The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

***1/2 stars

Leave it to David Fincher to adapt the enormously popular Swedish book and films series by Stieg Larsson and Niels Arden Oplev into an electrifying American thriller. This is a film so well shot and edited your brain will spin for hours after trying to decipher the speed and mastery of an almost three hour film. Rooney Mara is electric as Lisbeth Salander, the dark and mysterious hacker who goes through hell, only later to unleash it. She is need of help from disgraced journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) as he is hired to investigate the disappearance (or murder) of a young woman from over 40 years ago. While the mystery begins with her disappearance, there’s plenty more to uncover. The duo becomes entangled in a web of corruption and ruthlessness. The setting is cold and bleak, the locations dark and narrow, with many scenes shot at night or in troubled weather conditions. It only adds to the chaos of the story as David Fincher directs a brutal, yet masterful thriller that is guided with top notch performances from its cast (particularly Rooney Mara, who steals every scene she is in) and the fantastic editing by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall. The film was marketed as “the feel bad movie of Christmas”. The only way to feel bad about this movie…is to not see it. 

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

***1/2 stars

No recent blockbuster does a better job at creating organic action than Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol, the best action movie of the year. If you’re going to kick-start a franchise back into high gear and avoid staleness, you better do it right. Many can’t say that. This franchise installment can. 

Tom Cruise is underrated. Yes, the biggest movie star on the planet is underrated. Why? Because no one can do what he does. I dare you to find another actor that would hang from the highest building in the world by one wire and then beg for multiple takes in the process. On screen, the man is a perfectionist. The true action star is still alive. His name is Tom Cruise. And he isn’t going anywhere. 

The movie picks up with Ethan Hunt in prison, only to be immediately broken out of in the first scene. But things are just getting started. Hunt and his team must track down a terrorist named Hendricks, who may be on his way to launching nuclear weapons towards American soil. In one captivating scene, the IMF team breaks into the Kremlin and attempts to take him down. Not only does it end with the Kremlin being blown into pieces, but Ethan Hunt and company are blamed for it. IMF has been disavowed. Now they must stop Hendricks to avoid a nuclear war and to prove their innocence. 

With great stakes and stunning set pieces, Ghost Protocol delivers. I’d like to discuss the one scene everyone is talking about. You know, that scene. The one where Tom Cruise climbs, runs, hangs, and flies around the highest floors of the tallest building in the world (the Burj Khalifa in Dubai) and creates such an outstanding scene because of it. No CGI. No bullshit. This is real, scary filmmaking. It will leave you breathless. The rest of the movie manages to be about the same. 

The Artist

**** stars

This is one of those films that’s so entertaining and educational on every single level that it’s a shame it’s not being widely released. The Artist has been one of the most talked about films of the year. For people who haven’t seen it, you’re probably sick of hearing about it. Why? Not because you don’t want to see it, it’s because you can’t. Sure, it’s expanding to more theaters every week, but when you have a movie that’s an Oscar frontrunner, that won the crowd over at Cannes, and that it’s the first legitimate silent movie to be released since the World War II era, you wonder if it it's really as good as everyone says it is. The answer is yes. The performances, direction, and music are completely spot on. It captures an era of Hollywood that is so long ago it feels like science-fiction. And how ironic that in 2011 where Hollywood is now all about loud-and-noisy sequels that the movie that could represent the year is a silent movie? Expect Oscar nominations around the board for best picture, director Michel Hazanavicius, lead actor Jean Dujardin, and supporting actress Berenice Bejo. Dujardin and Bejo, who evoke so much emotion without saying a single word, deserve to be heard regardless. The Artist is a film to be treasured, appreciated, and loved over and over again.

My Week with Marilyn

*** stars

There is something innocently fascinating about watching a modern day star portray a star from the past. It’s always a great role for the modern day actor as it captures their range and fundamentals as a figure people have already come to have a perception about. Plus, the Academy Awards pay close attention to you. Robert Downey picked up his first Oscar nomination portraying Charlie Chaplin in Chaplin and Cate Blanchett won an Oscar playing Katherine Hepburn in The Aviator (there’s plenty more to choose from here). Here, Michelle Williams plays Marilyn Monroe and she absolutely nails it. As does Kenneth Branagh as Sir Lawrence Olivier. In the film, Monroe is on set for the famous director’s The Prince and the Showgirl. However, My Week with Marilyn is not through the point-of-view of the prolific stars, but rather of a third assistant director who just landed his first real job in the business. Apparently for a week, young Colin Clark’s intrigue for Marilyn grows into more than just an attraction. She invites him into her life and the two become close for a short period of time. About a week I'd say (no pun intended). While it was probably the highlight of Colin's life, for Marilyn it feels like she's just passing time considering how much she had gone through in her lifetime. However, Michelle Williams is an odyssey to behold as the legendary actress, one in which if she continues with performances like this, she will be well on her way to becoming one herself. 

The Descendants

**** stars

There’s a reason why George Clooney is the frontrunner in this year’s Oscar race for best actor. He’s superb. And not just in that consistent George Clooney way. Here he seems to be putting his whole career into this performance. A funny, touching, and heartbreaking performance. With these three components mixed in with director Alexander Payne’s masterful blend of comedy and drama, you have an American masterpiece. Clooney plays Matt King, a successful lawyer who for too many years spent most of his time at the office than at home. When his wife suffers a boating accident and falls into a coma, things obviously start to change. He’s never had to be a full-time parent before. Now he does. His two daughters, Alex, age 17 (played wonderfully by Shailene Woodley) & Scottie, age 10 (Amara Miller) are good kids, but there’s clear signs of disconnect between them and their father. The beautiful conflict here is that for the first time since they all can remember, just the three of them are forced to spend time together. At the same time, Matt is on the verge of selling off his Hawaiian land for a huge chunk of change. Oh, and one more thing. His comatose wife was cheating on him. So where does this guy start? How can he get his life back together? Alexander Payne paints a portrait of Hawaiian paradise mixed in with the trials and tribulations of a family’s tragedy. A surefire Oscar contender and a homerun for all involved. 

Hugo

**** stars

So it seems Martin Scorsese can do just about anything. When I say this, I mean that the man behind some of the greatest films of all time (along with some of the most violent) has now mastered the 3D family-adventure genre on his first try at the age of 69. Not only a beautiful love-letter to the art of film, Hugo is a dazzling spectacle told with elegance and grace from its master storyteller. 

The film opens with an astonishing shot. Scorsese sweeps the camera down into the streets of 1930's Paris, crossing into a train station and through the station's large mechanical clock. Inside the clock is a young orphaned boy, staring into the commotion of human travel. His name is Hugo (played by Asa Butterfield) and he runs the clock. He also fixes other gadgets as he learned to from his father and uncle. After his father's tragic death, Hugo has nothing left of him but an automaton that doesn't work. He tries desperately to fix it, but struggles to find its heart-shaped key. 

