The Month of May: What the Hell Happened?

Gross so far: $280 million

Budget: $200 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 74%

Gross so far: $86 million

Budget: $200 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 44%

Gross so far: $146 million

Budget: $165 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 52%

Gross so far: $37 million

Budget: $200 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 40%

Gross so far: $51 million

Budget: $100 million

Rotten Tomatoes: 17%

CONSENSUS: FAIL

For anyone who knows me, May is one of my favorite months of the year. The summer movie season begins and audiences are thrown into the world of blockbusters. There is usually one film that sticks out as one of the summer’s best. In 2008, there was Iron Man. Last year was Star Trek.

This year, there’s…

Uh…

Um…

Bueller?

Iron Man 2 is acceptable but nowhere near the heights of the first. Robin Hood is barely escaping bankruptcy. People don’t seem to care about Shrek Forever After. Prince of Persia is in theaters and it still doesn’t seem to make sense. Sex and the City 2 lost half its audience because its marketing campaign failed to realize that you need more than just a sequel to be successful. You need to sell a story. Because of this, I’ve only seen two movies all month, and only one midnight premiere. Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood. As it is now June, I must look back and ask, what the hell happened?

Maybe I was busy graduating college or working more hours. Maybe it’s because I moved back home to New Hampshire from Boston. Or maybe, for the first time in my movie-going experience, it’s because I just don’t want to see anything that's been offered to me.

This is a rare occurrence, because I am always game for the movies regardless of what it is. But I think it’s time I finally say that I am not the same moviegoer I once was. I’m losing hope in the blockbuster genre, as this summer we have eleven sequels (up from nine last year and seven the year before), God knows how many pointless remakes/adaptations (Robin Hood, The Karate Kid, The A-Team, etc.), and several projects that once looked promising but now have fallen victim to mediocrity (I don’t want to say it, but I’m becoming skeptical of Toy Story 3, mostly because of sequel fatigue). Is it bad that the next movie I’m looking forward to the most right now is a horror film starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley called Splice?

I would recommend Get Him to the Greek, the funniest movie of 2010 so far. For those wanting an Apatow-fix, this one supplies the rare feeling of satisfaction.

Attendance is down and universal crowd-pleasers are becoming extinct. When will Hollywood redeem itself? Other than my personal interest in seeing The Last Airbender (mainly because I’m the last remaining M. Night Shyamalan fan), I never thought I would be so vulnerable to put all of my hopes for this summer of movies on one film. One film that will make or break my decision of whether or not this is (so far anyway), the worst summer of movies I’ve ever been apart of.

Did you hear that, Inception?

Robin Hood

**1/2 stars

In Robin Hood’s case, he should be honored that Sir Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and company would tell his life story. In Robin Hood the movie’s case, consider itself lucky that it’s one of the only few offerings this summer that is neither 3-D or a sequel. Because while it is an adaptation of a famous story, the sole compliment I can give is that the good manages to outweigh the bad. Like Iron Man 2, I guess in this day and age it’s the best you can hope for.

And that’s too bad, considering the enormous talent behind this $200 million epic. Russell Crowe is in full Gladiator mode as the legendary hero, shuffling between accents that tend to remind the audience of the genre’s glory days. The film begins in the crusades, as Robin and his mismatched group of musketeers fight with King Richard. After the King’s death, he takes to himself to find his own destiny. He heads off to Nottingham to discover his family history and to rediscover whatever life he has left.

Enter Maid Marian, played with witty experience by Cate Blanchett. However, this is not the Maid Marian we’ve come to know. Blanchett plays her as if she belongs in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While it’s certainly a refreshing characteristic over a helpless woman, it would have been to nice to have more sensibility to the lead character’s relationship, rather than continuously acting all noble, noble, noble.

This Robin Hood is more of a prequel than an origin story, and more of a gritty action picture than a soaring epic. I suspect audiences will leave the theater wondering if they saw a version of Robin Hood or a generic Crusade epic from the director of Gladiator. This Robin Hood hardly steals from the rich and gives to the poor, and relies heavily on action sequences. I never hated Robin Hood. In fact, I rather enjoyed it. But in order to be called an accomplishment, the film is missing a key attribute: memorable.

