The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest

The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest is the third in the series of novels and films begun with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (reviewed previouly). As with the first film, I came into this intrigued by the almost universal praise I'd heard for the film, and series as a whole. I caught up by watching the second film, The Girl Who Played With Fire, first though. Which is good, otherwise I would have been very confused as these two seem more like one story broken into two parts, so Fire directly leads into Hornet's Nest.

On a whole, I think this is a better film than Dragon Tattoo, mostly because it is nowhere near as slow to get going. Unfortunately it seems to still suffer from some rather sloppy storytelling, which is something that bothered me about the first film. In this film we have a character who was introduced in Fire; he serves no purpose, and brings nothing, to this story. But, because his arc was not closed at the end of that one, he shows up a few times throughout this one, to remind us he exists, before they have to add 10-15 minutes to the end of the movie, after the conflict has been resolved, to take care of him. A similar problem that Dragon Tattoo had.

I like the courtroom drama aspect of this film more than the crime/investigation stories of the previous two. For one thing, we've had this central character, Lisbeth Salander, who we haven't gotten to know much and finally, now, we get to actually focus on, and learn about, her. In the first one, we're introduced to her and she's interesting and complicated but we don't end up learning, or knowing, much about her. In the second, she becomes the subject of a conspiracy, but still, we don't learn much about her, except her father is an evil man. It takes until this third film for us to actually get insight into her.

It feels as though it's inefficient storytelling. One of the things that comes to play here, at long last, is one of the problems I had with the beginning of the first film – a subplot between Lisbeth and her guardian. Was that purposefully set up then for use now? Or is it just taking advantage of something that was already there? If it was a set up, why then and there, at the beginning of the first film when it has no bearing on that story? Why slow down the first film solely for the purposes of this one? If it's just taking advantage of something that was there, well, why was it there in the first place? There has to be a better way of giving us the information needed. You can hint at it in the first film then flesh it out later in the second and/or third when it actually has some meaning to the story.

I also have a problem with just believing this story, no matter how much I liked it. In order to keep Lisbeth from talking about her father, a Russian defector protected by a forgotten underground group (yeah, the government just happened to forget about it, how convenient), this group sends her, twelve years-old at the time, to a mental institution headed by a corrupt doctor involved with said group. They torture her and have her declared unfit, thus why, as an adult, she has a legal guardian. I have a problem with this because it would seem to me that, in order to keep someone quiet, a corrupt group would just have that person killed. It's in their power, they kill other people, and they're not good people who would seem to have a problem with killing a twelve year-old girl. A conspiracy seems much too complicated, just kill them and be done with it. So everything that ends up happening feels like convenient twists, turns and complications merely for the sake of twists, turns and complications rather than what makes sense for the story and characters. It's as though a bunch of ideas were tossed in a bowl and whenever something was needed, one was picked at random.

It's unfortunate because it is good, I don't want that to get lost in here. If I could walk away from any of these films without thinking 'there just has to be a better way to do this,' they'd be closer to great, and that's what's so frustrating. But this messy, inefficient story keeps it firmly in the 'good' category - it has all the right parts (maybe a few too many), they're just not used properly. Not having read the novels, I can't say if it's a source material problem, but it would seem as though it must be. The only thing that I can't argue with is Noomi Rapace's performance as Lisbeth. It's outstanding. If for no other reason, watch the film, and the whole series, for that.

3 out of 5

The Social Network

You may ask yourself “why would I want to see a Facebook movie?” The answer is that it's so much more than a movie about Facebook. Is it an accurate depiction of the founding of Facebook? Undoubtedly not. Does it matter? Absolutely not. The film is like a perfect storm of great parts coming together.

First, there's the script written by Aaron Sorkin. In actuality, the script may be the star of the film. Not only does Sorkin cleverly use depositions from two lawsuits against Mark Zuckerberg as a framing device to tell the story, but the dialogue is superb as well. Using the depositions gives a frame of reference for us, and suggests that what we're seeing isn't necessarily what actually happened, as they point out several times. It also gives the events a more personal feeling as we can see how actions affected them, how the characters view them, and what they think of each other. It adds drama that otherwise wouldn't exist. He makes it a very compelling story of ambition, friendship and betrayal.

Mark Zuckerberg is driven to stand out and be exceptional, perfectly set up in the opening scene. He's not great at coming up with ideas, but he has the ability to improve other peoples' ideas and make them great, wonderfully displayed in the following scene. And that creates the problem – if someone has a very basic idea, but someone else is able to fill it out, make it better and make something different and their own out of it, who has the right to it? And with Mark's social awkwardness and ambition, he doesn't understand how to do deal with his friends and their business. And as their business grows, so too do the tensions as they want to take the business different directions.