You could say on paper that the film is about Hugo trying to fix the automaton to discover the mystery he's been searching for since his father's death, but there's way more to it than that. On his adventure, he meets a cranky old man named Georges Melies (Ben Kingsley) and his god-daughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). Hugo and Isabelle bond over their fascination into discovering the automaton's mystery, while Georges is a sad creature, who bosses Hugo around after he accuses him of stealing from his shop at the train station. As the story progresses, we learn that they all have a connection to Hugo's father and the automaton, which unlocks Georges memory of his importance to cinema's history.

How ironic that a tale about the significance of film preservation is also a film worthy of its very subject? Hugo startles the emotions and dazzles the senses. The 3D is so well executed and the performances are so rich that when we see Ben Kingsley give the film's climatic speech, it's as though he is only speaking to you and no one else. Scorsese, working once again with his editor Thelma Shoonmaker, creates a world so vivid and warm-hearted, I dare you not to fall for its charm.

One finally note: for the first time since Avatar, I can safely say that 3D makes a movie better. See Hugo in 3D, and let Scorsese take care of the rest.

Five for Five: A Rare Run of Great Movies

I apologize for the two month hiatus. LaMarcable Productions is stringing me up by my pull strings. With Oscar season alive and well, I promise to come back from the dead. What a way to do it with my recent cinematic experiences. For the first time in many moons, I went to the movies five times in a row and saw five of the best movies of the year.

Drive - ****

An excellent American-crime drama about a Hollywood stuntman appropriately unnamed as just "Driver" (Ryan Gosling) who after performing his day-time job duties, uses his skills in a much darker sense. His motto is that he's a driver. You have five minutes with him. Anything before or after that five minutes, you're on your own. But for five minutes, he's yours. That's pretty much the underlying factor in the entire film. His boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) borrows $300,000 from mobster Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) who wants the driver to race for him after displaying his extraordinary skills. But things start spiraling out of control when the Driver's neighbor Irene (Carrey Mulligan) sees her husband come home from prison only to be in debt to someone that is threatening to kill him. The Driver helps him out because he cares for the family, but things turn for the worse after trying to pay off the debt. Everything becomes tangled in a web, as the movie (beautifully executed by Cannes Best Director winner Nicholas Winding Refn) becomes a violent poem of tragic action. Gosling is superb in the role, fully embodying the cold-soul of a man who is almost a mute voluntarily. When you simultaneously live your life along the edge, something in you must be bursting to come out. Drive takes that rush and turns into overdrive. An unpredictable and mind-blowing thriller.

Moneyball - **** stars

Sport dramas seem to be extinct. Hell, if it weren't for the masterful TV series Friday Night Lights, I'd say the genre has become irrelevant. But here comes Moneyball, a wonderful drama about the ups-and-downs of America's past time, the thrill of discovery something new about a century long tradition, and the integrity it takes to change the game forever. Brad Pitt is electric as Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane, who after a disappointing loss in the American League Divisional Series against the New York Yankees and with the help of his young partner in-crime Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), decides to try something new in the game of baseball. Even while coming off a 100 win season, he's not going to go the traditional route of going after all-stars. Instead, he is going to balance the budget by employing computer-generated analysis to draft his players. More specifically, Beane thinks that players like Scott Hattenberg, an average baseball player coming off injuries, have a better statistical chance of helping the team win games than an all-star would. It's a fascinating concept, one that eventually gave the team a 20-game win streak (the most in history), but collapses when things just don't work out. However, the Boston Red Sox took this strategy the following year and won the World Series for the first time in 86 years. So as a Red Sox fan, it looks like we must give thanks to Billy Beane for helping to break the Bambino curse. Director Bennett Miller (Capote) makes it look easy as Moneyball, with its all-star cast (also including Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Robin Wright) and scrappy energy, makes one satisfying trip to the movies.

Take Shelter - **** stars

Michael Shannon gives the performance of the year (so far) in this Shyamalan-esque thriller that delivers the thrills and chills about a rural-town construction worker who starts having visions that a horrible storm is coming and it's up to him to build a shelter to protect his family. Even if that means spending money he doesn't have and making everyone in the town believe he's gone insane. His wife, played flawlessly by this year's breakout actress Jessica Chastain, loves his husband dearly, but even she believes this the sign of something much worse to come. Is it his family's history of schizophrenia that's causing his madness? Is it a mental breakdown? Or is a storm actually coming and he is trying to save the people he loves the most? This is the best film so far this year, a stunning tour-de-force that has the patience and execution of a master. The final scene in this film is so mind-blowing it was as though I could feel the weather inside the theater. That's how much this film gets into your head. It's almost impossible to get out.

50/50 - **** stars

This comedy-drama from the Superbad team of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg is the film of the Oscar season that perfectly blends its two genres. In fact, there really isn't anything not to like about this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues his tremendous success by playing Adam, a mid-20's New Yorker who one day after deciding to see his doctor about his intense back pain finds out he has cancer. The kind that shortens your life extensively. Imagine the cruelness of that day. He wakes up. Everything is normal. He goes to the doctor and his life changes in a matter of seconds. My heart aches for those who must go through this in real life. 50/50 honors this struggle with a story full of heart and humor, delivering trauma when it needs to and laughs when it has a right to. In this case, it's pretty much the entire movie.

The Ides of March - ***1/2 stars

It may not be perfect, but The Ides of March is a rocket-fueled thriller about the temptations of power and the realities of its inhibitors. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, the man behind the next possible President of the United States, Governor Mike Norris (George Clooney, who also directed the feature). Meyers gets a crash course in dirty politics as he must learn how to balance the morals of his beliefs and the realities he must face in order to get his candidate elected. What we get is a fast-paced drama that reaps the benefits of its star-studded cast (the right kind, featuring Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, and Evan Rachel Wood) and creates tension through intimate conversations that eventually decide the fate of a nation. A great film to watch considering the relevance of the 2012 Presidential Election and the fragile tone of the people's trust in its process.

Contagion

** stars
   

Just because a threat in a movie feels real doesn't mean you have the authority to supersede tension. For the first hour, Contagion is a finely crafted thriller, but every scene loses tension as it progresses. I actually can't see this film making the light of day without its star-studded cast (including Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Laurence Fishburne, Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, John Hawkes, Demetri Martin, and Elliot Gould).

Steven Soderbergh knows how to tempt an actor into working with him. He's an Oscar-winning director, his movies usually make money so your paycheck tends to be hefty, and most of the time you're only in a small amount of scenes. Easy work. Good money. Perfect fit, right?

