The Hangover

***1/2 Stars

The Hangover is the funniest film of the year, and it earns this status because it is funny throughout the entire film. That's it. From beginning to end. Even the closing credits are hysterical. Now the premise may feel a bit stale (three guys wake up in Vegas after a bachelor party not remembering the night before and must trace their steps to find the missing groom) but all the elements click in the hands of director Todd Philips (Old School) and its outstanding cast. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifiankis are a trio of comedic heaven. It's the only film I can think of that actually makes you want to have a hangover.

Up

**** Stars

Up is Disney Pixar's tenth film. Any signs of fatigue in their latest feature? Not-a-one. Pixar is the only studio that can call itself critically and commercially perfect. You would think that the studio's much deserved bragging rights would distract its filmmakers from their initial intent (telling an original story), but if anything, they just seem to get better and better. While I'll admit Wall-E is still their strongest entry, Up is easily worthy of being hailed as a cinematic masterpiece.

The opening of Up is quite possibly the most poetically heartbreaking sequence in the history of animation, or arguably any genre for that matter. Pixar has found a way to tell a person's life story in a montage-like format without almost any dialogue (this was also mastered in their 2008 Best Animated Picture Wall-E, which was criminally robbed of a Best Picture Nod).

The protagonist of Up is Carl Fredricksen (voiced wonderfully by Edward Azner) who we see grow from childhood to old-age. He has one big passion in life. You could argue that it is two different things. 1.) That it's his eternal desire to explore Paradise Falls, a fictitious place that forever shouts adventure or 2.) Ellie, the love of his life. Meeting at a young age, Carl and Ellie spend a life together, becoming married and both dreaming of that eventual Paradise Falls adventure. Too bad "real-life" stuff gets in the way, and that dream is put on hole until Carl grows old, and beyond the years of Ellie's life.

Now I have always hated giving out the plot of movies in my reviews. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Of course, it is my job to explain what a film is about so you can determine if you want to see it or not, but that always seems to become a summary of a film's narrative over an appropriate analysis. Every critic has done it at one point. In this review, I'm here, nearing its end, to redeem that on-going distraction.

I will not to tell you anymore about what happens in Up. All I'm going to say is what you need in order to understand what the film and and its title are externally promoting. Carl, growing old and desperate for one final act of adventurous soul-searching, ties numerous amounts of balloons to his house and flies UP into the air and away on a journey that is much bigger than he could ever imagine. Carl is joined by Russell (Jordan Nagai) a young and overly optimistic boy scout who accidentally boards the house during takeoff, and eventually a talking animal named Dug. The three are a hilariously diverse trio, able to balance comedy and true emotions that you wouldn't expect from an outside perspective.

Bottom line: If you let your imagination take over and ignore the urge to bash films that are wildly considered perfect (shame on the continuing cycle of the three-or-so random critics for once again ruining another chance for a Pixar film to reach 100% on Rotten Tomatoes since 1999's Toy Story 2), prepare for Up to reward you up and beyond any possible expectations.

Drag Me To Hell

***1/2 Stars

Drag Me to Hell, Sam Raimi's deliciously campy horror extravaganza, is an effortlessly watchable experience. In the nostalgic style of Raimi's Evil Dead legacy, prepare to enter the ultimate mix of schlock and terror, in a film that stands on its own as a newly surefire cult-classic in the making.

Alison Lohman plays Christine Brown, a typical bank worker who unfortunately suffers from the wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time syndrome, that will lead to her potentially losing her, uh, soul to the devil (yes, it's one of those kind of horror films). But don't worry, Raimi wastes no time on religious or sacrificial accuracy, and instead goes right for the entertainment factor, mixing in all the B-movie shock and awe moments one desires from such a formula. With this, Raimi succeeds admirably.

When a poor little old lady dressed like a real life Little Red Riding Hood after a life in rehab approaches Christine's desk at the bank, requesting a third extension on her mortgage payments, Christine chooses a career move and denies her. The old-hag gets upset, pathetically begs her, then when rejected again, casts an evil spell on her.

You can tell Drag Me to Hell was made in our economic recession day-and-age when the one mortal sin this poor young woman commits is denying a loan for an old lady who is undeserving of it anyways. Sure, we're suppose to feel empathy for her because its her home and all, but should Christine suffer perfusively because of someone else's financial troubles? Ah, forget it. I'm not getting into that one.

What we're really here for is a frighteningly good time. Raimi claws his way into your nerves without your permission and discharges hell covered with numerous vintage-horror elements. Drag Me to Hell will scare the living bejesus out of you. A hard task to accomplish when you're also watching one of the funniest films of the year. Sam Raimi, welcome back.

Terminator Salvation

*** Stars

I never thought I would say this, but I am defending McG, on both the successes and failures of Terminator Salvation.

First and for most, I will report that the real failure of the newest prequel/sequel/re-boot/spinoff (whatever you want to call it) of the Terminator franchise is the script. The problem? There is no story. Nothing really happens. Yet I found myself strangely intrigued by the film, which feels written as a wasteland, set in a wasteland, and produced with characters playing nothing more than ponds in a wasteland. What we have here is a fascinating look about where our society stands on action and story. Now, if you know me at all, or have read any of my reviews, you probably know I would choose the latter without question. However, I am surprised to say that I actually praise Terminator Salvation for its action and nothing else. This is true for three reasons:

1.) McG has taken a step in the right direction. Who would have thought the man behind the Charlie’s Angels franchise could be such an organic director when staging action scenes? After the opening credits of Salvation, we are dropped directly into a post-apocalyptic wasteland in the year 2018, where John Connor (Christian Bale) and the human resistance are staging off against Skynet and its army of Terminators. Connor stumbles upon the appearance of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a human or machine (see the film for the answer to that one) whose last memory is of being on death row years prior. McG gives us a fantastic one-shot action sequence where John Connor is taking off and crash landing a helicopter. Wait, what? Just one-shot? What about McG’s frantic shots from the past? Where’s the Michael Bay-like-antics we were expecting? You won’t find any of that here. McG has found a way to let the visuals unfold as if the film’s multi-million dollar explosions were rehearsed limitlessly until he got the shot just right. The highly-criticized filmmaker has avoided his predictable retrograde, and has embraced a forward-looking stability.