Then there's David Fincher's direction. I think the most astounding thing is that he was able to get a 160 page script into two hours. The general rule of thumb is that pages equals minutes – a 120 minute movie script should be around 120 pages. But Fincher pushed the actors to spit out the dialogue as fast as they could (the opening scene took 99 takes, and Fincher throughout filming told the actors “Faster!”). But nothing feels rushed. You never feel as though you're being bombarded with information. It's all shown to us very well, you don't miss anything.

Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic as Mark Zuckerberg. He speaks the dialogue so well, it sounds natural (when, in fact, no one talks like that). He also plays Zuckerberg with sincerity – he honestly does not see what the problems that people have with him are. He believes that he's done what is right and proper. He doesn't just play him as someone who is petty and looking to screw people over. And the character could easily come off that way. It keeps the character very human and strangely sympathetic.

I also quite enjoyed Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography. Like he did with Fincher's Fight Club, he largely uses natural light. He lets the location bathe the scene in unusual colors, making very striking and beautiful images. I thought the electronic score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross worked very well.

There is no doubt that this is an early favorite for some Oscar considerations. They'll be well deserved. It's an extremely well-crafted, put together, interesting, funny movie. There's quite a lot of humor here to break up the dramatic tension. And it's interesting to watch the relationships between the characters change and evolve as the story moves along, especially when you know where they end up – finding out how they get there is the fun and intriguing thing. There's so much more to this than just being about Facebook. And with a great script, great direction, and a great performance, how can you go wrong?

5 out of 5

Scott Pilgrim Vs the World

How to describe Scott Pilgrim vs the World? It's kind of like if someone took a Michael Cera movie, old-school video games, comic books, a Beck CD and thew them in a blender together. And when you put them together, you're not too sure how it'll turn out. The result is weird. But it works. Though, I will admit, it most likely doesn't work for everyone.

It starts with Scott dating a high-school girl named Knives. She's 17, he's 22. Don't worry, they haven't even held hands yet. She's totally smitten with Scott. Scott seems as though he's satisfied having someone who thinks he's completely awesome after his last girlfriend wrecked him a year ago. But then Scott sees a girl in his dreams, then he sees her at the library. At a party he finds out who she is, Ramona, and that she happens to be there. He tries to talk to her, but it doesn't go so well. After that he finds that she delivers orders for Amazon.ca (it takes place in Toronto), so he orders something so she can deliver it. He convinces her to go to the show his band, Sex Bob-omb (Bob-omb is a Super Mario Bros. reference), is playing. At the show is when things start to get weird (this is a relative term) for Scott – they are interrupted and Scott is challenged to a fight by the first of Ramona's evil-exes. Over the course of the next few days (or however long, it doesn't really give a specific time frame) Scott tries to court Ramona, break up with Knives (“But it's hard” Scott replies when his roommate tells him to break up with her), and fight the rest of the evil-exes.

The film exists in a world akin to that of a comic book panel and video games. Sound effects appear on screen (“Knock knock” or “ring”) the same they do in comic books, not in the way they do in the 1960s Batman television show (full-screen “KAPOW!!!!”). It's a fun touch rather than a campy gimmick. Same goes with video game flourishes like power bars, hit combos, level ups, points, etc. And the film does it so naturally, it doesn't feel out of place or take you out of it – it doesn't call attention to the artifice. It actually serves it. That these exes have powers or abilities doesn't seem strange to the characters. When the exes are defeated, they burst into coins – after defeating the first, Scott gets excited and starts picking up the coins, only to be disappointed that it's not enough to cover bus fare. What seems strange is that they want to fight Scott at all.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this movie is that with all of the stuff that's on the screen at any given moment, it's not over-indulgent, distracting, or mind-numbing. Because these touches pop up so frequently, you quickly become adjusted to them. And if you're even vaguely familiar with the vocabulary of video games and comics, it's not hard at all. They're a lot of fun, too, and don't get old because they don't continuously repeat the same thing.

And, really, the keyword when talking about this movie is 'fun.' It's a really well-made movie. It's very funny. The story is clever. But the most important thing about it, and what you'll leave thinking, is that it's an extremely fun movie. And it's not a knock on the movie like other movies where it's just ok and you can't really think of anything good to say about it so you say it was fun. It just oozes pure, unadulterated fun. I can't think of a movie I had as much fun watching.

The movie isn't for everyone (what movie is?), but I don't think the audience is as small and niche as people may think. If you don't know about, looking at it can make you just go 'what?' and think it's something for hardcore gamers and comic book readers, specifically, comic book readers who already know and have read this little known comic book. As someone who plays video games casually (more socially, as social drinkers or smokers only drink or smoke when out with others who do), has only read a handful of graphic novels (none of them are any of the books of this series), and only heard about this one a few months ago when I first saw the trailer, I found the movie extremely accessible. Take away all the flash and touches and it's a romantic comedy, a good one. Once people decide to give it a chance, they'll find that out and be greatly rewarded. You'll get over the weirdness.

