The Young and the Restless," I can tell you that I know just how many stories can be occurring all at once on such a show, and I'm sure "Dark Shadows" was no different. Where the film fails is in its attempt to bring all those story-lines into one two-hour engagement. It proves to be too much to handle, and the entire story proves to be muddled. At the end of the day, it's just a strange tale that could've been fleshed out a little bit better, in my opinion.

Fortunately, we're getting some decent performances to augment the film where the screenplay is lacking. Depp is his usual self, bringing forth yet another memorable character for his ever-growing filmography. He might have been able to mail in this performance, and he still would have managed to be the star. That's not knocking the rest of the cast, but no one quite reaches his level. This is Depp's film, and it should be treated as such. Aside from him, I thought we were getting some good performances from the likes of Jackie Earle Haley and Bonham Carter. I thought Pfeiffer and Green weren't used in the proper way, and both of their performances seemed a tad bit strange. I also thought that Chloë Grace Moretz was vastly underutilized. As one of the stronger actresses making her way up the Hollywood ranks, she definitely has a lot more to offer than what she shows here. Perhaps we can chalk this one up to the screenplay rather than her acting talents. And a quick note: be on the watch for cameos from the likes of Christopher Lee and musician Alice Cooper, the latter of which proves to be both hilarious and entertaining.

If anything is holding this film together, it's Elfman's fancifully dark score. He always seems to have a knack for creating a pitch-perfect musical accompaniment, and Dark Shadows proves to be no different. It's not quite his best score, but it definitely ranks as one of the better ones, if I do say so myself. Here's a little snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Dark Shadows is an entertaining film that's not really going to stay with you for very long. Although it's better than most films released nowadays, it doesn't quite measure up to some of the past Depp-Burton collaborations. You're probably better off watching a film like 2007's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, or even 1999's Sleepy Hollow. They're both just a bit better than this particular venture.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3DD

PIRANHA 3DD

2012

R

"Welcome to rock bottom."

-- David Hasselhoff

Piranha 3DD is a 2012 horror-comedy directed by John Gulager that serves as a sequel to the 2010 film, Piranha 3D. The film opens with a news story telling us that the Lake Victoria massacre has left the town abandoned, and the reporter questions whether another such incident could possibly happen again. Fast forward one year, and we're now in the confines of a small Arizona town, where Chet (David Koechner) is preparing to re-open his late wife's water park as a not-so-family-friendly play-place, much to the chagrin of his step-daughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker). After a close friend goes missing, Maddy discovers that the now-infamous piranha have migrated to the lake just outside the water park. Fearing for a spree similar to the spring break massacre, Maddy, her friend Barry (Matt Bush) and deputy Kyle (Chris Zylka) make their way to Lake Victoria to seek the aid of Carl Goodman (Christopher Lloyd). What they learn from him incites a new level of terror, and Maddy rushes back to the water park to plead with Chet to postpone the grand re-opening.

As I've said on so many different occasions, I couldn't begin to express my excitement for this sequel to the smash 2010 hit. I became an instant fan of Piranha 3D, and after I heard that a sequel had been greenlit, I waited (im)patiently for its ultimate release. There were to be a lot of changes: Alexandre Aja would not be returning to direct, and we were losing the basic setting of Lake Victoria. At the same time, we would see some familiar faces with returns from Lloyd, Ving Rhames and Paul Scheer. And, ultimately, we were going to have piranhas wreaking havoc. What's not to like, right? It took nearly two years, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and watch Piranha 3DD.

What I'm about to say is a little bit discouraging: I don't know how I feel about the film. On the one hand, I thought that there was enough to make this an entertaining film, but at the same time, I honestly think that I've been gypped of so many months of waiting for something that's even a shell of what it predecessor achieved. Sadly, that can't necessarily be said about Piranha 3DD.

While the first film didn't necessarily have a plot, there was still a series of events that the audience was able to follow. This time around, however, nothing truly seems to be interconnected. We have one scene where something happens, then another where something else happens, then another and another. And yet, there's no flow to the narrative. It's simply one attack to another, with a little bit of exposition here and there. But there's nothing really to which the audience can cling, and that's going to leave a few people dazed and bored. 

One of the other reasons that Piranha 3D proved so entertaining is that we could actually care about the characters on-screen. Sure, the film didn't offer the greatest acting, but the characters were fleshed out just enough to make them redeemable and endearing. We knew who to love and who to hate, and that worked quite well in swaying us towards cheering for or against certain characters. In Piranha 3DD, we never get that. We know who we're supposed to like and who we're supposed to hate, but we just can't muster enough energy to have those emotions towards any of the characters. Some of the cameos prove to be rather entertaining, but even those are a little bit fleeting. Still, Lloyd gets to have a little more screen-time this time around, and even David Hasselhoff manages to evoke a few chuckles here and there. And yes, Gary Busey is in this movie, but his scene is over so quickly that you'll forget about it a few minutes later.