2.) Christian Bale. Say all you want about his temper, the man is a perfectionist. Even with a nothing role like this one, Bale still finds a way to breathe life into a stiff character. Imagine Nick Stahl reprising his role here (he played Connor in T3: Rise of the Machines). That would have failed, miserably. And McG knew it too. After first turning down the Terminator Salvation offer while promoting The Dark Knight, Bale finally agreed to the film after McG personally flew out to Europe to discuss the role with him. Afterwards, Bale stated that he loved the guy’s attitude, about how he didn’t care that everyone despised him because of his name and track record. Bale is a perfect John Connor, and even with a weak script, we are totally taken aback by the method actors unprecedented intensity. The man owns the screen. What don’t you ?#!$%& understand?

3.) Its running time. If McG can do a pure action film under two hours, then why must Michael Bay make us sit through 140 minutes of just-as-impressive-but-much-much-sillier action sequences? Don’t give me wrong, I dug Transformers (although I’m not THAT excited about the sequel) and The Rock is totally bad-ass, but it’s clear that Bay is not interested in structure as much as he is a little kid with $200 million, giving him the ability to blow random shit up (To see one of the many spoofs of Bay, check out this hilarious clip: Click Here). Strangely enough, Terminator Salvation is more action-packed than Transformers, but the way the action is handled in Salvation is far more taut and superior.

McG gave every cast and crew member a copy of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, in order to capture a totally apocalyptic atmosphere. The man had a structure in mind, and to the best of his abilities, he succeeded in what he set out to do. Terminator Salvation is no masterpiece or classic in-the-making, but it does have me anxiously awaiting the inevitable fifth installment.

Angels and Demons

*** Stars

Movies like the The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons kind of have the same restrictions as Watchmen, where the books are rather unfilmmable. For the first half or so of Demons, there are several moments of expository dialogue and the whole telling-not-showing dilemma. This movie could be much better, but to enjoy it for what it is, you have to enter the theater accepting the fate of its structure.

What's refreshing about Angels and Demons is how much of an old-fashioned adventure it is, a totally fun ride that coasts along effortlessly for its 140 minute runtime. While I agree with the majority that The Da Vinci Code was a letdown, it certainly wasn't awful. If people had a problem with the 2006 smash hit, they may be delighted to know that Angels and Demons is a major improvement. However, if you enter this film with any sort of judgment on its plausibility or realism, then this is not the film for you. I would suggest reading Dan Brown's excellent book before hand.

Now for those who just want to see the movie, here are the basics: Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is back in action (although the book is actually the prequel, the filmmakers have wisely based it after the events of The Da Vinci Code) after the murder of Leonardo Vetra, a physicist who created the first ever anti-matter. Anti-matter, the opposite of matter, has enough power to cause monumental destruction.

After Vetra's death, his daughter Vittoria (Ayelet Zurer) and Langdon travel to Vatican City to find the secret brotherhood behind his murder, The Illuminati. Once they get to the holiest place on earth, clues’ including the four alters of science (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) mark a path that will lead them to the element that could kill millions. While this is happening, thousands have gathered at St. Peter's square due to the death of The Pope, where The Cardinals are in meeting to select the newest head of the religious world.

Yes, the plot is absurd. Sure, the ideas are far-fetched. But that's the point. Who in the world would want to see a summer blockbuster that must stick to the strict codes of religious practices? That's what Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD) classes are for. We're not here to learn about the accurate translations of selecting a new pope or the restrictions of real science. We're here to see Robert Langdon on a preposterous adventure that stirs controversy and excitement.

Of course there has to be a sense of coherency and narrative structure. Without that, movies like this would be impossible to enjoy. What I mean is this: I have heard several people stating that the movie is silly and unrealistic, yet they defend and applaud Dan Brown's novel. How in the world can you claim that one is not silly and the other is when the latter is based off the source material? If you want to argue that you don't like Hanks as Langdon or Ron Howard's over-the-top antics so be it, but if you can't get passed the absurdity of the plot, again, just stay away.

For me, I like Angels and Demons. I like its excitement. I like Tom Hanks's natural influence on screen. And strangely enough, I like its release date. After the month of May, this summer will soon consist of mostly mindless dribble and/or blockbusters that would rather produce dollar signs over art (a few exceptions include Funny People, Public Enemies, and Inglorious Basterds). And while Angels and Demons is a blockbuster and a sequel, at least it's ignoring certain people's pointless criticisms (you know who you are) and lets we interested few to appreciate a fast-paced thrill ride.

Star Trek

**** Stars

Star Trek is the perfect summer movie, perfect in its understanding of being purely fun and exhilarating and perfect in its ability to avoid reducing itself to cheesy melodrama. Action, humor, story, visual effects, Eric Bana, excitement, and Leonard Nimoy? Star Trek works for everyone. J.J Abrams’s reboot of the historic science fiction franchise is the best time I’ve had at the movies all year.

Now you wouldn’t expect this right away would you? But the forty-year-old franchise that skidded to a halt (after its last film Nemesis made a dismal $43 million at the box office in 2002) is resurrected. And to many people’s surprise, they may discover this to be the best blockbuster since The Dark Knight.

Now for the record, I will not say this is “The Dark Knight of 2009” (because I hate when critics compare films like that unless you’re referring to box-office statistics) but I will say that Star Trek is the best time at the movies since The Dark Knight. Star Trek is two hours of everything a movie should be.

The story begins in riveting fashion, an introduction that stands among the greatest space sequences this side of 2001: A Space Odyssey. We begin with the story of George Kirk (the father of James T. Kirk) and his acts of heroism that saved 800 lives in only 12 minutes. Pardon the Star Trek linguistics here: When The Federation Starship USS Kelvin travels to investigate a lightning storm in space and discovers that it is in fact a black hole, it becomes under attack by a Romulan mining vessel. After the Federation’s captain is captured and killed by the Romulan captain Nero (the extraordinarily talented Eric Bana) Kirk is put in charge to save the ship and its crew. Unfortunately, he must sacrifice himself to save everyone. In doing so, his wife and newly born child escape the ship without harm.

Then the infamous origin story of the famous Star Trek characters begins. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is a troubled kid from Iowa and Spock (Zachary Quinto) is a confused adolescent on his home planet Vulcan. As they grow up, the two meet after Kirk beats Spock’s unbeatable training program for the Starfleet Academy. The term “opposite’s attract” is full-boat here in this fascinating friendship that soon turns to adventure on the infamous USS Enterprise.