It's cute, it's fun, it's never dull, it's funny, and just really, really good. It has a good cast (set Michael Cera aside for the anti-Cera crowd) that includes Kieran Culkin, Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman. There's a very good chance you will leave the theater with a smile on your face. Give it a shot.

4 out of 5

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I've heard a lot of good things about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, a Swedish film adaptation of the Swedish novel of the same name. I haven't read the book, whenever I see it I pick it up, read the back and think it doesn't sound like something I'd want to read. It's the story about an investigation about a 40 year old missing girl case and murders. Next year there'll be an American adaptation directed by David Fincher, so this should be right up his alley (check out Zodiac). So I figured I'd check this out.

The film is slow to get going. Part of this is setting up the character of Mikael Blomkvist. A necessary delay. He's a disgraced journalist who has just been convicted of slandering a businessman (he claims he was set up) and will start his jail sentence in six months. He needs to have a reason to take up the case of the missing Harriet Vanger when called upon by her uncle Henrik. The case is 40 years old. He has nothing to lose, so he might as well look into this, he won't be working otherwise as he's been pushed out of his magazine by the scandal.

What's unnecessary is all the time spent on Lisbeth Salander (the girl with the dragon tattoo of the title). She's eccentric. And she has issues. But they spend a lot of time, in the beginning, delaying the actual start of the story with a sidetrack between her and her new parole guardian. He's abusive and likes to take advantage of his power. The episode is, in and of itself, interesting and compelling. In the larger framework of the story, however, it doesn't add anything that couldn't be done in a more subtle fashion. It's supposed to add character to her, but you could just as easily add that depth through hints, mannerisms, etc, and not stop the story dead in its tracks for 10-15 minutes, just as it's starting to get going. Besides, she's supposed to be enigmatic, so she'd be better served without us knowing. And it seems to be revealed, at the end, that she has a previous history of suffering through abuse, so is this extra 10-15 minutes really necessary?

Once the dust settles on that and the story finally starts to get going, it's really good. It's well done. It's shot very well and the actors give good performances, especially Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth. There's family intrigue, as the Vanger family lives on an island accessible only by a single bridge. Harriet disappeared while the bridge was blocked off for 24 hours because of a traffic accident. The whole clan was there for a business meeting, they don't like each other, and many of them are very unsavory, so there's a select group of possible suspects. The cops weren't able to find anything for 40 years.

Lisbeth, who works for a security company, had previously been hired to investigate Mikael, and she is a very skilled computer hacker. Even though her investigation is over, she continues to hack into Mikael's computer. Once he starts working on the case, she comes across a clue that she's able to crack thanks to her photographic memory. She sends him an email which leads him to bring her on board for the case. From there they unravel serial murders with religious themes, which it seems Harriet seemed to be looking into and maybe got too close to.

The twists and turns are well done and build suspense. It keeps you on the edge of your seat. Then they solve the murders, but not the disappearance of Harriet. When the murders are solved, you feel the resolution and are thus ready for the movie to be over, but it has to continue on further. So this makes the end feel as though it drags on and on. Even when they figure out what happened to Harriet, they drag it on even more.

The original Swedish title translates to Men Who Hate Women and the movie can tend to beat you over the head with that theme, without really saying anything about violence against women. It could use more subtlety. Is there a woman in this movie who hasn't been abused by a man?

In between the slow start and dragging end, this is a very good, interesting, suspenseful movie. Lisbeth is an intriguing character. With some trimming, this could be a much better movie. But I still don't know if the book is something I'd want to read.

3 out of 5

Inception

Inception is a pet project of Chris Nolan's. He first came up with the idea when he was 16 year old. He's been working on the script for the past 10 years. This is his movie. It's his first wholly original work since his debut, Following. The script is also the first he's written on his own in the same amount of time.

You can immediately see why this script took him so long to work out. At the heart of the movie, you have three time lines going simultaneously. Also, there are so many details to keep track of, if you think it's easy to get lost while watching it, think of how easy it would be to get lost while writing it, when all those details are just ideas floating in your mind and not set anywhere. Nolan did a masterful job of setting everything down.

With this level of complexity, it'd be easy for the story, plot and characters to get muddy, confused, or lost. The story and plot are clear (in the sense that you understand the big picture of what's going on as the little details unravel) – Cobb (Leonadro DiCaprio) has to plant an idea in the mind of Saito's (Ken Watanabe) business rival. Cobb is an extractor, planting an idea is much more difficult and untried. Cobb assembles a team to plan their attack, in the same manner of a heist movie (using that set up helps immensely in making the movie accessible and no doubt helped Nolan). And the characters are well defined, they have distinct roles and personalities.