At the end of the day, Piranha 3DD is, at best, a shell of its predecessor, and a hollow shell at that. While there are a few redeemable moments, there just isn't enough to keep the film moving along as well as it should. Perhaps Piranha 3D was meant to be a novelty success, and although I can't completely hate this new piranha-centric film, I can't say that I love it either. I'm just on the fence, and sometimes, that's the last place a film wants a viewer to be. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3D

PIRANHA 3D

2010

R

"The first bite draws blood. The blood draws the pack."
-- Mr. Goodman

Piranha 3D is a 2010 horror-comedy directed by Alexandre Aja that serves as a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. When an underwater earthquake causes a rift to open on the floor of Lake Victoria, another subterranean lake is exposed to the surface. Within those depths lie thousands of allegedly extinct piranha who come up to feast right around the time of the annual Lake Victoria spring break festivities. Saddened by the fact that he's stuck babysitting his younger siblings, Jake Forester (Steven R. McQueen) willingly accepts an invitation to be a "location scout" for Derrick Jones (Jerry O'Connell) and his Wild Wild Girls film crew. The son of local sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue), Jake knows that what he's doing goes against everything she probably wants; what he doesn't know, however, is that there is a very fishy menace lurking just beneath the water's surface. And with the throngs of college co-eds partying out on the lake, it's only a matter of time until the massacre can ensue.

I wanted to re-watch Piranha 3D in anticipation of the sequel, Piranha 3DD, which is set for release tomorrow. As many of you may have seen in my 2012 Summer Movie Preview, I'm rather excited for the sequel, and all of that excitement stems from the fact that I loved its predecessor oh so much. Now, I'm sure there are a lot of you scratching your heads, wondering why anyone could ever love a movie like Piranha 3D, but if you'll allow it, I shall explain.

Now, I could start off by talking about the screenplay or the acting or any of those typical facets of film that I usually like to talk about, but the point would be a bit moot. The acting is decent considering the genre - although, I was then and still am impressed with O'Connell's superbly comedic performance - and we're getting a slew of fantastic cameo appearances from the likes of Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth, as well as a pitch-perfect over-the-top bit by Ving Rhames. There are a few other actors who play more important plot roles - namely, Adam Scott and Jessica Szohr - but it's really the bit appearances and the leads who steal the show. And the screenplay is your run-of-the-mill horror creature tale: creature escapes, creature kills people, heroes fight back. That's really all it boils down to. However, there's something about this film that makes it just a little bit better.

At its very base, the film industry relies on one standard: to entertain the audience. When we go to the movies, we can have a slew of emotions. Sometimes we laugh, sometimes we cry, sometimes we scream in terror. But a good film will deliver whatever emotion it hopes to convey, and in that moment, we as the audience can be entertained. This is where Piranha 3D excels. Yes, the story and the concept are ridiculous. Yes, the special effects are shoddy and over-the-top. And yes, there's nothing terribly profound about anything that happens. But it still proves to be one of the more entertaining films in recent years. It goes all out and never lets off the gas, and although it's ridiculous, I still can't help but smile and laugh and cringe along with it all.

To be fair, I should probably say that my biggest love for this film is the fact that it directly references Jaws - admittedly my favorite film of all time - on many an occasion. From the very get-go, we're getting a steady stream. In the opening scene, we see an elderly Richard Dreyfuss essentially reprising his role from Jaws (although it isn't credited as such, most likely for copyright reasons and all that jazz). He's singing along to "Show Me the Way to Go Home" on the radio whilst attempting to catch a "fast fish." Fast-forward a little bit, and we see Ving Rhames' deputy talking about how the spring break season is a "big financial week for our town." Any fans of Jaws will be squealing with glee at these references. Or maybe it's just me being a fanatic. I'll admit that's definitely a possibility.

When it was released in 2010, Piranha 3D actually became one of the surprise critical and commercial successes of the summer. After spending a modest budget of $24 million to make the film, it returned over $83 million worldwide, and a lot of that success had to do with positive word of mouth. As of today, the film holds a seventy-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Playing exactly to expectations for a movie about killer fish run amok, Piranha 3D dishes out gore, guffaws and gratuitous nudity with equal glee.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: MEN IN BLACK III

MEN IN BLACK III

2012

PG-13

"I promised the secrets of the universe, nothing more."