Well, just because you have great actors doesn't mean it can cover the holes in a lousy screenplay. The film opens on "Day 2" in Hong Kong with a close-up of a sick woman (played by Gweneth Paltrow) waiting to board a flight back to America. She looks sick. Very sick. As if she is a walking plague. She gets home, hugs her kids, wakes up the next morning, and collapses into a terrifying seizure. I think it's safe to say that there's no spoiler here to know that she doesn't make it. It's the start of the movie. The secret here is why she got sick and how contagious she really is. When people start dropping all over the world, I think we found our answer.

What's spreading this horrible virus? It's basically the same scenario that's been seen before, especially in the action TV-series 24, where there is an outbreak of a rare disease that causes fatal symptoms the moment you are touched by someone who is infected. In 24, the story had way more characters to care about with a threat of more than just an outbreak. It was a tangled web of espionage and disaster. Contagion seemed to be written by someone who went out for a bite to eat, got sick later that night, and woke up to write a screenplay about his experience. It's a real fear, sure, but without memorable characters and a clear-cut plot, there's no difference between this and a public service announcement about swine flu.

Soderbergh has a unique visual style that is always present in his movies. His music choices are always eclectic and does a fine job at building tension. Yet Contagion has a hard time deciding between being a full-out disaster movie and a sad drama about the deaths of a certain few. It lands somewhere between mild suspense and stiffness. The Social Network made a movie about facebook more intense than Contagion does with a worldwide epidemic. So clearly it's not the subject matter to blame, but something a bit more internal.

$1 Billion Ain't What It Used To Be

Before this millennium, there was only one film in history (not counting adjustment for inflation) that ever crossed the $1 billion mark. It's name was Titanic. 

Titanic was a movie so massive that Hollywood couldn't find enough things to do with it. For 20th Century Fox, when the $200 million historical-romantic epic opened to a paltry $28.6 million in December of 1997, they were instantly ready to write the film off as a disaster. However, due to epic word-of-mouth and the help of pre-teens drooling over the fantasy of Leonardo Dicaprio, business continued week after week. Titanic stayed at number one for fifteen straight weeks, something you rarely see in this day-and-age. In fact, it's been so rare that the closest film to match that is another James Cameron epic called Avatar, which stayed on top for seven consecutive weeks. Even with the adjustment for inflation and the added fees for 3D & IMAX, nothing could match the staying power of Titanic, which eventually grossed a whopping $1.8 billion worldwide.

Now, we all know that Avatar hit an astonishing $2.7 billion worldwide. But the focus in this column is not about films like Titanic & Avatar, because regardless of how you feel towards these blockbusters, these were still huge movie events. They earned their money respectively, not relying on opening weekend profits but on tremendous buzz and the urge to see it the right way, in theaters. I stand by The Dark Knight because even with the second highest opening weekend of all time at $158 million, it continued steady business to eventually hit the $1 billion mark worldwide.

There have only been ten films in the history of cinema to reach that mark. Three of them were released this year. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (which is also the highest opening weekend of all time at $169 million) deservedly crossed the $1 billion mark because it was a great end to an already phenomenally successful (and respectable) franchise. It's still in theaters and crushing records, lifting its worldwide total to $1.3 billion and counting. 

Now, here's where the dilemma lies. This year, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, two horrible movies, both surpassed $1 billion. After this occurrence, I realized that $1 billion ain't what it used to be. 

On Stranger Tides is an unnecessary fourth installment in a franchise that is only surviving because of the unprecedented reliability from Johnny Depp. The studio wanted a moneymaker and it got one. But at what cost? The movie bombed domestically, grossing only $240 million (the movie's budget is approximately $250 million), but made massive amounts overseas, pushing its total to $1.039 billion in revenue. Because of its poor domestic numbers, it's a tainted record, one that lets Jerry Bruckheimer sleep easy, but makes fans crash with fatigue.

Same goes for Dark of the Moon, the incredibly painful experience created by the Steven Spielberg of bad movies, Michael Bay (is it a cruel irony that the film was produced by Spielberg?) It shoved 3D in our faces and the franchise once again used its Fourth of July release date to manipulate Americans into believing that it demands viewing on the anniversary of our country's independence. The film is about robots mercilessly destroying each other over-and-over again with an occasional shot of excessive skin from a hot "actress". What's sad is that many people do find this fitting, because it's now the fifth highest grossing film of all time with a disgusting worldwide total of $1.114 billion.

Considering these movies did make a chunk of change, of course there must be people out there who like these movies. But what ever happened to the truly huge movie events? Avatar was one of those films. Same goes for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.1 Billion), The Dark Knight ($1.001 billion) and Toy Story 3 (1.1 billion). But now, after seeing mediocre films cross that milestone, I'm beginning to worry that the novelty of box-office records is starting to wear off. Even though Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest wasn't the greatest film in the world, it still felt like an event. It was the return of Jack Sparrow, a beloved movie character. Four films and a character hangover later, if (or should I say when) Jack Sparrow gets a fifth chance to be on the billboards again, it will become another parody within itself and explode into emptiness. Basically, the same fate as another Johnny Depp vessel, Alice in Wonderland (for the record, this column is not intended to insult Johnny Depp, for that would be an act of near treason). What I'm saying is that you got lucky this time around Hollywood, so enjoy the money while you can and run for the hills before you screw everything up again next year.

On the other hand, there is a delightful collection of worthy and potential $1 billion hits in 2012. The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the 23rd James Bond entry (which would be a first for the historic franchise) and The Avengers. While there are bad apples to avoid (Breaking Dawn: Part II, Men in Black III, and Battleship), stay focused on the films that are the true events. In other words, to Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson, we rely on you once again.

So my unbiased question to leave with you is this: Do you think a film's billion dollar box-office success translates into the quality of the film? Before the debate begins, I will say my piece. I think it depends on the film. For example, The Dark Knight became a huge box-office phenomenon because it was simply one of the best films to ever be released on the big screen. Sure, it's a sequel based off popular source material, but because of the hype around Heath Ledger's last performance and the breathtaking direction by Christopher Nolan, it became more than a Batman movie. It became a once-in-a-generation movie event, which is something we movie buffs tend to live off of. Clearly, this is a matter of taste, but what do you think? Let the debate begin.

Post Labor Day: A Return to Glory?

(Leonardo Dicaprio in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar)

The 2011 summer movie season is over and done with. Water under the bridge. So long Harry. Let's move on.

Maybe 2011 is saving the best for last. For the first time in history, we have a Clint Eastwood film (J. Edgar), a Martin Scorsese picture (Hugo), two Spielberg movies (The Adventures of Tintin & War Horse), and a David Fincher fix to boot (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) all in the same year. Dear Hollywood, maybe it's time we shift our focus back to simply making good movies. No more excessive Twilight coverage and enough with the constant need of re-branding superheroes, for we need to expand our minds and search for the heart and soul of cinema if we ever want it to return to normalcy again.