Iron Man 2

*** stars

In this day and age of blockbusters, coming out of a comic-book sequel feeling as though the good outweighed the bad is probably the best you could ask for. That is what Jon Favreau’s sequel to the 2008 critical and commercial smash, Iron Man 2, delivers.

The still newly A-lister Robert Downey Jr. takes the rubble off the film’s rustic action overtones and creates an unavoidable charm in the eccentric Tony Stark. This time around, Stark has successfully privatized world peace with Iron Man, but is facing pressure to turn over the Iron Man suit technology to the United States Government. Stark refuses, and continues to get off on the rush of the superhero. Still in love with him but hates him at the same time Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow) has been named CEO of Stark Industries under Stark’s supervision.

Tony is having trouble keeping the single act going, and his friend Lt. Col. James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes (Don Cheadle, taking over Terrence Howard’s role) has decided to take things into his own hands. He takes the suit from Stark and brings it to the government. Now Stark is facing pressure from everyone, including a Russian scientist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) who claims that Stark was responsible for the death of his father (and some other mass murderer mumbo jumbo).

Iron Man 2 is all play and barely any work. There is hardly a moment of dullness, but it is hard not to spot the elephant in the room that is the mediocrity in the film’s risk-taking. Favreau and company play it safe and deliver what they know will sell. While that is all find and dandy, it would have been nice if they kept it to one person. Downey’s Tony Stark is the most interesting character in the marvel universe. In fact, he’s the only one that outshines his superhero. Whenever he’s putting the suit on, it’s as though the anticipation is more about when he will take it off than what he will actually do with it.

Same goes for the new rush of characters. Scarlett Johansson is beautiful as Stark’s new assistant Natalie Rushman, Sam Rockwell is fitting as Stark’s rival Justin Hammer, and Samuel L. Jackson provides his own presence as Nick Fury, whose first priority is to remind the audience that an Avengers movie will be made sometime soon.

I really don’t have much negativity to talk about. Expectations have been met and its $128 million opening weekend has solidified its supporters. While I can’t say it’s the movie of the summer, when Stark says, “It’s good to be back,” it’s hard not to agree with him.

Kick-Ass

*** stars

It's nice to know that there are filmmakers out there like Matthew Vaughn who are willing to take some big risks with their features. And it's no surprise to me that his latest film Kick-Ass matches those expectations. However, I was surprised that it did hardly anything else but that. This is a fun, over-the-top, and stylistically violent film that has moments of greatness until it outstays its welcome.

At 127-minutes, it was hard to tell exactly where this film was going around the 90-minute mark. This is a story of an ordinary high-school "geek" named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), one who likes comic books and dreams about the idea of becoming one. While I wish that there were more to this character than the "geek" stereotype (example: spends his Friday nights alone in his room jerking it to his teacher), it's certainly the perfect person you want to see become a superhero. One day, he ponders this idea, and does just that. He buys a cheap green and yellow costume online (that appropriately channels a rejected blue man's group costume) and hits the streets ready to tackle some crime. When he musters up the courage to approach some punks stealing a car, he nobly tries to stop them.

Then he gets stabbed.

Great way to introduce your hero, wouldn't you say?

Fortunately for Dave, he survives the ordeal and is willing to answer the call once again. This time he's much more successful. After taking down some thugs in a parking lot in front of a group of spectators, his actions are taken to the Internet where he becomes the biggest online sensation ever. He's on top of the world. That is until other superheroes decide to join in.