One of the more impressive aspects of the movie is the way that Nolan makes this whole scenario feel organic and real. It's not a futuristic setting, it has a rather timeless feel to it with nothing suggesting when this is. It's relatively devoid of technology – there's a rather unimpressive looking briefcase which contains the device to connect everyone, with a button and some tubes. Cell phones barely even make an appearance. And there's no expository scene explaining how it's possible to infiltrate another person's dreams by connecting to this machine. By starting the film with a scene showing the team and device in action, we're immediately brought in and believe it without needing these explanations. It's the number one rule of film: show, don't tell. The filmmaker is then free to push on; as long as the characters don't question it, we have no reason to either. It just feels completely natural. And that's damn good storytelling and filmmaking.

I also quite like the special effects. Nolan, as a filmmaker, stresses practical effects over computer-generated, which is really an admirable trait. And we've seen effects like these before, but I don't think ever on the scale Nolan takes it. We've seen buildings fold on themselves, or maybe even a city block, but Nolan folds an entire city onto itself, in just about the only obvious computer-generated effect. Watching that scene is just awe-inspiring. You see it in the trailers and commercials, yet you still find yourself going 'wow.' And we've seen people walk on walls and ceilings in spinning rooms before, but here you have an entire hotel hallway. Watching the actors fight in that long, spinning hallway is mesmerizing. It's incredible to watch. And this was done practically - by building a hallway and spinning it. Very impressive. If we were bombarded by computer-generated effects in this movie, we'd be taken out of the movie because there'd likely be just too much going on.

The film never feels cluttered or overwhelming. At the very least, you always know the filmmaker is in control, knows what he's doing, and has a plan, so you don't feel overwhelmed. And there's a lot going on. Not only is there the planning and planting of the idea, and then the action going on in three levels of dreams, but there's also Cobb's past to deal with. He's haunted by his dead wife, Mal, who is able to infiltrate, and complicate, the dream worlds where their heists take place. She's a part of Cobb's psyche now and he can't control her. In the first scene, where Cobb and his team are trying to extract information from Saito, she sabotages them. So he has to contend with that – he can't know details about the maps that are being created for the dreams because if he knows, she knows, and she'll make hell for them.

Cobb was accused of murdering Mal in the States. He can't go back because of it and is the impetus for him taking this job, as Saito claims he can make a call and have everything taken care of. Cobb didn't murder Mal, but he feels guilt over it. They were stuck in limbo together (in a normal dream, if you die, you wake up, but if you're under sedation, you go into a state of limbo in your psyche until the sedation wears off, and because time is expanded in the dream world and is compounded with each dream-within-a-dream, the time could feel like years), when they woke up, she couldn't believe it was the real world and killed herself. It is because of this guilt that she haunts him.

This is an incredible amount of character and story depth and story complications, that we don't get lost, confused, or overwhelmed is a testament to Nolan's storytelling and filmmaking abilities. This is just, all around, an extremely well-made movie – in technique and story. It's also fascinating, fun, interesting, enjoyable, intense, and will keep you thinking about it well after you've left the theater. What else could you want from a movie?

5 out of 5

Toy Story 3

To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to start this off. I'll just say that I absolutely loved this movie. It's wonderfully sweet, endearing, cute (in a good way) and touching. It continues the story from the first two movies in an excellent way and brings it to a nice, logical close.

As Andy prepares to go to college, the toys (those who have survived the years of spring cleanings and garage sales) fret their fates – trash or attic. Going to the trash means their death. Going to the attic means they're saved, will stick together, and be there when they are needed again. They've also heard talk of a thing called 'day care,' where other toys have gone.

When they wind up on the street (with the exception of Woody, who Andy has picked to accompany him to college) as a result of a misunderstanding by Andy's mom, they sneak their way into the donation box. Woody, who had tried to save them from the street and the approaching garbage truck, gets stuck in the box as well after trying to convince them to go back to the attic so they will be there when Andy needs them. Woody is totally devoted to Andy (as he was picked to go to college, that's pretty easy for him), the others are more concerned with being played with rather than whose they are.

So they go to day care and it looks like a wonderful place – a constant stream of kids who will never out grow the toys. Woody, unable to convince the others to go back home, leaves and makes his way out of the day care, but is found and taken home by Bonnie, the daughter of one of the employees. He gets played with for the first time in a long time, but can't enjoy it because he just wants to go home. The others still at day care find out that it isn't what it first appeared. It's ruled with a cotton-stuffed iron fist by the bitter Lots-O-Huggin Bear (Lotso for short). Woody finds this out too, then it becomes a prison break as he goes back to rescue them.