It's Labor Day weekend. A weekend that could be a tremendous release date for potential Academy Award contenders. If the first weekend in May is the first big movie event of the summer, why can't this weekend be the beginning of Oscar season? People are home from vacations, looking for cheap and local entertainment after school and work.

What better way to spend it than a J. Edgar biopic starring Leonardo Dicaprio directed by Clint Eastwood? Or maybe you want to try something different this Thanksgiving and see if Martin Scorsese can pull of 3D with Hugo. Steven Spielberg returns to the director chair after numerous producing credits that many people are certainly feeling fatigue from. This year, he will be lighting up Christmas with two new features. First up, his motion capture picture with producer Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin. Five days later comes his World War I epic War Horse. In between these two movies is David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, "the feel bad movie of Christmas." Feel good movie of the year if you ask me, judging by the sheer blast adrenaline felt from its teaser trailer.

All in all, there really hasn't been much to live off these days. Producer Guillermo Del Toro's Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was too flat, 30 Minutes or Less was too weak, Cowboys & Aliens lacked energy, and you know times are tough when one of the best blockbusters of the summer is Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But let's keep our heads up here. There are things to look forward to this fall. First potential Oscar buzz? Keep an eye out for George Clooney's The Ides of March, a political thriller that supposedly knocks it out of the park.

To all those listening on The Jordan Rich Show, post your comments and let the debate begin. What movie are you looking forward to the most this coming Oscar season?

Our Idiot Brother

*** stars

Our Idiot Brother tries a lot harder than other films in its genre to have a reason for existing. It's a comedy about a stoner, but it's not a stoner comedy. This is a compliment. The always reliable Paul Rudd is hilariously funny as Ned, an organic farmer who gets busted for selling drugs to a cop. Now, Ned says no at first, but the cop said he wanted the pot because he had a rough week, so Ned feels bad and agrees. This is where the take down occurs. Ned has a couple screws loose, but he is also sweet and concerning. Which is why his sisters put up with him: Miranda (Elizabeth Banks), the urban-esque journalist type, Natalie (Zooey Deschanel), the hip retro-lesbian type, and Liz (Emily Mortimer), the given-up wife who hides behind her husband type. All of them at one point put Ned up at their place. He creates a problem and goes on to the next sister. Or does he? Our Idiot Brother does a great job at making Ned an intricate character, letting the others around him be convinced that he is the one to blame for all of their problems while at the same time never condoning any of them. It's a little weird at times with a rather cheesy ending (I feel the studio had a hand in this one), but in a month where movies have been mediocre at best, Our Idiot Brother provides a fun and harmless time for you and yours.

Another Earth

**** stars

There is something miraculous about a movie that has huge ambitions, is able to surpass those huge ambitions, and land somewhere between transcendent and exuberant. What's even more miraculous? The reported $150,000 it cost to make.

I'd like to take a minute to comment on this $150,000 budget. This idea could have easily been turned into a big-budget explosiathon (my new word of choice for any film resembling a Michael Bay picture), an outcome that would have lost the movie's credibility and directorial edge by Mike Cahill. It is a delight to know that someone out there knows how to tell a story without the fixation of the almighty dollar. I for one am deeply in love with this version of Another Earth, a startling and fascinating story about turning a personal tragedy into potential catharsis.

Imagine you're a high school senior. You've just been accepted into your dream school and everything in your life is going to plan. That's what Rhonda Williams (a stunning performance from Brit Marling) had going for her, until one fateful mistake. On the night of her celebration into getting MIT, Rhonda gets drunk and drives right into another vehicle, killing a mother and child, and emotionally paralyzing the father. But not right before she sees something, something in the sky. Something that's similar to something she's seen a million times before, but never in the sky. It is another earth.

On this earth though, Rhonda spends four years in jail, and upon her release, she lives at home working as a janitor. Losing everything has made her become a sad soul. In order to regain it, she must act like there's nothing to lose. Rhonda seeks out the father, John Burroughs (William Mapother), hoping to confess her crimes, as he does not know who the culprit is that took his whole life away in a matter of seconds. When she approaches his doorstep, she retreats, and instead tells him that she is willing to clean his house for him as a service. He agrees, but with the rough state he and his physical surroundings have become, he doesn't really have a choice.

There is a growth in Rhonda and John's relationship that I do not want to directly give away, but I will say that at first glance is may feel a bit like a soap opera, but it is within the depth of the characters and the performances of its stars that allow us to believe the actions that we see.

So in all this, you're asking yourself, what does this have to do with another earth? As this is all taking place, the talk of this world has been about the discussion of the other in its vision. When NASA decides to send astronauts and a lucky few to explore the new terrain, Rhonda decides that her story is heartbreaking enough that she just may be in deserving of a new start. Then again, doesn't everyone? Another Earth discusses the themes of vulnerability, uncertainty, and hope, all within the confines of a film that dares to be something completely different than the rest.

And all the better for it.

30 Minutes or Less

** stars

In an era where comedy seems almost impossible to replicate, 30 Minutes or Less does nothing to retort this claim. Nothing but a movie dumped at the end of the summer with a few comedic stars attached to it to try and recoup its petite budget. Forgettable and harmless. Yawn. Where's the excitement of Get Him to the Greek? The epicness of The Hangover? The hilarious awkwardness of a nostalgic comedy like Superbad? This buddy comedy starring about a pizza delivery guy (Jesse Eisenberg) who gets a bomb strapped to his chest by a couple wannabe criminals (Danny McBride & Nick Swardson) and receives help from his school teacher best friend (Aziz Ansari) musters a few laughs, but fails to ignite into anything more than an afterthought. Not hard to watch, but just as easy to ignore.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

***1/2 stars

Maybe it was the low expectations. Maybe it's because of Andy Serkis and his brilliance with motion captured performances, but Rise of the Planet of the Apes is surprisingly one of the funnest times you'll have at the movies all summer.

Andy Serkis is something else. A brilliant actor, and sometimes it feels like no one even knows how brilliant he really is. I always had this vision that if I ever met him, I would joke around and say, "Oh, so you're the guy who does the voice for Gollum?" Obviously, and deservedly, he would probably punch in the face. But realistically, I would probably tell him that he is changing the movie business for better and for always. First Gollum, then King Kong, and now Caesar, the ape who changes the world for worse and for always.