The cast is phenomenal. Along side Pine and Quinto are Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Leonard Nimoy as the key ingredients that make up the past and future crew of the Enterprise. Counterbalancing with a villain is Bana, who I think should be in every movie. His portrayal of the evil Nero is spot on. We never suspect him as a mere rip-off of a standardized villain, but rather a saddened and lost character that comes across the agony of losing the ones he has loved. This is a space opera, one that will simply take your breath away.

You could not find a better director to take over Star Trek than J.J Abrams (who is responsible for ABC’s Lost and the very underrated Mission Impossible III). He injects life into a franchise that I thought could never be what it has become. He has found a way to make optimism cool again. Sure, his newest film if filled with dark elements, but we are never taken into a cynical and haunting territory.

And in today’s world, our society can be a cynical and haunting territory. We are at what feels to be an endless war and our economy has passed the point of a recession. Yet there are still moments in our lives that keep us going. For me, Star Trek is one of them. Within its two-hour runtime, I forgot the morose of our country’s faults. I experienced a breath of fresh air. And I say our country must launch a new campaign to the public, one whose slogan should give Star Trek an underdog chance of becoming a potential Best Picture nominee. Note to the Academy: Admit it. You screwed up your nominees last year and told The Dark Knight to step off. Now you have yet another chance to redeem yourself. Make J.J Abrams’s Star Trek, your redemption.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

** Stars

It's not shocking that after months of excessive marketing and hellish online coverage that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is just another standard comic action flick that rarely rises above the level of memorable. Hugh Jackman pours his heart and soul into the title character, but his wonderful talents are sadly wasted in what could have been a potentially great addition to the comic-book genre, is no more than a avant-garde piece of B-movie action junk.

While I must say that Wolverine disappoints, it is no where near as bad as people are saying it is. It is only disappointing because its expectations were so high. Strangely enough, I am glad X-Men Origins: Wolverine made $85 million on its opening weekend because at least this whole fiasco of the film getting leaked online has subsided into everyone's distant memory. Have we gotten so involved in the hype around a film that we forget to analyze the actual film itself? Maybe Snakes on a Plane made a bigger impact in the industry than we thought it did.

The plot: After accidentally killing his father (he thought he was someone else) a younger Wolverine (real name Logan) and his brother Victor (Liev Schreiber) head off to live their lives through the history of American wars (and the opening credit sequence, which is rather impressive) and soon must deal with the outcomes of their actions. Victor and Logan join a special team recruited by William Stryker (Danny Huston) of gifted assassins--or mutants--to take out specific targets and enemies. When Logan refuses to comply with the destruction of a village, he quits the team and heads for a life of solitude and isolation with his girlfriend.

Six years after the fact, in order to get the plot moving again, Logan is pulled out of isolation after his girlfriend is murdered by his brother Victor. Logan gets pissed, which soon turns him into...Wolverine.

Now with an origin story, it would be nice if the film didn't rely on several instances of expository dialogue. For example, how Wolverine got his name is rather lame. I don't want to give it away, but I will say that it has something to do with one of Logan's girlfriend's favorite stories and he uses it as a love memento. Although it's a touching remembrance, we're not here to see Wolverine become a cheesy version of The Punisher. For god sake, give the character some originality.

The cast is very solid. Jackman still and always will rock, Schreiber is excellent (when isn't he?) and Ryan Reynolds is sadly limited to very small screen time as Deadpool (I wanted more of Reynolds as Deadpool!) Thankfully his own spinoff has now been confirmed after the box-office success of this film.

For all you jerks who watched the film before its release date, if you continue to do that, you will not only be affecting people's careers, but the potential for more superior films. What if Batman Begins was leaked online and it bombed at the box-office? The Dark Knight never would have been made.

State of Play

***1/2 Stars

State of Play is an excitingly taut and intelligent thriller. Russell Crowe leads an all-star cast in Kevin Macdonald's journalistic take on the corruption and scandals of the present day. Crowe plays Cal McAffrey, an old-school Washington Globe reporter on the brink of unveiling a breaking news story involving his old college roommate, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and his romantic involvement with a young intern. After the intern's apparent "suicide" at a metro station, Collins is thrown into the center of the media's attention, being labeled as the it-scandal of the moment, but things extend much deeper than what is scene from the public's eye.

Enter Cal McAffrey. McAffrey, along side Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) a young and eager Internet blogger, enter the underground workings of the judicial and legal conspiracies in an attempt to untangle a story that, quoting McAffrey "is as big and as connected as they get."

The movie is a fascinating account of the world of journalism and governmental corruption. Think All the President's Men meets 24. If you know me at all, that statement alone clearly shows my enthusiastic bias towards State of Play's elements and themes. Macdonald is the right director for this material (he directed Forrest Whitaker to Oscar gold in The Last King of Scotland) along with its perfect cast. Helen Mirren is wonderfully edgy and refreshingly funny as Cameron Lynne, McAffrey's boss and head of the newspaper. I thoroughly loved every scene that takes place inside the Globe's office. Again, there's that bias I've been telling you about. And you know what? I take absolute pride in it.

As each scene progresses, we are infinitely layered with the politics and human emotions behind what we of the public see as concrete fact. The movie brings into question a philosophical statement that I find truly compelling. With everything so insanely connected, people tend to forget that people, not machines, create all the media, propaganda, governmental scandals, possible national security threats, etc. of the present day. Sometimes when I watch the news, it is so hard to distinguish if truth is even a present ideal at all (and note to Fox News, your "Fair and Balanced" tagline is total crap and you sadly know it) and I think under this notion, State of Play knows exactly what it’s doing. It doesn't give away any real payoff because a real payoff is only a mere luxury the media world simply cannot afford.

Although the ending is a bit of a cop-out and perhaps a bit too twisty, it only comes after an expertly crafted and tightly climatic movie. I just put the original BBC series on Netflix and am anxiously awaiting its arrival.

Duplicity

**1/2 Stars

In a season that usually consists of trashy, throwaway flicks, Tony Gilroy's playfully tricky spy-thriller Duplicity should be placed at much higher standards. Moreover, although I thoroughly respected the film’s fine craftsmanship, I can't say that I wasn’t a tad disappointed. This is Gilroy’s follow-up to Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton, and Duplicity has the same weirdly induced incoherency as Clayton did. It’s not a matter of bad filmmaking by any means, but rather Gilroy pushing the envelope so much that the payoff feels rather forced.