Meet the characters who steal the movie. Hit-girl (played by Chloe Moretz, who you might recognize as the little sister from 500 Days of Summer) is a pre-teen murdering machine, trained by her psycho, revenge-seeking father Damon Macready, aka Big Daddy. Nicholas Cage is in top form here as the wicked father, showing off his genius in a supporting role. Hit-girl and Big Daddy decide to bring Kick-Ass along for some, well, ass-kicking. They must stop an evil mob boss named Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) and his nerdy son Chris, aka Red Mist, from taking them down. Christopher Mintz-Please (in case you steal need the damn reference, it's McLovin from Superbad) fits the character perfectly.

The plot is pretty standard in the world of comic-book movies, but it's the style and ultra-funny action scenes from Matthew Vaughn that makes Kick-Ass one hell of an entertaining ride. I'll admit my disappointment in the film's disguise of breaking Hollywood rules, by succeeding in its violence but becoming dependent on the conventions of a third-act script. When I saw the theatrical trailer for this film, I was excited that it looked like it was willing to go there. The film itself went there for the first 90-minutes, but it came crawling back in need of a conclusion.

Reviews For Movies In Theaters Now

Clash of the Titans
** stars

There is nothing about this Clash of the Titans remake that is really necessary. The script is formulaic, the visuals are sub-par, and the 3-D is strictly a gimmick. This is probably stuff you already know, so take it or leave it. If you're a moviegoer in need a summer movie fix, Clash of the Titans is a mild sedative. If you're a moviegoer who cringes at the thought of 3-D, side-effects include a hangover.



The Runaways
*** stars

About 20 twenty minutes into The Runaways, I kind of had the idea of where the movie was going. This is a by-the-numbers movie about the beginning of a band's formation, their journey to the top, and or course, their inevitable downfall. However, the film demands a sudden urgency thanks to strong performances by Dakota Fanning (portraying Cherie Currie) and Kristen Stewart (Joan Jett), and the absolute scene-stealing Michael Shannon.

The Ghost Writer
**** Stars

Roman Polanski may be involved in a low point in his personal life, but as a filmmaker, the man is still at the top of his game with The Ghost Writer, an intelligently taut and excitingly written political thriller. Ewan McGregor is perfectly cast as the ghost writer who will write the memoirs for former UK Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan). After dominating British politics, Lang has retired with his wife in the United States. The character McGregor portrays has one job, to help him finish his book. Instead, he gets involved with a scandal Lang has been tied to. Eventually, it comes to a point where no one is safe, and the memoir's that involve highly sensitive material gets in the wrong hands. As a movie, The Ghost Writer is chalked full of wildly suspenseful scenes. It goes from a good movie to a great movie in the second half, turning into a powerful movie that is a relevant statement of uncovering secrets in order to do what's right. You can rule out Polanksi the person if you are repulsed by his personal life, but don't rule out Polanski the filmmaker just yet. This is the best film of the year so far.

Hot Tub Time Machine
*** Stars

As far as farces go, Hot Tub Time Machine ranks close to the top in terms of ridiculousness. As far as comedies ago, it’s not on par with The Hangover, but it’s worthy enough to be considered as the best hot tub movie ever made (whatever that means). In other words, it’s pretty damn funny. I love a movie with a premise that’s really out there, but I hate it when the movie feels they have to explain how the concept works. For example, did anyone really care how Phil Connors relived Groundhog Day over and over? No, it would have ruined the movie. So don’t expect Hot Tube Time Machine to waste it’s time on the scientific exploration of how the four main characters are accidentally sent back to 1986 by a hot tub time machine. Yes, it’s exactly what you’re thinking: the best title for a movie since Snakes on a Plane.

How to Train Your Dragon

***1/2 Stars

The most refreshing and surprisingly wonderful film of the early year belongs to How to Train Your Dragon, DreamWorks finest animated film since the original Shrek. Believe it or not, Dragon is as much a fine drama as it is comedy. It never surrenders to cheap laughs or potty humor. It's always nice to watch a fantasy film that remains faithful to the world it lives in and doesn't reduce itself to pop-culture references.