That doesn't go without saying that Caesar is a tragic soul who has a deep love for his human, Will Rodman (James Franco), a neuroscientist who desperately tries to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease. His father Charles (John Lithgow) has been a long time sufferer from the illness, which roots the story that Will is doing this to save the one he loves. He develops a virus called ALZ-112 and tests it on chimpanzees in a San Francisco lab. Just when he thinks he has found the cure, the side effects cause one of the chimpanzee's to go on a lunatic rampage, causing the destruction of the project.

However, the reason for the chimpanzee's behavior is because she feels her baby, Caesar, is threatened. When Will's boss Steven Jacobs (David Ovelowo) demands that all the apes be put down, Will's collegue Robert Franklin (Tyler Labine) cannot muster the courage to follow through with this order and kill Caesar. Instead, he secretly passes him off to Will, who raises him. Through all this, Caesar has gained his mother's overwhelming intelligence after years of learning and TLC from Will. Caesar is something so rare it's as if he can be the one who changes everything we humans have come to believe.

Years later, Caesar, still living with Will, and who is very close with Will's father, sees Charles suffering from his disease out in public. He accidentally stumbles into a neighbor's car and tries to drive it, causing severe damage to the vehicle. When the owner of the vehicle yells and pushes him around, Caesar, seeing this from the attic window, flies outside and violently injures the man in an attempt to protect Charles. At this point, Animal Control is called in and Caesar is sent to ape prison.

Here comes the revolution. Caesar, feeling betrayed by Will and the world, gathers up the apes in the prison cells around him in what soon becomes the fight for the control of the planet. It's amazing that the interaction between the apes are more compelling than the humans. Again, this is because of the amazing Andy Serkis. It's sad that his performance will never be recognized by the Academy. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, he mentioned that he would be angry if the AMPAS created a motion capture performance category, as he believes performances like this are on par, if not more challenging, than a regular performance by an actor. I don't blame him. It's the same frustration I'm sure Pixar has with the best animated feature category.

Are we naive enough to believe in this day-and-age that these performances aren't real? He's not just doing the voices. He is Caesar, and without him, you may as well use the same animation you see in Curious George.

I wouldn't call Rise of the Planet of the Apes a great film, but it certainly is great fun. More fun than I've had at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides , Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and Cowboys & Aliens put together. It's a patient blockbuster, one that takes the time to establish the emotions of the characters, the wit of their interactions, and the necessary details to create a satisfying payoff, all of which come together in a third act that will have you banging your chest with excitement. It also accomplishes the rare feet of having me eagerly anticipating a sequel. How often can you say that?

Cowboys & Aliens

**1/2 stars

There is something oddly comforting knowing that a film like Cowboys & Aliens is apart of the summer movie tent-pole. It's a high-concept plot with a great cast and a 2D fix to boot. Yet there is also something oddly discouraging knowing that the actual movie itself is just an entertaining movie instead of a great one.

Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford are a dynamite duo. Sure, it's Bond meets Indy, but let's not forget that it's the actors themselves that are the catch. Craig plays a man who wakes up with no memory of who he is in 1873 Arizona. Upon his search for the truth about himself, he discovers a small western town. When he finds out that he's actually a wanted criminal, everyone is after him, including the boss of the town, Woodrow Dolarhyde (Ford).

There's a great scene when Daniel Craig's character enters the town for the first time and discovers that Dolarhyde's drunk son Percy (played terrifically by Paul Dano) is causing problems in the town. He carelessly shoots his pistol in all directions. He stumbles up to our hero and demands money. Our hero not only takes him down, but Percy accidentally shoots a deputy in the process. Percy is taken to jail, but not without the threat of his father coming to his aid. When he and our hero are put in the same patty wagon together, I hoped that we were going to witness Daniel Craig and Paul Dano become this generation's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Instead, Dano's talents are wasted and we hardly see him again for the rest of the movie.

The first act of Cowboys & Aliens is a straight-up Cowboy western, the best part of the movie. After the first riveting alien invasion scene by what the humans call demons (how else could they justify what they're physical seeing?), the movie has a hard time trying to figure out what kind of movie it wants to be. But I still appreciate what this film is trying to be. It's a cool feeling to see such diverse genres being mashed up. Cowboys & Aliens takes off smoothly, but it has a hard time controlling such a high concept, giving it a much harder landing.

Aliens attack. People get taken. Now everyone must come together to get their people back. We meet Indians who send a character on a spiritual journey. We learn that there are other kinds of aliens than just bad ones. Then there's this huge plot-line about gold, and how the aliens value gold just as much as humans do, and the only explanation we get about that huge plot-line where the aliens value gold as much as humans do, is when someone important tells the main characters that the aliens value gold as much as humans do. The fact that it took five screenwriters to write this movie is a clear sign of narrative confusion.

Jon Favreau is a mature director, but he seems to be playing it safe. He takes the time to establish each character, but what's missing is the excitement of the journey. Everything is in place, the pieces are moving, but where is the sense of wonder in this potential franchise starter? Cowboys & Aliens should be the movie that brings every kind of moviegoer together. Instead, it provides the cliff notes to a better movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger

*** stars

Captain America: The First Avenger wastes no time in tricking you that it's a straight-up comic book movie. At first glance, that sounds painful. However, it is exactly that characteristic that makes this late summer offering a refreshingly classy and pulpy take on the iconic American superhero.

Chris Evans is a fine choice for the title role. He's likable, not hard to look at, and has a softer side to him that allows us to think that Steve Rogers (the man he was before he became Captain America) is actually a good man. This trait is crucial in the findings of a candidate for Dr. Abraham Erskine, the man who has discovered the scientific capabilities to turn a normal soldier into a super one. He believes that the better than man, the better the solider. Colonel Chester Phillips disagrees, suggesting that America needs the physical strength to win World War II and defeat the Nazis. To him, Steve Rogers is just a short and physically weak man who seems to be rejected by the army more times than Ralph Nader has ran for President.

But the reason Dr. Erskine is so insistent on choosing Rogers is because he never gives up. It is because he keeps getting rejected and insists on trying again that makes him so special. So when he finally lets Rogers in the army, the final test of his heroism comes when the Colonel needs some convincing. During basic training, he throws a grenade into a group of soldiers. Every single soldier scatters and runs for cover, expect Rogers, who bravely dives on the grenade to protect everyone except himself. Turns out the Colonel played a trick, throwing a dud grenade instead of a real one. Clearly impressed, the colonel responds. "He's still skinny."

So Rogers gets turned into Captain America. But not after going through some serious physical changes. The best visual effects in this movie is not what you'd expect.

At the same time Captain America is created, the Nazi's have their own secret weapon. Johann Schmidt aka the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) and his secret HYDRA research department, develops the same technology as Dr. Erksine. When Steve Rogers loses someone close to him (I won't give away any deaths in this review), he vows to seek justice. Yet something interesting happens here. Captain America becomes a propaganda machine. It works at first, but eventually, he becomes the laughing stock of the military. Destined to do bigger things, Rogers decides to use his alter-ego in much more fitting way: to kill Nazi's and protect America.