-- Agent K

Men in Black III is a 2012 sci-fi comedy directed by Barry Sonnenfeld that serves as the third installment in the Men in Black film franchise and the first to hit theaters since 2002. After a dangerous killer named Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) escapes from his lunar prison, he heads back to Earth to find and kill Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), who had captured and imprisoned him forty years earlier as he had attempted to aid in an interplanetary invasion. He devises a plan to go back in time to kill a younger K so that he will no longer exist in the present. Soon afterward, K disappears from the present day, leading to emotional unrest for his partner Agent J (Will Smith), who then follows Boris into the past to keep him from exacting his plan. When he reaches 1969, he finds a young K (Josh Brolin), and the two work together, with the help of a solitary alien named Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), to stop Boris from destroying the planet.

It's been fifteen years since the first Men in Black film turned into a box office smash back, and it's been ten years since we last saw Smith and Jones team up as the alien-fighting team we've grown to know and love. Although I've enjoyed the past two entries in the series, I can't say that I was ever the biggest fan of the films. Still, they proved to be entertaining enough for me to want to see this latest installment, and the addition of actors like Brolin, Clement and Stuhlbarg definitely made the concept a little more intriguing.

Let's start with the screenplay. Although the film doesn't necessarily break any ground on bringing forth new ideas, it still manages to be entertaining. The jokes and gags are pretty consistent, and although I was never l rolling with laughter, I still managed to offer a chuckle here and there. The storyline proves to be engaging, and even though the idea of cinematic time travel has been tried and tested, it still manages to feel fresh in this one. And we're even getting a few twists and turns here and there, some of which I didn't predict until they happened. Ultimately, the story allows the viewer to enter the film and remain engaged with it throughout the film, and for that, it should be commended.

We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Smith and Jones are their standard selves, but this is really Smith's vehicle. Because of the story's constructs, Jones only appears in the early and later moments of the film. Fortunately, we're getting a clever impersonation job from the likes of Brolin in the intermediary moments. When I first saw the trailers for the film introducing Brolin as the younger Agent K, I immediately thought him to be a fine choice purely based off his look. After seeing the film, however, I can say that Brolin does a fine job filling the shoes, and he proves to bring most of the film's comedy to the table. I also thought that Stuhlbarg managed to steal the show with his performance, and if there's any reason to see the film, it's him alone. Also be on the watch for decent bits from the likes of Clement, Emma Thompson, Nicole Scherzinger and Bill Hader in a cameo appearance.

At the end of the day, Men in Black III might not be the best in the franchise, but it still proves to be an entertaining venture and pleasant addition to the franchise's overall storyline. It fills in a lot of questions that fans may have had about the characters, and even manages to flesh out our two leads a little bit further. For that, I think we can all be appreciative.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: CLUE

CLUE

1985

PG

"You all seem to be very anxious about something."
-- Cop

Clue is a 1985 comedy directed by Jonathan Lynn that's adapted from the popular board game of the same name. The film opens on a stormy night in 1954 New England, where six strangers - Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mr. Green (Michael McKean) and Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren) - all arrive at a mansion for a dinner party of sorts. They each encounter the house's butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry), who escorts them all to their places at dinner. A Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving) joins the group midway through supper, and from there, the six guests learn that they all have one thing in common: Boddy is blackmailing all of them. He has brought them all together to discuss their "financial arrangements" and tells them that if they can kill Wadsworth, each of them will be able to leave the house, and all the evidence against them will be destroyed. Boddy presents each guest with one of the following potentially lethal weapons: a knife, a revolver, a rope, a candlestick, a lead pipe and a wrench. However, not everything goes exactly to plan, and the rest of the evening turns into a murder mystery that terrorizes everyone involved.

Clue is one of those films that I grew up watching on television. I remember it would always play on the family-friendly channels, and there was many a time that I can recall watching it. The film itself flopped during its theatrical release, but it has since gained a bit of a cult following. Sometimes the films with such a following are some of the best, so don't let its lackluster success at the box office deter you from giving this one a gander.

One of the things that most people remember about Clue is that it actually has three different endings. During its theatrical run, only one of the endings would play on random, so you could, in theory, see the film three times and have three different experiences. Once it started playing on television and VHS, however, the three endings were played back-to-back-to-back, inter-cut with title cards saying things like, "That's how it could have happened, but how about this?" or "Here's what really happened." If you can snag the film on DVD, it will give you the option to watch one ending at random or to watch all three simultaneously, but once you've seen all three, I think the simultaneous watch is the best. The endings in the film are brilliant, but they're definitely not the only reason the screenplay succeeds.