What’s frustratingly invigorating about Duplicity is the fact that it has so much talent inside of it. Julia Roberts gives her sexiest and most relaxed performance in years as Claire Stenwick, a CIA spy who falls for MI6 spy Ray Koval (the always solid Clive Owen). The two compete undercover for high level businesses and their two enemy employers. Industry giants Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and Dick Garsil (Paul Giamatti) begin a fierce competition for control of a formula for a product that could potentially bring an unprecedented fortune to their companies. As Claire and Ray’s love begins to grow, so does their risk of getting caught, in a game they conspire to have enough money for one simple purpose: to retire rich and spend the rest of their days lounging in luxurious locations.

Sounds like it’s worth the risks don’t you think? If you’re in Ray and Claire’s position, absolutely. And I found it refreshing that this was the only real thing at stake. Gilroy has a real knack for wit inside his complex web of cat-and-mouse like espionage. An audience doesn’t want to see Julia Roberts and Clive Owen threatened with death, but rather an exciting ride filled with risky fun. Inside the dense and rather depressing corporate world Gilroy has realistically created, the fun is always mentioned, but it comes-and-goes in uneven measures.

ESPECIALLY when Roberts and Owen are separated for extended periods of time. If you’re going to have two of the sexiest stars in Hollywood who have dynamite chemistry, why on earth would you limit their screen time together for a few more pointless plot twists? When Duplicity takes a step back, relaxes, and lets its two stars have fun together, everything clicks. The first 90 minutes or so are great, but the last 30 or so takes a rather dreary turn into twists that Gilroy has a tough time taming.

I think Gilroy is a better writer than he is director. Maybe that’s preaching to the choir considering his credentials (most notably the Jason Bourne trilogy), but that’s just how I feel at this point in his career. With Duplicity, he certainly still keeps his art-credibility, but I’m hoping for a much stronger effort in his next feature.

Observe and Report

**1/2 Stars

To answer the first question on everyone's mind, Observe and Report is not the sloppy seconds of Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Although I would not denounce the argument that Observe and Report is the NC-17 version of Paul Blart: Mall Cop directed by Martin Scorsese.

Writer and director Jody Hill (My Foot Fist Way) has crafted a highly lucrative and disturbingly upfront portrait of the bottom of the barrel vision of these United States. In a post-9/11 world, we are run-amok with Hollywood films bashing the politics of America (Rendition, Lions for Lambs, Body of Lies, W., The Kingdom, any Michael Moore film) but no film has taken a shot at it with a comedy until now. And while I can't say Observe and Report is your typical run-of-the-mill comedy, it is fully aware of its dramatic limitations and ability to push the envelope without losing credibility. Unfortunately, the strength of this execution also brings out its inevitable weaknesses.

Seth Rogen dives headfirst into his character Ronnie Barnhardt, a bipolar sociopath who has a mission to protect the Forrest Ridge Mall from anyone who threatens it. When a creepy older man begins to constantly flash people throughout the mall property, Ronnie is compelled to intervene. His dream girl Brandi (Anna Faris) is a victim of the flasher and now Ronnie wants revenge.

Revenge on what you ask? Well, it’s hard to say exactly. Observe and Report is an extremely appropriate title for this one-note feature because this is just 86-minutes of shocking footage that contains random acts of terror set at a typical American mall. In today’s world, this can be a brilliant concept for a comedy, but the film makes one big mistake: it’s really not that funny.

And maybe I’m seeing it the wrong way, but I can honestly say that this film is too well made for its screenplay. It’s when Jody Hill stops trying so hard that Observe and Report works best. The funniest segment of the film comes from when Ronnie and his partner Dennis (a surprisingly hilarious Michael Pena) decide to take drugs and patrol the area under the influence. The over-the-top brutality mixed in with its lampooned montage like style is quite possibly one of the most outspoken statements about law enforcement abuse of the decade. Sadly, it’s trapped inside a hit-and-miss film.

A comedy really has to pound in the humor, but Jody Hill decides to pound in vulgarity instead. Why not have more fun with the mall’s customers? Does every single character in this movie have to be so rotten? If they are so be it. That’s completely fine. But all the potential magic is lost the second rotten characters are forced into rotten situations instead of the other way around. Perhaps this is why that one scene worked so well.

The cast is terrific. Rogen and Faris seem very comfortable with each other, which is probably necessary in order to pull off such crude material. For example, after a drunken dinner, Brandi and Ronnie head to the bedroom for some awkwardly induced intercourse. Brandi appears unconscious in parts and puking in others while Ronnie continues to enjoy himself. The feminist group WomenAndHollywood is making the case that this scene is an act of rape. New York Magazine is defending it, claiming that Ronnie stops when he thinks she is passed out and that he is desperate to find love. While I can’t agree with either one’s arguments, the fact that this scene overshadows the rest of the film’s horrific violence proves just how much this country is screwed up in the head. Hmm, maybe that’s what Jody Hill was going for; letting us know that violence is a secondary concern regardless of an unlawful and immoral execution that leads to someone’s death. If that is the case, then God help us all.

Monsters vs Aliens

** Stars

In 2009, almost all the animated features getting wide-releases in theaters will be in 3-D. It's the latest marketing strategy for Hollywood to get people back to the movie theater. In what I suspect to be the first of many, DreamWork's Monsters vs. Aliens (the second most expensive animated film of all time behind Wall-E) is a victim of 3-D dependence. In other words, rather than using the 3-D technology as an asset to the story, the film relies on it as a disguise for its excruciatingly formulaic screenplay.

On a rather personal rant from me to DreamWorks, come on! You can't think of a better idea than a monster vs. alien story? Were you this desperate for a hit that you decided to create a film based off the safest and most overdone premise in Hollywood? If you want to use this idea so be it, but when you make overdone references to famous Science Fiction films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and have your characters actually say lines like "Once again, a UFO has landed in America, the only country UFOs ever seem to land in" as your big punchline to fall back on, it is clear that you're not trying very hard.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with spoofing a genre. DreamWorks did that very well with Shrek and even Shrek 2 (I'm pretending the third one doesn't exist) but with those films you took those references and spun it a certain way making it your own. In Monsters vs. Aliens (with the exception of Seth Rogen's sensational character) everything feels too stale for my film-loving pallet.