This is where the movie breaks away from the first two. It's not just about the toys wanting to be played with (Toy Story being about Woody's fear of being replaced and no longer being played with; Toy Story 2 being about Woody's fear of being broken and no longer being played with; the rest of the toys' concern is being played with), but, now, their destruction and death in a landfill crusher and incinerator.

Heavy stuff for a family film. But Pixar has never been afraid of using unconventional subjects in their family films – The Incredibles is, in essence, a mid-life crisis family drama; Wall-E has almost no dialogue in the first act and paints a picture of a destroyed Earth. That's why Pixar is Pixar, the pinnacle in modern family films – they get that there is more to it than being cute or playing down to what you think kids want or can handle. They make sure there's story, character and depth. They're not just making something to pacify the kids for 90 minutes.

Needless to say, the toys don't die. And they're able to make it back home before Andy goes away. But after going through that ordeal with his friends, Woody gets second thoughts about joining Andy at college. He secretly plants the idea of donating the toys rather than putting them in the attic and leaves an address. Andy thinks it's the day care, but instead it's Bonnie's house. The scene between Andy and Bonnie as he introduces her to the toys is incredibly sweet and just plain wonderful. When he gets to the bottom of the box and finds Woody...the tears will flow. And they are well-earned, genuine, honest tears. That is how much you care about these characters, toys and humans alike.

The voice cast is wonderful, both the returning actors and new ones (Michael Keaton's Ken is just fun). The animation is superb. The story and characters are outstanding. There's lots of fun references to the previous two movies, but never verges into playing on nostalgia. It's not likely you'll find a better family-friendly movie this year (you may find ones you think are better suited for kids, but they won't be as well done overall and enjoyable for all age groups, because there's more to a family than just the kids, isn't there?).

5 out of 5

Get Him To The Greek

Get Him To The Greek is a spin-off of the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall, based on Russell Brand's character, rock star Aldous Snow. I thought Forgetting Sarah Marshall was a really good, funny movie. And I thought that Aldous Snow was a fun character. I didn't know how well they could pull off a full movie based around him, though. For the most part, they do, to my surprise.

They make it work by not just making it about him – they make it a buddy movie. They give him someone to bounce off of, rather than trying to carry it himself. This is smart because it's what made the character so fun in Forgetting Sarah Marshall - he's in his own world, not that concerned about what other people think, and the other characters reacting to it.

The other thing they do really well is actually make him a complete character. He actually has purpose, feelings, and inner-workings. With a character like this, it'd be very easy and tempting to make him a caricature of every drugged out rock star there's been, keeping it strictly on the surface. His career has gone down the dumps, his girlfriend left him and has custody of their son, after six years of sobriety he's back drinking and on drugs. And you see that all of these things have an effect on him. He loves his son and it hurts him not to be near him. He obviously has unresolved feelings for his ex. And, naturally, the subject of his career is a bit touchy.

His buddy is Jonah Hill's Aaron Green, a young representative from Snow's struggling record company. He comes up with the idea of doing a show to mark the 10 year anniversary of Snow's classic live album at the Greek Theater. He is put in charge of getting Snow from England to the show (hence the title).

They don't do such a good job with Aaron. Specifically, his relationship with his girlfriend, Daphne. It seems unnecessary and feels forced. They have an argument and they kind of, sort of, maybe break up. So he goes to get a rock star who is always surrounded by beautiful women. While Aaron is gone, they decide they want to get back together but when she calls, or his phone accidentally calls her, he's with girls. Uh-oh. So, why'd they have to break up to begin with if you're going to have these problems anyway? Seems to me these issues would work better if they were actually, for a fact, still a couple, these compromising situations creating tension between them. He's already under pressure from his scary boss (a wonderful Sean Combs) to deliver Snow to an appearance on the Today Show and to the Greek Theater on time. That's enough. That and trying to patch things up with Daphne on the road is just messy.

The film is consistently funny throughout, you never go more than a few minutes without a good laugh. Until they get back to Los Angeles. There, the movie just kind of loses its steam, all at once. It starts with a great scene when Aldous visits his ex. After that, though, it gets really awkward with a very uncomfortable scene between Aaron, Daphne and Aldous. After that, the movie never really regains its momentum.

It's really funny for the first two-thirds of the movie. Russell Brand is a lot of fun as Aldous Snow. It's enjoyable - Aldous getting to, and on, the Today Show and the portion of the movie in Las Vegas where they go to see Aldous' father were the stand outs. And there's actually some pretty good heart to the story.

2 1/2 out of 5

Iron Man 2

What was great about the first Iron Man was that it actually put a focus on character and character development. It didn't just want to be a loud, shiny toy. It actually made the characters interesting and you cared about them, not just because you're supposed to, but because it was earned. And it did this by sacrificing a little action. In Iron Man 2, they can't give character the same kind of attention because there's more action this time around and there's also more characters to introduce. There are more threads going this time, and, overall, they're handled well, but a couple characters suffer for it. Namely Vanko and Pepper Potts.