What's truly fantastic about the screenplay, which was penned by director Jonathan Lynn, is that a first-time viewer is probably going to be left guessing as to what the film's ultimate outcome might be. It's difficult for me to deduce whether the ending is predictable simply because I've seen the film on so many occasions, but the ending isn't exactly where the best bits come. Yes, the finale is fantastic regardless of which ending you watch, but the plot and the dialogue throughout the film is so top-notch that I have to consider this screenplay to be one of the best comedic screenplays ever to give life to a film. The jokes and gags come at the audience at a mile a minute, and it's going to take you two or three viewings just to catch all the little references here and there. I could make an entire post simply detailing my favorite jokes from the film, but that would offer too many spoilers, in my opinion. What you need to know is that Clue offers a compellingly funny story that blends a number of types of comedy together to make for a fantastically-funny film. The film has a lot of brains behind the silliness, and that's where the brilliance lies.

Fortunately, we're getting a fantastic cast to bring the film's story and characters to life. The entire cast is pitch-perfect, and it makes for quite the comedic romp. What's even better is that it's filled with loads of familiar faces, making the characters even more relatable. Each of them proves their comedic worth at some point throughout the film, and they each play their part to a tee. However, the real credit has to go to Tim Curry, who offers a performance in his career that rivals only his role in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Curry brings a manic energy to the screen that is unmatched by anyone else, and his piece towards the end of the film is so perfectly-acted that I sometimes feel the need to applaud him. It's honestly just that good. The casting crew for this film just knew how to pick 'em, and I think we can all be glad that they did such a marvelous job.

I also have to pay tribute to John Morris, who composed the score for the film. At all times, it fits the events on-screen. The score had to be creepy, it had to be funny, it had to be fanciful. And Morris succeeded in making it all of these things at once. And the film's music truly helps set the mood and the tone of the film, and that alone gives it merit.

At the end of the day, Clue is easily one of the funniest movies I have ever had the privilege to see. Yes, it delves into the dorky here and there, but the intellectual humor blends so seamlessly with the silliness that its difficult not to enjoy this movie. I'd even go so far as to say its one of the best movies I've ever seen, simply because it offers one of the most entertaining movie-going experiences I've ever had, and it manages to remain engaging no matter how many times you watch it. You'll always be finding new things to love and laugh about, and that's what makes Clue both brilliant and timeless.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Should You Watch? Yes

Movie Review: BEGINNERS

BEGINNERS

2011
R


"Our good fortune allowed us to feel a sadness our parents never had the time for."
-- Oliver Fields

Beginners is a 2011 dramatic comedy directed by Mike Mills that tells a non-linear story of two generations of romance. The story moves back and forth between flashbacks and present day as Oliver Fields (Ewan McGregor) comes to terms with two major life events: his 75-year-old father Hal (Christopher Plummer) coming out as a homosexual, and his father's ultimate death at the hands of a cancerous tumor. In the aftermath of his father's death, Oliver meets a young actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent) with whom he starts a relationship despite the fact that he has been less than successful in past romances. The audience learns about Oliver's father through Oliver's memories and the stories he tells Anna, all while they both try to cope with their own life struggles.

I've been meaning to watch Beginners since it made its initial theatrical run last June, and after it scored some early praise, I had a feeling it might resurface come awards season. After nabbing an Academy Award nomination for Plummer in his supporting role, I knew I had to give it a view before the ceremony. It seemed quirky and offbeat, and I'm generally a sucker for films like that.

While I don't have overwhelming praise for this film, I do have to say that it was incredibly well-made and offers quite the experience for the viewer. The non-linear screenplay is going to be hit-or-miss with most viewers - you're either going to love it or hate it depending on your personal preferences. When the film isn't telling the main character stories, it's delving into a series of compare-and-contrast moments between Oliver's present-day livelihood and either his father's, his mother's or Anna's past. It may seem a little off-putting at first, but it also brings a little bit of charm and originality to this story, as well as adds another dimension to the Oliver character. In a way, this film works more as a character study than a story-oriented movie. We're given three principal characters - Oliver, Anna and Hal - each of whom has their own quirks and oddities that ultimately create who they are. All of them have issues with which to deal, and in a way, that's what makes them all the more interesting. I can honestly say I can't remember the last time I've related as much to a character as I did with the Oliver character in this film, though I haven't decided whether that's good or bad just yet. We're getting very thorough character studies with beautiful arcs; if that isn't reason enough to watch this one, then I don't know what is.