The story begins with Susan (Reese Witherspoon) on her wedding day. Her fiancé, the local celebrity weatherman Derek (Paul Rudd), is all she ever wants in life. Everything seems to going to plan, until a random twist of fate turns Susan's world upside down that allows the screenwriters to create an excuse to begin a conflict. The twist? A meteorite crash lands on Susan's head. The igneous rock formation is filled with Quantonium, an element that gives Susan the extraordinary side effect to blow up to the size of a skyscraper. She is instantly named a "monster" by the government and is sent to a classified military base for isolation. She is put in an enormous room with four other "monsters" to remain confined until the plot needs her again.

Hugh Laurie appropriately voices a brilliant cockroach named Dr. Cockroach (Wow, I wonder how long it look to name this character) who can devise almost any scientific tool using the most simplistic elements (like garbage or antennas, you know, geeky stuff). His distinctive personality trait? An evil laugh. Again, that must have required some serious research.

Will Arnett is very solid as the voice of The Missing Link, the go-to-monster when it comes time to kick some serious alien, uh, tentacles. How strange that The Missing Link reminded me of a friendlier “Comedian,” the ruthless bad-boy superhero from Watchmen. It's a fitting character to have in a story like this, but he is a lost nuance in a story that won't let him come to life.

Monsters vs. Aliens is almost worth the price of admission to witness Seth Rogen voice B.O.B, a gelatinous brainless goo that ironically adds the film's only breath of fresh air. He is a wonderful supporting character who deserves his own film. Rogen riffs off the other actors with zest, intelligent wit, and necessary lightheartedness.

There are several scenes that get very weird, especially during a scene that feels like an exercise in gender reversal. Two lovebirds drive in an old school convertible to a remote location to park for a good old fashion 1950's-like snuggle fest. Apparently when you're using a concept like monsters vs. aliens you're also allowed to suspend ages of time and condense everything together. Note to the screenwriters, just because your concept has been used throughout different decades doesn't mean you can collapse the continuum of time for your own formatting advantage.

As the plot lingers on, the four monsters are called into action when an alien attack threatens earth's survival. Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) is the evil leader of the alien race. Actually, to be politically correct, he is the evil leader of himself. His alien race is made up of millions of duplicated Galaxhars. This alien comes off as a really creepy loner who seems to want to destroy a civilization so he can do anything he wants with, uh, "himselves".

Although visually inventive and wonderfully rendered, Monsters vs. Aliens fails to live up to its promise. I hope this new zeitgeist era of 3-D animation doesn't cloud the minds of its innovators. One of the great benefits of animation is its ability to create abstract and imaginative world’s live-action films can't, but that's no excuse to leave storytelling lagging behind.

Adventureland

***1/2 Stars

The plot revolves around James Brennan (The Squid and the Whale’s Jesse Eisenberg) an intelligent high school graduate who is forced to take a summer job at Adventureland, a painfully awful theme park that internally pleads for uniqueness, but externally slaps you in the face with its proudly displayed lameness. Seriously, this place truly is one of those jobs you look back at and wonder how you weren’t on suicide watch during your employment.

Alright fine, I’m being dramatic. But I’ve done jobs like this. And if you were one of the lucky few who avoided it, we survivors aren’t joking. Jobs like this can really bring out the Christopher McCandless in all of us.

Eisenberg is a caricature of the adolescent years (in this case, he represents the 1980’s). He is saving money at his lame job for an education that allows him to call his job temporary, or part-time. Note to colleges, universities, and higher-education facilities alike, this is what happens (and still to this day) to many, if not all teenagers. And I’m sure that you will respond with a “we’ve all done it” like response, but I’m sure most you haven’t. After four years of college (and I’m not alone here) I will be paying off a tuition that equals Adventureland’s opening weekend per-screen average fifty times over. Before I even declare my career and begin my “adult” life (am I an adult yet? Or do I have to wait until I’m ALLOWED to get into nightclubs and bars?) I’ll be in the same debt as an unfortunate homeowner on the brink of foreclosure. Guess what the tuition at the University of Massachusetts Lowell back in the late 1970’s was?

$100.

Want to know what its increase in tuition was the year after?

$150.

Today, that’s how much the average used Social Psychology book is.

Like I said, I know I’m being dramatic. But a funny thing happened to me when I was experiencing Adventureland. I didn’t see it as another one-line extravaganza like I was expecting, but rather an imprint in the genre of adolescent moments in time. American Graffiti defined the ‘60’s, Dazed and Confused the ‘70’s, Adventureland the 80’s, American Pie the 90’s, and Superbad the 2000’s. I thank Adventureland for filling the gap.

At this very moment in time, I don’t think I sympathize for any up-and-coming Hollywood actress more than Kristen Stewart. The beautiful and talented young woman has been labeled as the “it” actress of the moment where her Twilight fame has clouded her rather distinguished resume, especially for a nineteen year old. Here in Adventureland (which was filmed before Twilight) she steals an already impressive show (including Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig) in a story of adolescence and the highlights of its unavoidable blandness.

Director Greg Mottola (Superbad) is a natural at recreating nostalgic occurrences. There is so much realism in this coming of age comedy that we tend to forget that it is in fact, a comedy. It reminds us that people make mistakes. Sorry for all those company’s who search Facebook to see if anyone has “incriminating information” on their profile, but it’s true. The only difference nowadays is that my generation can be arrested for walking home under the influence (for the official definition, click here). Your punishment was to leave your car on the side of the road and walk home.

Talk about a land of adventure. It just depends on when you were born.

In the Company of Men

***1/2 Stars

Erupting with interpersonal depravity, soaked with the obscurity of its villainous male leads, and painfully upfront with personal lives without written consent, In the Company of Men is a cultural study of humanistic evil without the physical appearance of its socially-accepted representative.

Writer and director Neil LaBute unleashes a remarkably disturbing exercise into three characters that are forced to embody the origins of the film’s screenplay: “Let’s hurt somebody” he mentions in an interview about his directorial debut, claiming that this line of dialogue was used in creating the story. “I was attracted to the notion of premeditated agony inflicted on someone. I believe that you can kill characters only once, but you can hurt them every day.”