Mickey Rourke insisted the character of Vanko have a bird (as well as gold teeth and Russian prison tattoos) to give the character some humanity and depth. The thing is, we don't really ever see that humanity. The bird never really comes into play for the character. When he goes to work for Justin Hammer, he insists they get his bird. They bring up the bird several times, so it should be important to the character, right? But when Hammer and his guards take the bird from Vanko, is Vanko bothered? No. He shows no concern over the bird. He's already decided what he's going to do. We could've gotten some humanity had they taken the bird and then Vanko gets upset and makes his decision. It may seem like a small, nitpicky thing, but it feels to me like a missed opportunity. A point they bring up which then doesn't really add anything to the character or story.

In the first movie, there's a real connection between Pepper and Tony Stark. You get it, you see it, you feel it. Here, the two are separated so much, you don't get that same feeling. They have so little to do with each other, their budding relationship depends on you knowing it's going to happen simply because it's supposed to rather than because we see something. This is the character and relationship hurt most by the increased action and number of characters.

Thankfully, the rest of the characters don't suffer the same fate. Stark has great depth as he faces an impending death. His blood is being poisoned by the device that is keeping his heart going. He uses the wild, daredevil personality now as a disguise to hide that anything is wrong. He's going out either way. His best friend, Rhodes, is trying to protect Tony and the Iron Man suit from the government and himself, but as Tony gets more and more reckless, that is harder and harder to do. And he has to deal with his obligations to his friend, possessor of a sought after weapon which other people and countries are now trying to replicate, and his obligations to the military.

And where the first movie had a great performance by Robert Downey Jr. (he is great here as well), I think Sam Rockwell gives a likewise wonderful performance as Justin Hammer. He is just so incredibly fun as the incompetent, Tony Stark wannabe. He oozes desperation. I dare you to not laugh uncontrollably when he does an awkward dance as he comes out on stage at the Stark Expo. It says everything there is to say about the character. He wants to be Tony Stark, he wants Stark's confidence, technological know-how, way with women, business, flair, and flash. But he's not Stark. He's not as smart or as good as Stark. At anything. And so he puts on these airs which he thinks will make people believe he is.

Scarlett Johansson is incredibly sexy here. We don't know much about her character, but that's the way it's supposed to be. We're not meant to. Garry Shandling is fun as Senator Stern, the senator leading the charge against Stark. Despite the number of characters and plots, the story is easy to keep track of and follow. It unfolds naturally, easily, and isn't forced. It's very funny. The scene between Tony, in his suit sans helmet, and Nick Fury at the donut shop is just fun. The action is great. It's not so non-stop that it numbs your mind, but is more than enough to get you giddy over guns and weapons.

It's a give-and-take: less character than the first, but more action. It wouldn't have hurt the movie if it were a few minutes longer to accommodate more character development. But it's still a pretty solid, fun, enjoyable movie.

3 ½ out of 5

Kick-Ass

Imagine for a minute you're standing at the foot of a very tall building, a sky scraper in New York for example. You look up and see a man on the very top of the building, standing at the edge. Do you A.) continue to look up in awe or B.) call the police to try to get him down? Now imagine this man spreads out a pair of makeshift wings like a modern day Icarus, metal and plastic replacing wax and feathers, and jumps. Do you A.) applaud and watch or B.) scream and turn away? I'm going to hope that we all answered B to both of these questions. Why? Because we live in a world in which we know a man can't fly and people don't have super powers. Now, this is the opening scene of the movie Kick-Ass, what do the people in the movie do in this situation? They choose option A in both cases, even though they also live in a world in which they know that a man can't fly and people don't have super powers. The man plummets to his death on the top of a taxi and no one is bothered. Is there something wrong here, or is it just me?

This movie is supposed to take place in the real world in which there are no super powers, just normal people. No one is phased, no one is bothered, no one feels anything, in the face of super-violence. Tell me, how am I supposed to feel connected to the movie when the characters feel nothing when killing people? And these are the good guys I'm talking about. They feel nothing. Hack someone's leg off? No big deal. Pin a woman to a door with giant knives through the torso? Whatever. That these are done by an 11-year old girl who feels nothing about it? You've lost me, movie. That the protagonist, our emotional connection, center, the character through whom we are guided, is barely disturbed by these things, and seems more concerned that there are other people better prepared than he is? I'm gone.

And this is supposed to be a comedy, right? There's no comedy here. There's nothing funny. Just horrific. Am I supposed to laugh when the crazy Armenian guy crashes into the taxi at the beginning after thinking maybe he's going to fly? Am I supposed to laugh when the 11-year old girl messes with a guy before crushing him in a car-crusher? Am I supposed to laugh when the bad guy gets blasted out a window in a high rise by a bazooka? There are ways to make the horrific humorous, as disturbing as A Clockwork Orange is, there's a lot of humor in it, but this movie fails at it completely. You're just bombarded with disturbing images and characters who feel nothing.