Because the characters are so well-written, it stands to say that the acting should be just as fantastic. While I wasn't exactly blown away by the performances, I did think that our three main actors all did their best with how the screenplay was written. Most of the praise has been for Plummer's supporting role: he's already won at the BAFTAs, the SAG Awards and the Golden Globes, and we're still waiting for the Oscar ceremony. Despite this, I personally wasn't sure why he deserved all this hoopla. Yes, he's great in the role, but a part of me wonders whether all these ceremonies are simply trying to honor an older actor who hasn't won much during his career. He didn't nab his first Oscar nomination until his performance in 2009's The Last Station, and after losing that, one could make the argument that the awarding parties may want to throw Plummer a bone this time around. And I'm not pulling this idea out of thin air: a lot of people assumed Colin Firth would win last year's Best Actor race at the Oscars for The King's Speech after he lost the previous year for his performance in A Single Man. But I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. I thought McGregor was very good in his role, and Laurent does a fine job with the limited amount of screentime she actually receives despite being the central female character in the film.

Still, despite the misgivings I've just mentioned, Beginners still manages to strike quite the emotional chord, for me at least. Having only recently laid my grandfather to his eternal rest, the sentiments of losing an aging loved one resonate quite strongly with me. And my ability to relate with the Oliver character was rather eye-opening, so that only fueled the emotions I felt throughout the film. Will you have the same emotional reaction? Who knows. Maybe I'm just an anomaly, and everyone else simply thought it was a well-made film. You be your own judge.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE ARTIST

THE ARTIST

2011
PG-13


"If that's the future, you can have it!"
-- George Valentin

The Artist is a 2011 comedy directed by Michel Hazanavicius that pays homage to the days when "talkies" started to replace the silent films of yesteryear. Silent film actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) has enjoyed rampant success as one of the biggest movie stars of the 1920s, but as the film studios begin to transition towards talking pictures, he merely sees it as a passing fad and holds steadfast to his silent fame. Around the same time, he meets a young up-and-comer named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), to whom he has an instant attraction. The studio finally decides to scrap all silent films, making Peppy one of their biggest stars in the new talkies; in response, George decides to make his own silent film, which proves to be a dud, sending his career spiraling out of control. As the years start to pass by, George falls further and further into obscurity, where he can only watch as Peppy replaces him as the talk of the town.

Considering this movie is currently receiving all the buzz around Hollywood, I figured I should give it a view at some point or another. It just recently won three of its six nominations at the Golden Globes and can now be considered one of the front-runners for the Academy Award for Best Picture, for which it will most likely earn a nomination. With all of its accolades streaming in at high speed, it was only a matter of time until I almost had to give this one a go. And boy am I glad I did.

I've always been a bit of a sucker for movies about movies. The meta-theatrical aspect to such films has always been quite a draw, and even if they're not well-constructed, I find myself loving them regardless. Take 2011's Hugo, for example. It delves into the very start of the motion picture industry, telling a story of Georges Méliès, who many consider to be the grandfather of film. I fell in love with that movie almost instantly. And now, with The Artist, I have to say that I've been a tad bit won over. We've seen movies about actors and their transition from silent films to talking pictures - here's looking at you, Singin' in the Rain - and The Artist manages to hit that chord and fire on all cylinders.

Where this film distances itself from other films like it is in its screenplay. Whereas other films that deal with this subject generally give the audience something to listen to, The Artist chooses to remain virtually silent for nearly the film's entire duration. We're essentially seeing and feeling the transition through George Valentin's eyes and ears, and because he so adamantly wants to remain in the past and live in his silent world, that's exactly what the audience must do as well. We see the signs of the changing tide, but like the silent films of old, we mostly have to deduce the words and sounds that would be associated with them. I think this was the perfect aesthetic choice for this particular film as it helped accentuate the struggle that the George Valentin character has throughout the story.

At the same time, we're getting a fantastic story to complement that aesthetic choice. We see a man who has reached the peak of his fame. Everyone loves and adores him, and the audiences flock to the theaters to see his each and every film. As the talkies start to make their presence known, however, we get an in-depth look at the pain and suffering that George Valentin feels as he is gradually replaced by Hollywood's new starlet. We want to root for the man, but at the same time, we want to hit him upside the head and tell him to let go of his pride. The film manages to come full circle and offers a fantastic finale that is sure to bring a smile to your face.