Labute explores this notion of hurt within the simplicity of In the Company of Men’s setting: airport terminals, office buildings, hotel rooms, and bathroom stalls (pretty much any standard location for corporate workers in the business world). The story surrounds two typical businessmen who may seem completely formulaic from an outside perspective, but both kindle with alarming personalities. Chad (a brutally evil Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) are victims of the commonly induced male frustration known as heartbreak. The audience is told that both have been dumped by their girlfriends and are ready for some payback. The very first line of dialogue in the film is spoken by Chad (who meets Howard one night in an airport terminal.) “So how do you feel?” he asks Howard, referring to the loss of his marriage. As Chad’s game evolves, this quote is the final nail on the coffin in the matter of unveiling the gender expectations of relationships in culture-at-large.

When the two dive in with their plans to “hurt” Christine (played by Stacy Edwards) we are graced with Labute’s strong stand against playing reaction with reaction. Because Labute avoids the lazy route of monotonic viciousness towards Christine (he actually uses her physical handicap to her advantage), a much deeper and longer lasting impact suffices. We are left with an endless pattern of manipulation and cruelty that sends a message to the ways genders are expected to play in cultural and social situations. The message? That there is no specific expectation set-and-stone anywhere that justifies the acts of anyone. LaBute, in his interview, states that “The film gives a punch at the end that some people are taken aback by: the expectation is to make him or her feel that the world is not right. We live in a 'cause and effect’ world."

So rather than Chad, Howard, or Christine being the chess players moving the pieces, they are merely ponds of a system, one that breaks the rules for its own personal gain and ultimately leaves its occupants blind to the necessities of human morality. How can we have any hope for these characters when we know all three are doomed from the start?

Maybe that is why Labute leaves it all up to the dialogue. Sadly, In the Company of Men, though onslaught with its auteur-like ferocity, displays the endless everyday situations that should never be defined as “everyday situations.” They are in fact as surreal as they get. The film is disguised as truth, where if one falls for its trick, they may use the actions of Chad as a justification for their own behavior. And for most of the time, in the world of these characters, the greatest cruelty lies in both the simple and complex tool of communication.

In perhaps the most unsettling scene in the film, Chad, playing with his executive privileges, forces a young intern to take off his pants and convince him that he has “the balls” to tackle a management training program. The fact that these characters are reduced to the literal translation of one of their gender-ridden metaphors for strength is quite possibly one of the lowest moralities of human nature ever displayed on film. Trapped inside this inhospitable environment, the only rationalization for these characters and their actions seem to lie in the bizarre and pointless obsession with job security.

While picking out seeds of truth, LaBute’s efforts cross a rather cruel irony. The actions taken by every character in every scene of In the Company of Men have no progression towards the maturity of emotional growth, but the uncanny performances of Eckhart, Malloy, and Edwards remind us that these incidents may be occurring at any given place at any given time. Therefore, while we are merely witnessing caricatures in society who reek of standardized kitsch, LaBute leaves us whimpering with questions and ignoring the presence of answers all together. In today’s society, that description of people may deem plausible. The Chads of this world are out there somewhere. You may have known one. I know I have.

To label Chad and Howard’s decision to begin this rather unorthodox love triangle as evil is a bit premature, but the actions taken throughout the narrative (including Christine’s decision to date both of them at the same time) both disgust and baffle my senses. I will never permit anyone’s behavior if their initial intention is lined under the notion “Let’s hurt somebody” to get to the self-absorbed assertion of “So, how does it feel?” In the journey between the two, we are left with an endless cycle of expectations that are profoundly mistaken when in the company of such an absolute evil. In the Company of Men hits you were it hurts and never lets up. It will shake you to a core you didn’t even know you had.

Catching up with Netflix: Rachel Getting Married

***1/2 Stars

Anne Hathaway holds nothing back in Jonathan Demme's family drama Rachel Getting Married, playing Kym, the in-rehab sister of the bride-to-be Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). Kym returns home for the ceremony while clearly still in the detoxification process from years of alcohol and drug abuse. This is proven the second she gets to the house, as her entire family changes their vibe from on track to on alert during her presence. Kym spends almost the entire time making remarks she shouldn't say, creating tension when she should relax, and putting all of her skeletons in-the-closet on the table for several go-for-broke discussions. Rachel Getting Married shoots a bullet in your heart and shakes you uncontrollably. Hathaway is a knockout, well deserved of her Oscar nomination in what I expect to be the first of many more to come.

Knowing

***1/2 Stars

Before I begin any sort of review or analysis on Knowing, the most important I can tell you is this: AVOID ANY SPOILERS BEFORE SEEING THE FILM. The best way to experience Knowing is not knowing anything beforehand. Let's try and point out the irony here shall we?

Alex Proyas's (Dark City, I, Robot) stylishly directed apocalyptic thriller is the first truly pleasant surprise of 2009. Nicholas Cage gives a solid Nicholas Cage like performance as John Koestler, a MIT professor who stumbles across a startlingly discovery...

In 1959, a student named Lucinda Embry of a Lexington, Massachusetts Elementary School, buried a sequence of numbers in the school's time capsule that could be a possible prediction of the future's cataclysmic events. Now, fifty years later (in the present day), John and his son Caleb are attending the ceremony to unveil that capsule. Caleb is handed the sequence in an envelope marked in his name. That following evening, John puts him to bed, pops open a liter of booze, and heads down to his study to analyze the sequence. He soon discovers that the order of the numbers match every global disaster of the past half century, in perfect sequence...

Too big to think about? Too preposterous to believe? Well, if you are judging the film on this premise and its mediocre theatrical trailer, then you are way off on where Knowing is going to take you. I am delighted to say that this film is a truly mind-blowing experience, one that pushes all the limits of the science-fiction genre.

I have discussed this film with several people, from elements regarding Cage's performance (alright, if you hate Cage as an actor than you might want to stay away) Proyas intense direction, and the controversial ending. Some enjoyed it, but most found it laughable due its overseriousness. While I admit that Knowing has some awkward moments and many under-written characters, the notion that it comes across as too serious doesn't sit well with me. When dealing with the potential horror of a global disaster and threats against your child's life, the term "overseriousness" should be deemed irrelevant. Are people mad that Knowing leaves audiences asking questions rather than receiving answers?