The story begins with an epic battle between vikings (the good guys) and dragons (the bad guys) through the eyes of the most notable viking's son Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) who one day dreams of becoming a true viking by killing a dragon. Unfortunately for Hiccup, he doesn't have the muscles or training to become one. However, he does get lucky during the opening battle by shooting down the most feared dragon of them all, the Night Fury. Too bad for him, no one was watching.

After the battle, Hiccup wonders through the forest, frustrated that no one believes his accomplishment. As he's walking, he finds the dragon he shot down without half of his tail, thus making it unable for him to fly. Too good of a person to kill it, Hiccup forms a connection with the dragon. He calls him "Toothless," because when he doesn't attack something, he hides his teeth. Hiccup decides to help the wounded creature by building it an artificial tail. The more he helps, the more Toothless trusts him.

Back in town, Hiccup's father Stoick (Gerald Butler) tells him he's ready for Dragon training. Hiccup takes what he's learned from his secret lessons with Toothless and applies it to his training, making him the best in school and a local hero amongst the vikings.

The title for the film, How to Train Your Dragon, seems to be both a literal and metaphorical statement, one that actually creates an emotional and political message of understanding in regards to a two-sided battle and the bonds these characters create simply by listening to each other. The relationship between Hiccup and his dragon is a beautifully executed one, which comes from a great screenplay based off Cressida Cowell's novel. I saw it in 2-D, and it was this good. 3-D must be on a whole other level. Either way you choose to see it, all that's important is that you simply choose to see it.

Chloe

** Stars

Chloe, or Fatal Attraction meets Closer, brings up the question: Does a B-movie with an A-list cast make it better or worse? The film doesn't necessarily provide an answer, and I won't be premature and say worse, but this uninteresting and lazy thriller certainly helps that claim.

This is one of those movies where every single character borderlines on being unlikeable. They are all either hopeless and helpless or lost and confused, and every member of the main family seems to know nothing about each other. Julianne Moore plays the miserable, middle-aged wife Catherine Stewart, a gynecologist who suspects her husband David (Liam Neeson) of having an affair after missing the flight home for his surprise birthday party. David's excuse is that he hates birthday parties and everything about them. You'd assume he's lying, but in the context of the conversation the couples has, Catherine seems to know this. So wouldn't you think after two decades or so of marriage, she'd know that a surprise birthday party is probably not the best idea? Doesn't matter. It happens anyway.

Her suspicions are raised when she reads a text message on David's phone, "Thanks for last night!"-Miranda. And there's a picture to go with it of her and David. Okay, now that's plausible. But things go from melodramatic to ridiculous when Catherine hires a beautiful young woman named Chloe to flirt with her husband. Her job? To see how he will act. Wouldn't it be much easier to just call Miranda's phone or text her back and pretend to be him? Wait, that's what a real suspicious person would do under the circumstances. This after all, is a movie, one with characters doing things they would never do unless they were in fact, in a movie. I'm all for suspending disbelief, but I won't settle for boring and illogical storytelling.

So just when I thought I had figured out Chloe, it turns into every joke I thought about in my head while viewing it. When the film reveals all its secrets, there were moments where I thought, it would be really funny if that character slept with that character, then lied about it, then had sex with someone else that was important to that character out of revenge, then went crazy because of all the rejection. I had seriously doubts I'd be right here, but this in fact, is what actually happens.

I did my best there not to give anything away. In other words, let's just say Chloe is not afraid to go there. It's a shame that the A-list actors are dragged along for the ride.

I may have just answered my own question.

Greenberg

*** Stars

Greenberg is all character study and little story. It's a rather shallow film at times, but surprisingly, I never once found myself bored. As a writer and director, Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) makes some very brave choices in this film. Ben Stiller delivers a strong performance as Roger Greenberg, a failed New York musician who housesits his brothers home while he is away in Vietnam after coming out of a mental institution. He strikes up a friendly relationship with his brother's assistant Florence (Greta Gerwig) and spends six weeks doing nothing. Literally, nothing. Nothing except writing complaint letters to companies and drinking the days away. Florence and him grow rather close, in ways you wouldn't expect. They don't have anything in common, but they spend a lot of time together doing the small stuff. Roger is not the nicest person, and at times is rather unlikeable, however he is very much an interesting character with an original voice. Greenberg doesn't have an introduction or an ending, but rather a simple glimpse in the life of a group of people who did not expect the life they have been given. While this is a film that's easier to admire than to love, it's the bravery in Baumbach's talent that allows this to be a much better film than what it could have been.