I also can't say enough about the acting in the film. Dujardin is simply a marvel throughout the film, offering a near-perfect silent film role. Back in the days of silent films, actors needed to be able to express their actions and emotions in a rather over-the-top manner so that the audience was able to keep up with the character. Without the aid of verbal dialogue, it would have been nearly impossible for an audience to remain engaged with a subdued performance, so the showy actors were always the ones to attain fame. Dujardin successfully achieves this over-the-top persona, and he's able to maintain it throughout the film's entirety, regardless of his character's current mood. We're always certain of what he's thinking and feeling simply by the way Dujardin carries himself on-screen. It's a fabulous performance, to be sure.

Luckily, the rest of the cast fills out nicely as well. Bérénice Bejo is great as the film's key female role and Dujardin's love interest. Also be on the lookout for some rather big-name stars in smaller roles, including John Goodman, James Cromwell, Missi Pyle, Ken Davitian and a cameo from Malcolm McDowell. And I couldn't possibly forget Uggie, the dog who's by George Valentin's side for nearly the entire film. Although I can't classify it as "acting," his presence needs to be noted both for his comedic and caring aspects.

I also thought that the film's musical score, which was composed by Ludovic Bource, helped to set the mood perfectly. It hearkens back to the orchestral compositions of the 1920s silent films, and I found it to be key in crafting and holding the tone of the film.

Overall, I honestly cannot give enough praise to The Artist. It's one of those films that only comes around every once in a while, and I'm sure I'll be thinking about it for quite some time. It's sure to be an Oscar contender come that time next month, and I have to say that it will probably be vying for the top spot on my own "Best of 2011" awards contenders. If you haven't had a chance to see it just yet, buy into the hype, do yourself a favor and make your way to the closest movie theater. I'm almost positive that you won't be disappointed.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE SITTER

THE SITTER

2011
R


"Keep it in control, baby. Tears, no fears, man."
-- Noah Griffith

The Sitter is a 2011 comedy directed by David Gordon Green that offers a story of an inexperienced babysitter as he attempts to make it through one night with three upper-class kids. When his mom's friend desperately needs a babysitter, Noah Griffith (Jonah Hill) reluctantly agrees to watch the family's three children: the fearful Slater (Max Records), the wannabe celebrity Blithe (Landry Bender), and the adopted Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez). Hoping for an easy night in, Noah is soon contacted by his alleged girlfriend Marisa (Ari Graynor), who is hoping that he can score her some drugs then find her at a party in New York City. Propelled by the hope for physical relations, Noah decides to take the kids on his trek to drug dealer Karl (Sam Rockwell). As one can imagine, everything happens to go wrong, and Noah soon finds himself fighting not only for his life but for the lives of the three kids he's vowed to keep safe.

If you feel like you've heard this story before, don't worry - you'd probably be right. The Sitter almost feels like a mash-up of a babysitting movie and 2007's Superbad, but it doesn't necessarily offer the same level of comedy. From the moment the film started, it all seemed a little bit cheap. The humor was a little bit off, and although there were a few chuckles here and there, I never actually laughed during any point of the film.

The biggest issue with The Sitter has to be its screenplay. Sure, we get quite a few twists and turns throughout the storyline, but there really isn't anything all that new. It's almost as though the screenwriters chose to go with as rote a story as possible, hoping that the actors themselves would be able to give the film a little bit of life. Unfortunately, most of the leading adult characters - Hill's, Graynor's and Rockwell's, to be specific - are not that well-written, and I was left scratching my head at how they could have possibly decided to give this movie a go. And so, with a predictable storyline and so-so dialogue between the characters, we're just not getting a strong written component to this film.

That's not to say that the cast doesn't do its best to try and make ends meet. Jonah Hill brings his standard performance, all the way down to his near-trademark shake of the head followed by the wide-eyed stare. I feel like I've seen this character so many times since Hill made his big splash in the aforementioned Superbad that I've grown just a tad bit weary of it. Directors continue to come back to him, but until he can prove to me that he has a little bit of range (which he ever-so-slightly showed in 2011's Moneyball), I'm going to be a little bit wary of his performances. Graynor and Rockwell start out well, but their characters ultimately prove annoying about halfway through the film; however, I blame this on the screenplay rather than the acting. There's only so much that an actor can do when a screenplay is this poor. I did think that our child actors did a decent job. Max Records, who some of you may remember from 2009's Where the Wild Things Are, gives a strong performance as a young teen coming to terms with his personality, and Landry Bender offers most of the films stronger bits of comedy. That being said, however, there's still not a lot going on in terms of the acting performances.