In a time where cinema seems to be breeding comic-book movies every week, here's one that actually has a good message (along with actually making American propaganda look like a noble cause). Being a real hero means being a good man, one who believes in the morals that represent the best of America. Dr. Erskine is the polar opposite of a character like, say, Saruman from The Lord of the Rings, where he is only interested in physical and numerical strength. Dr. Erskine believes that if someone like Steve Rogers is already a good man, think about how great of a man we will become after the experiment. Captain America: The First Avenger isn't a great movie, but it's still a good one. It leaves the idea that maybe, just maybe, next year's The Avengers will be that much better.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

***1/2 stars

Regardless if you're a fan of the ridiculously successful franchise (over $6 billion worldwide and counting) or not, you'd be on a fool's errand if you decide to skip the final chapter, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, one of the most epic pieces of summer blockbuster entertainment imaginable.

It's hard to imagine what this franchise could have been had it begun differently. Originally, Steven Spielberg was offered the directing gig, but turned it down to do A.I Artificial Intelligence. M. Night Shyamalan was also offered the job, but turned it down to do Unbreakable. The studio had discussed horrible ideas about changing the story, including making Hogwarts have cheerleaders in it. Had that last idea been for real, there's no guarantee the franchise would have lasted after the first entry.

But fear not Potter fans, as you did not have to experience that travesty. It is now ten years later and the last entry in the Harry Potter adventures is here. The only way for the entire series to come full circle is to have the last entry be the strongest one. It certainly does just that, as if director David Yates (who took over the series with Order of the Phoenix) already knew everything he had to do before the cameras even started rolling. There's a burst of exhilaration throughout the film's 130-minute runtime that is unavoidable, regardless of what kind of fan you are to this now historic milestone in modern day cinema.

Part 2 appropriately begins exactly where Part 1 left off. Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has discovered the elderly wand (the most powerful wand of all) and is on the verge of becoming more powerful than Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) can possibly withstand. At the same time, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) continue their quest of finding and destroying the Dark Lord's three remaining Horcruxes, the magical items that grant him immortality. When the three leads head back to Hogwarts to search for these crucial elements, they soon discover that they are approaching the battle to end all battles. Voldemort and his army march towards Hogwarts to meet Harry and his alliances in a final act of desperation to destroy the young wizard forever.

In perhaps every Harry Potter review I've ever written, I've always stressed how I wish I had read all the books first (again, I've only read the first two), so for me it is hard to determine what the film got right and what is missing from the novel. However, from one of the biggest blockbuster film fans out there, I can assure you that as far as epic filmmaking goes, it's hard not to place this wonderful gem right up with some of the best blockbusters ever made.

Now, there is a difference between one of the best films ever made and one of the best blockbusters ever made. While I don't see the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 winning best picture anytime soon (although a nomination is possible as a tribute to the series), the reason why this is one of the strongest blockbusters ever is that it exceeds its already astounding expectations. If this movie failed, the whole series would end on a sour note. It also has the honor of restoring my faith in the 2011 summer movie season, especially considering the dreadful experience that was Transformers: Dark of the Moon.

I did not expect Deathly Hallows: Part 2 to be so twisty and complex, especially when the big secrets are finally revealed. As a spectator going in blind, the final act of this film had me covered in goosebumps, particularly as Harry and Voldemort prepare for their epic final showdown. When Fiennes speaks the lines "Harry Potter, come to die" I realized just how emotionally invested I was in the story. The film is a stunning spectacle of visual narrative. Moviegoers should be blessed that this final part in the unprecedented series not only doesn't disappoint, but also creates a riff in your moving-loving heart.

Horrible Bosses

***1/2 stars

There's something wickedly clever about a summer comedy where normal people are thrown into nasty situations, yet there's still a sense that you're rooting for them. Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day are a dynamite unit of non-stop laughs and irresistible one-liners in Horrible Bosses, the story of three men who want and then try (emphasis on try) to kill their bosses.

Now don't worry, it's not like their bosses are decent people. These are simply three employees who are literally dealing with the worst management imaginable. Bateman plays Nick Hendricks, the company suck-up to Dave Harken (a perfectly cast Kevin Spacey), the ultimate horrible boss. Nick has been dying for a promotion, one he's been working towards for eight years. To show off Dave's ruthlessness, he decides to promote himself instead of Nick, forcing him to be his bitch forever.

If that's not bad enough, Nick tries to remind him that a few years ago, he wasn't allowed to leave work to see his Grandmother in the hospital. She ended up passing away before Nick could get there. Dave laughs when he calls his grandmother "Gam-gam". Dave is the kind of boss that you absolutely hate, except that he's dosed up on psycho-steroids and constantly looking for his next victim.

Kurt Buckman (Sudeikis) has a wonderful relationship with his boss, Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland). That is, until he has a heart attack and dies. Guess who replaces him? Bobby (the surprisingly hysterical Colin Ferrell), the crazy, coked-up son who doesn't give a rat's ass about anything.

He's so horrible that he asks Kurt to trim the fat off of the employees by literally firing the "fat people" because it makes him sick. Bobby is the kind of boss that stole your job, sunk the company that you've cared about your whole professional career into the toilet, and when discovering about his personal life is, in Kurt's words, as if "you've entered the mind of an asshole".

Now, Dale Arbus (Day) may not have it as bad as Nick and Kurt, but that's only at first glance. He is a dental assistant who is forced to work for his gorgeous boss Dr. Julia Harris (played deliciously by Jennifer Aniston) who constantly wants to have sex with him. This wouldn't be that bad if Dale wasn't happily engaged. Unfortunately for him he can't quit because he was caught urinating at a playground (his defense is that he was drunk in the middle of the night and did not realize it was a playground), so now he's a registered sex offender. Therefore, Dale's choice of unemployment is basically extinct.

Julia is oddly attracted by this, so the more Dale refuses Julia, the more aggressive she is. If you think that's still not enough to justify Dale's actions, his tipping point comes when Julia tries to seduce him by throwing him on top of his unconscious fiance's body during a dental cleaning. In the words of Dale, "let's kill that bitch!"

Horrible Bosses makes the right choice by not taking itself too seriously. We all know that Nick, Kurt, and Dale are not murderers. They've just been so tormented by the man in charge that they see no other option. So when they all finally agree to take their bosses down, they turn to an ex-convict named Mother Fucking Jones to do the job (yes, that is his legal name). Instead, he offers them a mix of good-and-bad advice, telling them that they should kill each others bosses so it can't trace back to any of them.