So what separates the good guys from the bad guys? They both kill and don't care about it. But the bad guys deal drugs. And the good guys kill the bad guys. But the bad guys take care of some of the bad guys, as well. Oh, and the bad guy framed Nicolas Cage's character as a drug dealer so he went to jail. And Cage's character blames the bad guy for the death of his wife because while he was in jail she was depressed and self-medicated, while pregnant with their daughter (the now 11-year old girl), OD'd and died. I fail to see, exactly, how the bad guy is at fault for that though. A pregnant woman who is obviously doesn't care that much about her unborn child by self-medicating ends up killing herself...I think Cage's anger is misplaced and should be aimed at her, especially for being totally irresponsible. Then we wouldn't have a story, even if you feel it doesn't make sense and isn't justified. But that's me.

And another entry in the 'does-not-make-sense' log is Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character. The son of the bad guy. He wants in on his father's business, though it's not clear how much, exactly, he knows about it. He obviously has an idea, but particulars, don't know. He gets set up as Red Mist by his father to try and lure Kick-Ass in to take care of him. But Red Mist finds that Kick-Ass isn't the problem, Nic Cage's Big Daddy is. So he tries to get to Big Daddy through Kick-Ass. When they get him, they also take Kick-Ass. And Red Mist obviously started to feel some connection with Kick-Ass because he pleads with his father to let Kick-Ass go. But his father instead sets up a website and webcam under the guise that Kick-Ass will be unmasking himself, only then to serve as a very public beating and gruesome murder of both Big Daddy and Kick-Ass. Red Mist asks his father to stop it, but he doesn't, and he's obviously disturbed by what his father is doing. So then when Kick-Ass and Hit Girl (the 11-year old girl, daughter of Big Daddy) go to take care of the bad guy...for some reason Red Mist starts fighting Kick-Ass, though he doesn't really seem to have any beef with him. They have no reason to fight each other. Then Kick-Ass uses the bazooka, sends the bad guy out the window to explode in mid-air. And at the very end, Red Mist appears to vow to be a villain. Even though he seemed disturbed when he saw what exactly his father did, so you'd think that even though they kill his father, he'd understand. It just didn't make sense to me.

And even though this is supposed to take place in the real world without super powers, Hit Girl seems to display rather super-human skills. She's able to jump wall-to-wall, bounce off people, aim, time jumps to catch guns in mid-air, change clips without missing a beat, etc, etc. I have a hard time believing a normal person (which she's supposed to be) could be that good and agile.

Oh, and there's a freaking jet pack. A jet pack. In the real world. Jet. Pack. I live in the real world. I don't remember ever seeing a jet pack. Not for $300,000. Not for any price. They don't exist, they're not real. Don't tell me this is the real world then throw in a jet pack. That just makes me angry because it's so ridiculous.

Now, I didn't hate everything. I quite liked the line “My only superpower was being invisible to girls.” It's funny because it's true. And...well, that's pretty much it. Had there been a little more between Dave/Kick-Ass and his friends, this might have been a little better, but what little there was wasn't that great anyway. Oh, the girl Dave likes thinks he's gay, ha ha, that's so funny. But at least it could've helped give it more of the tone they seemed to looking for. When the movie was focused on this stuff at the beginning, it at least gave you a decent feeling. And Nicolas Cage is somewhat enjoyable...until you have to sit and watch him burn for a minute or two. On a side note, is it just me or is it a bad idea to have a diner in a comic book store? Eat some greasy food, get your hands covered in ketchup, browse comics. I wonder how much the store loses on damaged and destroyed comics.

And I can't believe how they've marketed this. It's marketed as a comedy. It's supposed to be funny. You get in and it's not funny, it's something completely different in style and tone. I wonder at what point the parents who brought their kids to this R-rated movie (I have nothing against bringing kids to see R-rated movies, as I saw many a R-rated movie as a kid) regretted it. This movie is so totally not appropriate for kids, at all, whatsoever.

This is what desensitization looks like. Super-violence with no reason or purpose. Characters who don't care about killing. I'd like director Matthew Vaughn to sit down with me, watch the movie, and tell me what I'm supposed to feel at any given point and why I should feel that, because I just couldn't tell. I have no idea. You go through all that violence and you end up feeling nothing because it has no point or justification. It made me want to watch a movie with real heart and emotion, like Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas.