2010 Oscar Predictions

The frontrunner for Best Picture The Hurt Locker has had a few bumps in the home stretch, but it should hold on fine and dandy for tomorrow night in what's been a rather unexciting and predictable Oscar race. Sure, Sunday night will be wonderful to watch, and lord knows I'll be in heaven, but I'm still disappointed in the Academy's choices for best picture. They got the ones we knew were going to get nominated right (Hurt Locker, Avatar, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds), but they missed the mark with other forgotten genres such as comedy. However, no matter what they choose, there is always a winner. And I must now predict them. I have already given my analysis of the movies (click here for that article), so here are simply my predictions and snubs.

Best Picture
Nominees:
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Who will win: The Hurt Locker
Who should win: Avatar
Who got snubbed: Where the Wild Things Are, (500) Days of Summer, & Star Trek
Who shouldn't be there: The Blind Side

Best Director
Nominees:
Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker
James Cameron for Avatar
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air
Lee Daniels for Precious

Who will win: Kathryn Bigelow
Who should win: Bigelow
Who got snubbed: Spike Jonze for Where the Wild Things Are
Who shouldn't there: Jonze would take Lee Daniels place

Best Actor
Nominees:
Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart
George Clooney for Up in the Air
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker
Morgan Freeman for Invictus
Colin Firth for A Single Man

Who will win: Jeff Bridges
Who should win: Bridges
Who got snubbed: Sam Rockwell for Moon
Who shouldn't be there: All five are worthy, but if it were the case, Rockwell would take Freeman's place.

Best Actress
Nominees:
Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side
Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia
Carey Mulligan for An Education
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious
Helen Mirren for The Last Station

Who will win: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side
Who should win: I have no say in this category
Who got snubbed: Saoirse Ronan for The Lovely Bones
Who shouldn't be there: This category is very weak this year.

Best Supporting Actor
Nominees:
Christopher Waltz for Inglourious Basterds
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station
Matt Damon for Invictus
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones

Who will win: Christopher Waltz
Who should win: Waltz
Who got snubbed: Anthony Mackie for The Hurt Locker

Best Supporting Actress
Nominees:
Monique for Precious
Anna Kendrick Up in the Air
Vera Farmiga Up in the Air
Maggoe Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart
Penelope Cruz for Nine

Who will win: Monique
Who should win: Doesn't matter. Monique's going to win. She is worthy. So is Farmiga.
Who got snubbed: Any actress from Inglourious Basterds

Best Adapted Screenplay
Nominees:
Mark Boal for The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman for The Messenger
Joel and Ethan Coen for A Serious Man
Bob Peterson and Pete Docter for Up

Who will win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Who should win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
Who got snubbed: (500) Days of Summer

Best Original Screenplay
District 9 (Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell)
An Education (Nick Hornby)
In the Loop (Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche)
Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (Geoffrey Fletcher)
Up in the Air (Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner)

Who will win: Up in the Air
Who should win: Up in the Air
Who got snubbed: Where the Wild Things Are, Star Trek

Alice in Wonderland

**1/2 Stars

There's no denying Alice in Wonderland's ambitious attempts at recreating the magic of the 1951 original, but with a collaboration as appropriate as Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, it's hard not to say that this visual-trip falls short of its expectations. Although it's certainly not a failure by any means (and for many, it's certainly worthy of admission), it fails to produce a story worthy of future remembrance.