The question the film asks is: how do normal people go about doing something so morally wrong while having no idea how to do it? When Nick, Kurt, and Dale find themselves going down a road they can't escape from, hilarity ensues. It's the darker-recession version of The Hangover that isn't paltry when it comes to delivering some twisted comedic fun.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

1/2 star

Transformers was released on the weekend of Fourth of July, 2007.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was released on the weekend of Fourth of July, 2009.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is being released this Fourth of July weekend, 2011.

Three times on our country's most important day in history, we have seen the decline of western civilization.

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon is like the Inception of horrible movies. At almost every moment in Michael Bay's 2 1/2 hour America-fuck-yeah-destructo-porno, there is a complex twist displaying the absolute downfall of my generation's innocence, soulfulness, sensibility, and most of all, intelligence.

The third and hopefully last Transformer movie begins with a prologue of the Apollo 11 mission. Apparently, NASA sent up the astronauts in order to recover a crashed Alien spacecraft on the dark side of the moon. Simultaneously, Michael Bay rips off Pink Floyd with the film's title (the only reason why the world "side" isn't in there is because he'd be directly stealing from them) and Apollo 13 by having identical shots of the lunar spacecraft entering the, wouldn't-you-know-it, dark side of the moon.

That's not even my biggest problem with it. My biggest problem is the logic of the so-called "plot" and where it fits within the trilogy's universe. The first film began in present day with humans discovering the robots on Mars via Rover mission. The third film has humans discovering them in 1969 on the Apollo 11 mission. So basically, every Transformers movie is in its own little world. Just like its director, who can't get seem to grasp that just because you're movie is a financial success does not deem it a good movie. He admits that the second film wasn't great, but this film will bring the franchise back to top form. The only thing he's done here is add insult to filmmaking and patriotism.

For the last hour of the film, downtown Chicago is absolutely plummeted with sheer destruction. This film is rated PG-13 because we don't see the millions of people actually being slaughtered, simultaneously. We just see big, recognizable buildings getting absolutely annihilated. It was cool to see that kind of stuff in Call of Duty: Black Ops, so it must be cool here. Right?

Sarcasm detected. Moving on. Shia Lebeouf is back, sadly, as Sam Witwicky. This time, he has a new girl with a different ass so that Michael Bay can treat his horny ADD. It's bad enough this film begins with insulting our country's history. It's another to do it, show the title of the movie, and then cut to a close-up of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's ass. Somewhere, Megan Fox is finally having a good day.

Michael Bay also has the audacity to cast two-fantastic actors, John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, and give them both the worst performances of their careers. And remember, Malkovich was in last year's train wreck, Jonah Hex, co-starring Megan Fox. Somewhere, Megan Fox remembers this, and has another bad day.

Malkovich plays Sam's new boss, who gets angry when his display of yellow around the office is altered when someone brings in a red coffee mug. "It is a visual and therefore a visceral betrayal!" There are so many truths to this statement about this film that it proves my statement that Dark of the Moon truly is the Inception of horrible movies.

Right before the climax, the government decides to send the Autobots away in order to deal with the Decepticons themselves. Instead, Optimus Prime and company pretend to get on the ship, only to show up and save the day after Chicago's destruction. I was waiting for Sam to say to Bumblebee, "where were you on that one?" I guess it had to be after it though, otherwise the Autobots would have saved the day and Michael Bay wouldn't have been able to destroy an entire American city.

I'll be the first to admit that this latest 3D extravaganza is probably one of the strongest 3D efforts since Avatar, mainly because Bay made his one and only smart decision by hiring James Cameron's crew to bring the effects to life. The technology worked wonderfully for the wide-angled establishing shots, along with a cool, but long collapsing-building sequence. Note: this is where the half of star comes in on my rating.

So, for anyone who is now forever pissed at me for once again slamming a Transformers movie, remember that I liked the first one. I thought Michael Bay finally found a franchise that fit his personality. In the sequels, he failed even on his own level, which is why I hate these movies so much. Maybe he needs to move on to something else. Maybe money isn't everything. Ironically, his last movie before Transformers, The Island, is probably his strongest directorial effort to date. It's also his lowest grossing film, something that I could only dream of for Transformers: Dark of the Moon, a movie experience from cinematic hell.

Midnight in Paris

**** stars

There's something magical about Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris, a deliciously fun and joyful experience that every aspiring or accomplished writer should see. What if you could get your work reviewed by the greatest literary geniuses in history by traveling back in time when they were in their prime? It's a concept the infamous filmmaker was born to write and one we were born to watch and enjoy.

This swift little film establishes everything it has to for you to understand the world, yet it doesn't waste time in boring you how it actually works. Basically, a struggling writer named Gil (Owen Wilson) is vacationing in Paris with his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams) and he is looking for something a little more than just a romantic getaway. He falls in love with city and believes that they should move there after their wedding. Inez does not feel the same way about this. In fact, she seems oddly detached from romanticism in Paris, which many consider to be the most romantic city in the world. So when Inez goes off dancing with her friends, Gil decides to roam the streets at midnight.

Upon his adventure, a 1920's automobile pulls up in front of him and the passengers inside it tell Gil to join them. Reluctant at first but curious moments later, he agrees. Thus, he ventures back to the 1920's and discovers the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway young and very much alive. At this point, Gil's creative inspirations are having an orgasm. However, the deeper he falls in love with this fantasy, the more distant he is from Inez. Gil begins to realize that he cannot have both and will eventually have to choose between reality and fantasy.

But the brilliant question Midnight in Paris asks itself (and the audience) is, why can't fantasy become reality? When and where does magic end and realism begin? A character like Gil is already living in a fantasy. He is in Paris vacationing with his beautiful fiance, and while he may be a struggling writer they seem to have plenty of money. Yet this real fantasy isn't enough after Gil experiences an era that he was only able to dream of until now.

That the film itself is already a fantasy, Allen doesn't waste time showing you how Gil goes back in time, he just does. It's the ultimate proper way of suspending disbelief. There's more magic in believing that an antique vehicle can simply pick you up and drive you to when it was brand new. It made me wonder if this journey was specifically meant for Gil and that everyone can bring their own fantasy to life if they dream about it long enough. One of mine would probably consist of having Led Zeppelin's tour bus pick me up and take me back to the birth of rock-and-roll. Or maybe the Hollywood studio tour bus that Steven Spielberg jumped out of when he snuck his way into the industry and became who he is today. Or maybe...oh forget it, the list is endless.

Woody Allen's hugely entertaining screenplay has a magic journey of self-discovery, one that urges a message of comfort. While everyone may dream of living in another golden era, no matter where you are, who you are, and what you want to be, your life itself is the golden era. Midnight in Paris is a wonderful comedy and the most pleasant experience I've had at the movies so far this year.