We live in a cause and effect society. People not only want answers to everything, people NEED answers to everything. Maybe that's why Knowing has been dubbed as a critical disappointment (although props to Roger Ebert for his usual honesty and personal beliefs in his four star review of the film). But ask John Koestler if receiving all the answers to the world was a good thing. He may tell you that knowing isn't everything...

I Love You, Man

-Jason Segal (left) and Paul Rudd (right) are the ultimate comedic duo in I Love You, Man.

***1/2 Stars

When it comes to grading Apatow flicks (although you'd never suspect that Apatow had nothing to do with this one unless you checked the end credits) I feel like sometimes I grade on a curve. And perhaps I Love You, Man really is only a three-star movie. But when it comes to these "Apatow" flicks, today's ultimate zeitgeist comedies, maybe grading on a curve is acceptable (especially in comparisons to other comedies being released today: Miss March, The Love Guru, any Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer collaboration). I Love You, Man may have a sitcom like premise (a guy goes on man-dates to find a best friend/best man before his wedding) but the story never falls into formula and the jokes are rapid-fire.

According to the new Entertainment Weekly, Paul Rudd is "the most lovable movie star on the planet". At first, I felt that statement was a bit premature, but think about it. Who on the planet doesn't love Paul Rudd? The man's presence in any film has that instant feeling of comedic-gratification. After making a career on supporting and co-starring roles, Rudd steps into the spotlight with I Love You, Man, the most refreshing comedy of the new year.

Rudd plays Peter Klavin, a sweet and lovable man who rightfully deserves the dreamgirl he is engaged to. Rashida Jones plays the lucky woman Zooey, whose man's only problem is that he puts too much effort into his relationship causing him to lose any chance of long-term friendships. Every guy knows another guy like this. The one who ditches you to hang out with their girlfriend time after time again. Now the instant reaction for a guy is that he must be "whipped" by his girlfriend. Why else would he spend so much time with her? If it was up to him he would be acting like a jerk and making raunchy jokes with his buddies at lame poker game nights. Right? Wrong. It's 2009. Acting with this description is so 1997.

Alright, I admit. There are many cases where guys will ditch their friends for their girl too many times. That can be annoying and frustrating in the rules of friendship. But this is exactly why I Love You, Man is a strikingly relevant comedy, because it has the ability to swing this notion to more mature situations. Behind every raunchy joke and vulgar scenario are important topics being covered that should translate to any guy willing to admit the one thing we socially can't: You don't always have to act like "a guy" to prove that you are a guy.

After many failed attempts to find a buddy, Peter meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) who appears to be the perfect guy-guy for any guy to hang out with (wow, how many times have I said guy in this review?). He is smart and witty, who mixes these qualities with sex jokes and pick-up lines. Over time, Peter tries to turn himself into a "guy" (there it is again) to fit in, but he doesn't realize that a true friendship forms between him and Sydney when he acts like himself, the person his fiance, family, and new best friend have grown to love. Who better to play that lovable person than "the most lovable movie star on the planet"? With a hilarious supporting cast (notably Jon Favreau, Jaime Pressly, Adam Samberg, and J.K Rollins) I Love You, Man is another worthy, Non-Judd Apatow addition to the Judd Apatow collection. You will love it, man.

Two Lovers

***1/2 Stars

In a rather unorthodox way, I was hoping Two Lovers would be disappointing. I was wishing Joaquin Phoenix's performance would be sub-par and self-arrogant. But of course that was not the case. Two Lovers is actually one of Phoenix's strongest and most impressive performances ever. And that frustrates me because the man is apparently done with acting forever.

So with this Catch-22 situation, I had to gather my thoughts, reconnect them to the actors and their characters, and somehow understand why this film wasn't a wide release for all audiences to see. This is a truly great film that haunts anyone whose ever experienced the potential dark-side of love.

Phoenix plays Leonard Kraditor, a depressed and heartbroken man who moves back in with his parents after a recent breakup. An "aspiring photographer" (although ironically enough, it's one of those clear cases where aspiration is no where to be found), Leonard is unsure of where his life is leading him to. The opening scene, both beautifully shot and tragically acted, is a clear sign of Leonard's depression. He is casually walking on a boardwalk when out of nowhere, he throws himself off the side and into the water. He floats underwater for several moments. After realizing he is not ready to die, he swims back to the top, gets pulled out by a few kind-hearted on-lookers, and doesn't even have the curiosity to say thank you on his on terms. He then goes back to his parents' house, still soaked and still miserable.

When he gets home, his parents see him dripping with water. He quickly rushes into his room without any explanation. His mother Ruth (a perfectly subdued performance by Isabella Rossellini) turns to his father Reuben (Moni Moshonov) with instant concern. "I think he did it again," she says to him, with that mother-like tone. Director James Gray explains to us Leonard's entire past with only five minutes of running time. These are the strongest scenes in the film, but the acts that follow rarely let up.

The movie is called Two Lovers, so we know that eventually Leonard will have...two lovers. Played strongly by Gwyneth Paltrow and especially Vinessa Shaw (who has the least amount of screen time, yet steals every scene she is in) Leonard hobbles back and forth from his possible future wife Sandra (Shaw) and his lustful desires with Michelle (Paltrow). Two Lovers has a cat-and-mouse like ring to it, only without, you know, the characters having any real motivation to do anything.

And this surprised me in many ways. A 110-minute film about depressing people (minus Sandra) doing depressing things, in a depressing setting, leading to depressing conclusions. Painful right? Wrong. Somehow, the film kindles with spirit and sparks boundless charisma both on and off the screen. James Gray's strongest effort yet has Joaquin's most daring performance in a film that deserves to be recognized as more than just Phoenix's final on-screen appearance (you know, before he went all Eminem on us). Two Lovers will hit you where it hurts.

If you plan on seeing this film with a date, enter with caution. You won't leave Two Lovers with that feeling of sunshine and rainbows. In fact, I don't even remember this film having any scenes where the sun actually shines. I guess we now know what it feels like to live in Seattle.

Coraline

***1/2 Stars

One of the most imaginatively abstract animated films this side of The Nightmare Before Christmas is here. And wouldn't you know it, it is helmed by the very same director. Coraline is a wonderfully fresh and off-beat experience that pushes the boundaries of every tool it chooses to use. Henry Selick, I'm hoping from now on to see you more than a few times per decade.