I always admired Burton and Depp for their ability to adapt familiar stories into a creation of their own (including Sleepy Hallow, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Sweeney Todd, among others). Perhaps this is why it felt so right when this duo began to tackle this Disney classic. Depp plays the Mad Hatter, who is surprised to find that Alice (Mia Wasikowska) has returned to wonderland 13 years after the original (this isn't a sequel, but rather more of a re-imagining). Alice, now at the age of 19, is the daughter of a very wealthy family who escapes to Wonderland on the afternoon of her marriage proposal. When she arrives, she has forgotten her previous experiences, so everything is new to her.

It's interesting to watch Alice try and rediscover the rules of Wonderland such as the drink that shrinks her and the cake that enlarges her. The first 45 minutes of the movie include some very interesting characters and humorous scenes, but as Alice makes her way further into Wonderland the magic that was once sprinkled all over this place wears out. Especially in the third act.

I never give away an ending to a film in a review, and I won't start here, but the third act of Alice in Wonderland ruins any chance of letting the film become memorable. Instead of continuing down the path of visual wonders, new characters, and Alice's experience, she is shoved into a Chronicles of Narnia like situation that runs the rest of the movie's runtime amok. Helena Bonham Carter is an inspired choice to play the Red-Queen, but there's only so many times one can say, "Off with his head!" and still find it funny. Anne Hathaway is almost reduced to cameo status as the White Queen, who wants us Alice to fulfill the prophecy and take down the evil Red Queen. The Mad Hatter and other familiar characters including Tweedledum & Tweedledee, the White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat, and Abosolom the Caterpillar, all help Alice on her journey to discover what was once thought of as a dream, has now become real.

I was never bored by Alice in Wonderland, and on a visual scale, it's captivating, but I think this simply proves once again that in order to have a great film, one must have great visuals along a great story (yes, this has to do with my defending of Avatar). In Alice's case, she has been reduced to a pond in a visual game. It's a good thing the game is worthy of spectators, especially in a movie theater.

Shutter Island

***1/2 Stars

When Shutter Island was bumped from its perfect release date from October 2nd of last year to February 19th, it created a huge asterisk in my mind of the way present film's are being treated. Yes, from a financial standpoint, Paramount made a successful call, opening to $41 million on opening weekend, but my question is this: why wouldn't this excitingly twisty thriller be just as successful opening at a time where the Oscars begin to boom in people's mind, in a month that's perfect for a horror-themed movies (a la Halloween), and after a great marketing campaign that included Oscar buzz and a fantastic trailer?

I'll probably never know the answer to that question, but I digress. Shutter Island is a good film that becomes very close to greatness in its final act. I'll admit the first two acts hold you rather than grip, but that's only because this is Scorsese, one of the world's greatest filmmakers, re-teaming with his muse of movie stars Leonardo Dicaprio, whose last three combined efforts have been masterpieces. In other words, it's a minor, small critique.

Dicaprio plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S Federal Marshall who is sent to a Massachusetts mental asylum on the secluded Shutter Island. His new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) joins Teddy as they try to unveil the island's dark histories after a patient named Rachel Solando has escaped. The asylum's creator Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) is very proud of his life's work. He describes Rachel's escape, "it's as if she evaporated, straight through the walls." A B-movie line yes, but applied wonderfully under Scorsese's direction. As the mystery ensues, so does the evaporation of Teddy's sanity. We learn that there are secrets on Shutter Island much more complex than one might suggest.

This is a side of Scorsese we haven't seen in decades (Cape Fear), or perhaps ever before. It comes with a few mixed results, including a few draggy moments during Teddy's search, but they are overcome by a sensational final act that not only thrills, but moves. When we discover Teddy's past traumas intertwined with the actions on the island, hang on for some truly great cinema. Dicaprio shines (when does he not?) in a full-out, exposed, hold-nothing-back performance. Unfortunately for him, he has lost the chance for awards recognition. Yea-yea, there's always 2010's Oscar race, but the film's relevance will naturally be incorrectly labeled as untimely.

Shutter Island ends with a line that will stay with you. Pay attention to what it means, who is saying it, and why. It's a haunting statement of demonized psychology only spoken after an intensely terrifying experience. Same goes for the movie.