The Hangover: Part II

*** stars

I can already imagine the reviews The Hangover: Part II will be getting (note: I wrote this review on Monday, May 23rd, when reviews weren't available to the public yet):

"A remake of the original."

"Basically Vegas all over again, only this time it's in Thailand."

"The original was waaaaaay better."

Here's the deal. If one ever thinks that a comedy sequel will always be more original than its predecessors, dream on. However, what one should do is expect more laughs and crazier scenarios. Thus is part, this sequel delivers.

What made the original Hangover so refreshing and inventive was its formula. Show the before and after of a bachelor party gone wrong and save what actually happened to the viewer's imagination. Then during the credits, display the raunchy footage audiences deserve. So why mess with something that already works?

This time around, Phil, Stu, and Allen make their way over to Thailand for Stu's wedding. The man who married a stripper, lost a tooth, and avoided a horrible engagement with a terrible girlfriend is finally getting the life he always imagined. But in Allen's mind, the Wolf Pack is a lifelong commitment and he knows that the three of them are meant to live it up once again. So one night after a harmless cheer with a single beer, they wake up in a run down hotel in Bangkok only to discover that "it happened again". For those who experienced round one, you know exactly what this means. For those who haven't, watch it, and then come out for round two.

Don't worry, Doug isn't missing again. But Stu's bride's little genius brother Teddy is. And to make matters worse, they discover his finger soaked in blood. Now they have to find him before Stu loses everything.

What makes the Hangover franchise creatively successful (along with the formula) is the direction by Todd Phillips. His exterior shots of Thailand are so well mastered that this could have been an amazing 2D IMAX experience. He makes the right decision by letting things unfold through the action of the characters rather than the jokes. Things happen for a reason, and with that, the audience is able to enjoy the chaos even if they know the endgame. Having Part II take place on the other side of the world while still delivering the hilarious goods is surefire proof that it's the characters that make it happen, not the setting. Maybe it's supposed to be similar to the original because Phil, Stu, and Allen still have the same personalities. I like to think they are prone for these ridiculous situations. Like Hank Moody in Californication, they don't find trouble. Trouble finds them.

And the movie is all the better for it. I knew instantly after seeing it that it will be one of the biggest movies of the year. Not just because it's a sequel, but a sequel that lives up to the hype. You hear that Captain Jack? Watch out for The Hangover: Part II to eclipse the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean's $90 million opening and land well north of $100 million. Not bad for an R-rated comedy featuring a chain smoking monkey, eh?

Bridesmaids

*** stars

The fact that Bridesmaids is the biggest box-office surprise of May 2011 is a clear indication that 3D is not working and people are still looking for something smart-and-witty instead of loud-and-noisy.

Bridesmaids is just that, and it works for both men and women. Why? Because master producer Judd Apatow, working from a very funny script by star Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, is able to understand the importance of jokes through character development rather than the other way around. It also helps that Kristen Wiig is on comedic fire with her hilarious and heartfelt performance as Annie, the lonely and lost bridesmaid.

This is what Katherine Heigl's 27 Dresses should have been. It's not sugar-coated or glamored up to be a typical "chick-flick." In fact, this is not a chick-flick, but a raunchy comedy from the viewpoint of women. I know many women who loved The Hangover, so why can't a guy enjoy Bridesmaids? Maybe it's "cooler" for a woman to enjoy a guy's movie than a man enjoying a "chick-flick". What makes Bridesmaids different is that it breaks that rule by doing one simple thing: it's a very funny and moving film.

If that won't convince your boyfriend to tag along with you, let him know that Jon Hamm (of Mad Men fame) is in it, and he plays a wicked asshole to perfection. I guarantee you though that he will be laughing at other things as well, especially one hilarious scene on a plane to Vegas that could be the most finely timed comedic scene of the year.

Wiig plays Annie, the maid of honor for her lifelong best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph). During the stretch to Lillian's wedding, Annie's nature consists of continuously falls for the "asshole" while flushing her cupcake-making career down the toilet thanks to the downfall of the economy (a refreshing and relevant recession plot line). The more pre-wedding festivities that occur and the closer it gets to the actual wedding date, the crazier Annie gets.

She can't seem to handle the fact that her life is spiraling out of control. Her friendship with Lillian is falling apart, her career is in shambles, and her love life is no more than a punch line. She meets a nice policeman who seems to be very interested in her. At first, it feels this romance is heading towards formulaic city, but staying true to character, writers Wiig and Mumolo are able to find a more unorthodox way for Annie to find the answers to the questions she's been asking her whole life.

I found Bridesmaids to be surprisingly sweet-and-sentimental. Staying true to the Apatow nature, this is a a surefire comedy packed with hilarious situations that work for both sexes. Men may be from Mars and women may be from Venus, but one thing we can all agree on is that when raunchy humor is done right, anyone can find it funny.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

** stars

In a blockbuster, there's really only one rule to follow: it has to be entertaining. It can be about anything, so long as people are into it. For a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie to exist, you would think the creative team behind it would follow that rule. Instead, On Stranger Tides is destined to be one of the most boring films of the summer. Audiences ye be warned.

You can't ask much from a franchise that should have stayed At World's End four years ago. There's really no need for another Pirates film. In fact, the only thing successful about it is that producer Jerry Bruckheimer was able to convince Johnny Depp to come back. Sure, he loves playing Captain Jack Sparrow, but receiving the highest paycheck of all time by an actor (at a whopping $35 million) certainly must have helped in the negotiation period.

Then again, Depp banks on almost everything that he's featured in. So why tire out a character audiences already love? Sure, the actor still brings his energy and charisma into the swashbuckler, but even he can't save this installment, one that director Rob Marshall struggles with endlessly. The pace is all off, jumping from chase scenes to talking, to sword-fights and more talking, to beautiful exterior shots of ships and yes, more talking. And that wouldn't be so bad if the dialogue wasn't so dull and expositional.

The hardly recognizable plot has Jack Sparrow on the run again simply because he's a pirate. Teaming up with his old nemesis Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), they embark on a quest to find the fountain of youth, which can give eternal life to anyone who drinks from it. Soon, they discover that others are trying to find it, including the evil Blackbird (Ian McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz). Apparently, her and Jack have a past, which allows the writers an easier passage to the introduction of the character. Why does she have to be someone from his past? Can't she just be her own character and not a protege of Jack's? That would have allowed a spark to occur instead of just reigniting an old flame. When you're making a fourth film in a franchise that already as a hard time justifying its existence, it's frustrating when things are still in the past.

Which is exactly what On Stranger Tides feels like. It's old, outdated, and meant only for the hardest of hardcore Jack Sparrow fans. It's one thing to keep a franchise going long after it has outstayed its welcome. It's another to do that, and then shove it in your face.