Dakota Fanning is perfectly cast as the title character Coraline, a young girl living at the Pink Palace (a housing complex in the middle of nowhere) with her parents who forced her to move there and leave the town she grew up in. On the brink of insanity due to extreme boredom, Coraline ventures around her new home in search of an adventure. Well that, or just something to pass the time. She befriends a boy named Wybie Lovat (Robert Bailey Jr.) a strange young boy who lives with his grandmother and tells Coraline past legends of the Pink Palace and the inmates living among them. Wybie has a black cat who voyeuristically follows him around the complex. This cat has that all-knowing presence where it has the answers to everything, but not the strength to bring them into question on its own.

One day, Coraline tumbles upon a small door in her living room. Naturally, like any young spirit, she urges to venture through it. "What's behind this door?" is the universal force behind Coraline's imagination.

She opens the door and heads into another world. What is this world? At first glance, it looks like the Pink Palace. But this new world has a twist. It seems like this new world is everything Coraline dreams the Pink Palace should be. Her Mom and Dad are now very fun, becoming great cooks with happy spirits, and willing to do anything Coraline asks. What Coraline will fail to see is that this is all a trap, one that could keep her locked in this world forever. While it all sounds lovely at first, things turn for the worst. This new world demands all inhibitors to lose their souls and remain confined in the compounds of Coraline's "new mother" and her evil rules to live by.

There is no reason why Coraline shouldn't be nominated for Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars. Note to the Academy: Do not punish this film because of its release date! Coraline is rich with flavor, alive with excitement, and layered with the substance created by the work of a born artist. Henry Selick has an extremely gifted eye for the future in the maturity and bewilderment of animated motion pictures.

Catching up with Netflix

**** Stars
(2001)

A beautifully shot film that unfolds as a metaphor of re-discovering both social and personal innocence.




***1/2 Stars
(2008)
Richard Jenkins gives the performance of a lifetime in this small-gem of a film about a man who befriends two married illegal immigrants. The story tackles important themes surrounding America's "national security" (who honestly knows what that means anymore?) The plot unfolds with the message that racism has yet to be resolved and now is the time to look behind the curtain to discover the truth. Jenkins, you deserve you're nomination to the fullest.



(2007)
*** Stars
Clearly inferior to its masterful predecessor (City of God), but still an interesting character study about life in the chaotic brutality of Rio De Janeiro.



(2007)
*** Stars
The word "brutal" reeks throughout this powerful piece of cinema. It will shake you to your very core.



(2006)
***1/2 Stars
Easily one of the most devastating documentaries I have ever seen, The Bridge examines the Golden Gate Bridge as a tool for victims of depression to end their lives. During 2004, filmmaker Eric Steel interviews the friends and families of the victims, recalls on-lookers who witnessed the suicides first-hand, and captures actual footage of 19 unfortunate souls who are seen falling to their potential death. As a metaphorical crossing between life and death, The Bridge is an unforgettable experience, one so sad and powerful that it buries you deep inside an ocean of painful reflection.



(2008)
**** Stars
Poetically, this is one of the most beautiful and uplifting documentaries ever made. Man on Wire is a gift from cinematic heaven, the story about Philippe Petit who in 1974 tight-roped the World Trade Center towers in New York City. Reenacted and and retold wonderfully, this is THE film under the radar that you simply do not want to miss. (Man on Wire won the Academy Award for Best Documentary at this year's 81st Academy Awards.)

Watchmen

***1/2 Stars

To get to the point (because that's what needs to be said) Watchmen the movie is not the graphic novel. However, for a graphic novel that is almost impossible to adapt to film, Zack Snyder's Watchmen is the best you will get.

On that note, this is probably a three-star movie. But I have to give the extra half star because I don't see how this film could be any stronger (minus a few issues that only those who have read the novel would pick up on) when relating to the source material. For an almost three hour movie, Watchmen moves like a streak.

For those who are virgins to Watchmen, the one thing you should know before the film is this: It is not 300 or The Dark Knight. The only relevance it has to those two films is that it's directed by 300's Zack Snyder and it has superheroes. That's just the marketing campaign to sell tickets. What you should get out of Watchmen is a richly visual experience with some great performances and a wonderful addition to the advancement of graphic novels. On a rather personal taste, and others have agreed, the opening credits to the film is probably one of the best opening credit sequences I have ever seen. Introducing the characters and story to Bob Dylan's The Time's They Are A-Changin' is like dipping the formulaic layers of the film industry into hot lava and telling them to shove-it.

The plot is set in an alternate 1980's universe, where Nixon is in his fifth-term and America is at war with the Soviet Union. On the brink of World War III, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a member of the Watchmen, is murdered. This begins a conspiracy that could spark the beginning of the end of the superheroes and the entire world. "Maybe someone's picking off costume heroes, so they'll be no one in the way to stop it," says Rorschach (the perfectly cast Jackie Earl Haley) the most heartbreaking character of the group. His sad state of living and disturbing past makes him question everyone around him, including people on his side.

The only superhero that has "real" or "actual" powers is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), formerly Jon Osterman, who has the power to control or destroy the world in a matter of moments. He sees everything from an objective standpoint. This allows him to make decisions that will benefit those who can't see the big picture, but it blinds him from the importance of loyalty.

Even at a three hour runtime, Watchmen has a hard time exploring each character. That's why I believe Snyder chose to adapt the movie faithfully to the novel. And when I mean faithfully I mean FAITHFULLY. This is almost a frame-by-frame adaptation (minus the Tales of the Black Freighter and other minor details) of the graphic novel. Viewers will look at this two different ways: 1.) It is too faithful and none of the characters have the ability to breathe on their own and 2.) How is it possible to change a graphic novel that is unfilmable to begin with? Dark, complex, and visually unforgettable, Watchmen is a richly fulfilling web of layered substance that challenges its participants to ignore its narrative structure and enter a realm of unexplored chaos.

I can't say that I'm not a little disappointed. In the back of my mind, I was thinking the same as everyone else. I hoped for a Dark Knight like-experience (not the style, but the caliber) pumped on excessive amounts of steroids. In many ways it does deliver, but for those who have read the graphic novel, there are moments that feel like Zack Snyder's Watchmen is just the cliff-notes for those who aren't willing to dive into the book. While I understand this notion, I prefer, and will not choose to accept it.