Overall, The Sitter is probably a movie that you should avoid unless you can somehow watch it for free. If you're a fan of Jonah Hill, this'll be right up your alley, but even then, it's by no means one of his better films. As I said before, The Sitter offered me a couple of chuckles here and there, but there was no point where I actually felt the need to laugh. That's not a good sign for a film attempting to be a comedy.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: D-
1.5 Thumbs Down

Movie Review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

2011
PG-13


"No subject is terrible if the story is true, if the prose is clean and honest, and if it affirms courage and grace under pressure."
-- Ernest Hemingway

Midnight in Paris is a 2011 romantic comedy directed by Woody Allen that holds a rather fantastical feel. While Gil (Owen Wilson), an accomplished screenwriter but struggling novelist, vacations in Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents, he attempts to craft his current attempt at a novel - a story of the owner of a nostalgia store - into something profound and interesting. One night after a wine tasting, Gil finds himself lost in the city. As the clock strikes midnight, however, an older-style car pulls up to the curb, and the passengers beckon for him to join them. Within moments, Gil finds himself at a lavish party surrounded by literary types from decades before. After a little bit of time, as well as a meeting with the Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), Gil realizes he has been transported into the Parisian 1920s, an era that he truly loves and adores. Gil begins to return to the same curb each night, and he begins to make the acquaintances of the likes of Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston) and a young woman named Adriana (Marion Cotillard), whom he starts to fancy. His nightly outings become his newfound joy as he tries to balance these magical experiences with his humdrum livelihood in the present day, where Inez seems to be falling into an adulterous affair with pseudo-intellectual Paul (Michael Sheen).

I was fortunate enough to go into this film moderately blind. I've known about the film for some time, and I have been eager to watch it since it opened to fantastic critical reviews. In the past few weeks, Midnight in Paris has been striking it rich with awards nominations, most notably receiving a total of four nominations for the Golden Globe Awards. Most of the critical praise has been for Allen himself, both for his directing capability as well as his well-crafted screenplay. In terms of the film's story, however, I went in completely blind. All I knew was that it was an Allen-directed film that starred Owen Wilson, and that it was receiving great reviews. Sometimes, that's the best way to go into a film.

All that said, this review might make a few of my readers take a step back. I'll just come out and say this now: I did not love Midnight in Paris. That's not to say, however, that I didn't like it. It proved to be an entertaining flick that had me rolling with laughter at times, and some of the references to classic literary and art figures were brilliant. Still, I had a few issues with the movie as a whole.

Let's start with the screenplay, shall we? I do think that Allen has created a very inventive and clever piece here, and as is often the case, his dialogue is the real strength of the film. Some of the rambling quotes from the Hemingway character are simply fantastic, but even our lead in Gil is given quite a bit of room with which to work. I also liked the ultimate revelation that the Gil character learns towards film's end, and the fact that it all comes full circle is a major plus. My issue, however, is that it was all terribly predictable. From the moment that Gil stepped into the past, so to speak, I knew where the film was headed. I immediately picked up on the realization that it took Gil another seventy-five minutes to learn and understand. This predictability doesn't necessarily take away from the statement the film makes, but it does lessen the power of that statement. Had it been hidden until Gil's realization, I think the film could have proven a deep and powerful piece; as it currently stands, however, the predictability ultimately takes away the emotional power.

There's no real way I can knock on the acting in the film, although I didn't find it all that brilliant as a whole. As previously stated, most of the positive critical response has been for Allen's work behind the scenes, but there has been some mention of the cast as well (i.e., Wilson, McAdams and Stoll have all received nominations for their performances from various awards shows and critic groups). Wilson does well as our leading character, but I found it difficult to distance myself from his previous work. In the past, he's done so many lesser comedies that placing him in a film like this made him seem a little out of place. That being said, however, I do think he does well with what he's given, and Allen did a great job with writing his character in a way that Wilson could perform well. McAdams started out well but started to get on my nerves a little bit towards film's end. The two best performances in the film have to go to Michael Sheen and Corey Stoll. From the moment he stepped on-screen, I hated Sheen's Paul, and that was entirely the point of the character. And Stoll, as the legendary Hemingway, offers the film's best performance. He's utterly brilliant, and I only wish the film would have incorporated his character a little bit more. Marion Cotillard does well as the film's other central female character, and we get a good, although severely limited, performance from Kathy Bates. Also be on the lookout for a fantastic cameo from Adrien Brody.

If anything is working exceptionally well in the film, it's the soundtrack. The film's opening scene sets the tone with a montage of shots around Paris, and the background music helps create the Parisian mood and atmosphere. As Gil travels back and forth in time, the music successfully transitions as well, offering something a little bit different so that we know we've been taken to another time. Truly a greatly-pieced together soundtrack.