Valentine's Day

0 Stars

Some of the most racist, sexist, and downright offensive movies to human relationships that people would think of is probably in the league of Borat, Jackass, Team America: World Police, or a Lars Von Trier movie. A suggestion? Add Valentine's Day right to the top of the list.

This movie is nothing more than a gimmick of hallmark programming. After the success of He's Just Not That Into You, I can just imagine the meeting studio executives had when trying to discuss a similar spinoff. In this scenario, Studio Executive #1 will play the bad guy and Studio Executive #2 will play the good guy.

Studio Exec #1: (in regards to He's Just Not That Into You) "Ok, the Valentine's Day release date worked and so did the big cast."

Studio Exec #2: "What about the story?"

Studio Exec #1: "Doesn't matter. We just need a theme. Hmm, let's see a theme for a Valentine's Day weekend release...(pondering)"

Studio Exec #2: "I'm guessing you want to do a Valentine's Day theme."

Studio Exec #1: "That's it! With a big cast! Brilliant! And it will take place in Los Angeles so none of them will have to travel!"

Studio Exec #2: "Ok, what's the story?"

Studio Exec #1: "Did you hear anything I've just said?"

Studio Exec #2: (Sigh)

Think I'm way off on this one? Disagree all you want, but after the $60 million+ opening of Valentine's Day, the next spinoff is now confirmed, called New Year's Eve.

Studio Exec #1: "Ok, so a holiday themed movie that opens on that holiday with the same title as the holiday, works. Any ideas?

Studio Exec #2: Oh screw it, I'm broke. New Year's Eve.

Studio Exec #1: BRILLIANT!

The Woflman

**1/2 Stars

The Wolfman is an acceptable film that is sure to entertain its intended audience. Yes, there are many laughable moments and everything falls apart in the third act, but I can't say I didn't have a horror-filled, bloody-good time. And not to sound like a broken record or anything, but it was rather refreshing. Too many blockbusters these days have me anticipating too much leaving me completely let down, or they're just downright insufferable (I won't point any fingers, but lets just say they are rooted from comic-book spin-offs, big robots, and action figures).

Ugh, I give up. I'm not fooling anybody.

The Wolfman however, delivers exactly what it promises. Some scary moments, plenty of quality kills, and a top-notch cast. For me, that's rather impressive given the films rumors of extensive delays and a hellish period in post-production.

Benicio Del Toro is an inspired choice to play an American named Lawrence Talbot, aka the man who eventually becomes the Wolfman. After Lawrence's brother is murdered by an apparent monster, he is called backed to his home in Victorian-era Great Britain to help discover the meaning behind his brother's death. Waiting for him is his brother's fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) and his father Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins). With the town spooked and his family in mourning, Lawrence's search for the truth begins. Little did he know that would include him getting bit by a werewolf making him bedridden for weeks only to be completely healed of all wounds until a full moon hits the sky and he becomes a monster where he hunts human flesh until the next morning when he wakes up covered in blood with no memory of what he did as the town desperately tries to put him to death.

Happy Valentine's Day.

For what it's worth, director Joe Johnston is able to sustain The Wolfman to a very watchable length, keeping it well below two hours. Sometimes it's nice to get it and get out, especially for a premise that doesn't require that much of a set-up. We don't actually see the transformation until about half way through, which is when all logic is thrown out the window and is replaced by bloody action. But you know what? I'm not complaining. The film is visually arresting and on some occasions, quietly moving. However I will admit that the third act is totally lame. In what could be the most ridiculous fight sequence since Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway in Bride Wars, The Woflman takes the cowardly way out and gives into the mass-audience's demand for third-act (and in this case, third-class) action sequences.

The movie is a toss-up. I for one never came to close to hating it and was quite interested in where the characters were heading. Hugo Weaving adds some clever wit as Inspector Abberline, who comes to town to track down the werewolf. When all is said and done, a better story would have been nice, but sometimes you have to take what you can get. So be it, The Wolfman cometh.