At the end of the day, Midnight in Paris is a good film that strives to be a great one. The critical consensus on Rottentomatoes.com offers the following insight to the film:

It may not boast the depth of his classic films, but the sweetly sentimental Midnight in Paris is funny and charming enough to satisfy Woody Allen fans.

I have to agree with the statement. It's by no means a bad film, but it just doesn't quite measure up to the Allen films of old. Still, it's a fun romp through the streets and times of Paris, and for that, it should be applauded and enjoyed.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: YOUNG ADULT

YOUNG ADULT

2011
R


"Here's the deal: Buddy Slade and I are meant to be together, and I'm here to get him back."
-- Mavis Gary

Young Adult is a 2011 dramatic comedy directed by Jason Reitman that tells the story of a former prom queen who returns to her hometown in order to win back her high school sweetheart. Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron), who has garnered success as the ghost writer for an incredibly popular series of young adult novels, learns that her former beau Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson) has welcomed a newborn daughter with his wife Beth (Elizabeth Reaser). Distraught, Mavis packs her things and makes her way from her home in Minneapolis to the small town of Mercury, Minnesota, where she was born and raised. After making plans to meet with Buddy, she stumbles into a local bar and reconnects with former classmate Matt Freehauf (Patton Oswalt), in whom she drunkenly confides her plan to destroy the Slade marriage. Matt protests and tells her that her plan is foolish, but Mavis ignores his warnings and attempts to win back the supposed love of her life.

I first heard about this film a couple of months ago, but it was never very high my "must-see" list; however, after scoring a Golden Globe nomination for Theron's leading performance, I figured I'd give it a shot. After doing a little bit of research, I learned that this was a Reitman-helmed and Diablo Cody-written flick, and that added a bit of interest for me (for those of you who may recall, Cody won an Oscar for her screenplay for 2007's Juno). Also add that I'm usually impressed with Theron and have a love/hate relationship with Wilson, I thought I'd give this one a view seeing as time permitted.

I've been hearing a lot of good things about the film's screenplay, but I personally couldn't find a way to get into it entirely. That doesn't mean, however, that I hated it completely. Let's start with the pros. First, I like the correlation and connectivity between the film's story and the novel that the Mavis character is writing periodically throughout the film. In a way, the leading character in Mavis's leading novel - a high school cheerleader - is going through the same issues in a bit of a reduced capacity, considering the age difference. Also, I thought the characters within the film were incredibly well-written, especially that of Mavis herself. There's a depth to each of the characters that's rare in a lot of mainstream flicks nowadays.

And now for the cons. I understand where Cody was going with the screenplay, but I don't think she necessarily brought the story full circle. She crafted the Mavis character to be a woman who is in a state of suspended adolescence. After a series of tragic events, all of which are mentioned during the film, it's easy to see how a similarly afflicted individual might respond in such a psychological manner. However, Mavis is crafted as such an unlikable character that it's difficult for the audience to care about her in any respect. And because she's the central character and appears in the film's every scene, it's going to take a lot for your average moviegoer to enjoy this one if they can't find any reason to like our lead. In a way, this may have been the point of the film, but for whatever reason, I just thought that it fell a little flat. The film's final climax and turn just didn't have the power they should have had, and as a result, I think the film suffers a little bit.

That's not to say that the acting was at fault. I thought that Theron did a fantastic job with the character, and if she manages to win awards for her performance, I wouldn't be surprised. The real surprise was Oswalt, who managed to bring most of the film's comedy to the screen; however, he also brought a good chunk of drama, and in that, I was thoroughly impressed. His stock has been on the rise since his well-received role in 2009's Big Fan, so maybe we'll have a chance to see him in some more in the coming years. Wilson and Reaser do well with their respective roles, but they're vastly underutilized. Even if the story wasn't centered around their own relationship, I think the movie might have benefited from a little more of drama between Mavis and the Slade couple. Also be on the lookout for a couple of great scenes from Collette Wolfe.

Ultimately, I'm not sure whether I can honestly recommend that you go watch Young Adult. In ways, it's a well-written film that offers some fine acting performances, but it lacks a signature punch that pushes it ahead of other dramatic comedies. It's not necessarily going to leave you with a good taste in your mouth. In his review for the Detroit News, Tom Long said that "Young Adult may be the year's most engaging feel-bad movie." While I agree with calling it a "feel-bad" film, I just didn't find it all that engaging. Maybe I'm missing something.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B
0.5 Thumbs Up