1/2 star

Hot Tub Time Machine

This is a movie which simultaneously made me cringe thinking how bad it could be and chuckle thinking how funny it could be. It could be really dumb (the unfunny kind) or fun. And it is funny. It's actually pretty darn funny. Is it as good as The Hangover (which I keep seeing as being a comparison)? No. But, The Hangover is a freak, the kind of comedy that only comes around once in a while; extraordinarily funny, good characters, fun story, and really well made. It's the kind of movie that sets the bar. Hot Tub Time Machine certainly fits the same kind of mold as The Hangover, three grown men and one who's a bit of an outsider to their group, take a trip to have a wild weekend and wackiness ensues. It's a few notches below though.

Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson), and Lou (Rob Corddry) are old friends. In high school they were best friends. But as they've gotten older, life has kind of pulled them apart and they're more just friends in word only, because they were friends. Lou's an alcoholic and has an accident in his garage drumming to music in his running car with the gas pedal. Naturally this raises concern among the doctor and Lou's friends. So, to keep an eye on Lou, they decide to take him back to the scene of their greatest weekend ever – the Kodiak Valley ski resort. Adam brings along his nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke) who lives in his basement and most likely rarely leaves it.

Kodiak Valley isn't quite as they remembered, it's gone downhill like an amateur down the K-12. They get their old room back, it's a dump and the hot tub is disgusting. But it magically starts bubbling again and they get in for a wild night of hot tub partying and drinking. During the course of the night, they spill a Russian energy drink on the controls and that's when things get weird – they wake up transported back to the weekend they were there, for Winterfest '86. They're themselves as they are in 2010, but the people see them as they were in 1986 (except Jacob, who wasn't born yet so appears as he is, just go with it). Jacob is a science-fiction dork so he warns them all about the danger of changing anything. So they try to remember what they did that weekend so they can do it again, even if they'd rather do it differently.

Cusack is obviously the star of the movie, but it really belongs to Corddry as Lou. He steals the show and his character really brings the emotional connection. He's an asshole, but through the events of the weekend, you see how he ended up down the path to where he is. He becomes a very sympathetic character. And he plays it so well. He makes the film what it is.

There are problems. There are jokes that are never really paid off or explained (“great white buffalo”). Characters they don't really take advantage of (Chevy Chase shows up a couple times as the hot tub repairman, says a few cryptic lines, and that's it. His character seems as though it's meant to be their time travel guide, but he's not). A couple of unfortunate crude moments (projectile vomit is not funny and scenes waiting for Crispin Glover's bell hop character to lose his arm are uncomfortable). And just a general missed opportunity to poke fun and reference Cusack's films of the 1980's (he's a producer of the film yet all there really is is a line 'We're stuck in the 1980's, I hate this decade.' Come on, you're in the 80's on a snowy mountain, Better Off Dead anyone?) and the decade in general (this should be an opportunity to look at the 80's and how things have changed rather than just a few jokes). Things like this are what keep the movie from being really good rather than just pretty funny.

I've seen the language brought quite a bit; yes, they use naughty words, lots of them. Get over it. It's Rated-R, it's for adults. Can we get over this whole 'oh my, they just said the f-word, oh no, they said it again' thing? It's been 16 years since Kevin Smith had to appeal an NC-17 rating on Clerks merely for its language. Tarantino has been giving us profanity laced films for almost 20 years. Scorsese has been “f---”-ing it up for, what, 40 years? It's nothing new. Move along and stop acting so outraged by it.

I laughed. Pretty continuously throughout. In the end, they play loose with the rules of time travel, which is part of the fun. They're aware of the problems of time travel, try to follow the rules, but sometimes it's better to change things (hey, even in Back To The Future the McFly's end up better than they were at the beginning). It won't be the most memorable movie or likely one that you want to watch again and again, but it's fun. But really, what are you expecting from a movie called Hot Tub Time Machine?

2 1/2 stars out of 5

Alice In Wonderland

The first thing to know is that this is not the original Alice in Wonderland story. Director Tim Burton has said that he was never able to feel an emotional connection with previous versions because it's a girl just going from one strange character to the next, not really a story. So this isn't exactly a sequel or re-imagining, but a sort of extension. And this will likely disappoint, frustrate, or confuse some people.

Once Alice gets into Underland (yes, Underland), I found the film really enjoyable. It's not as whimsical or playful as I might have hoped, but that can be expected when the story is put into a framework and not allowed to just go randomly. You can probably argue that giving this story a grounding goes against the point because part of the charm of the original story is that randomness. But, again, this is something different and new. And it's not a bad thing to give the story an emotional grounding. It helps to give it a more full experience.

I really like that they actually did something new and different with the story. It makes it fresh and gives more a feeling of involvement because you're not quite sure where it's going rather than going through the motions because you already know what's up ahead. One of the most common complaints is that Hollywood doesn't do anything new or original and needs to stop re-making movies or re-adapting books, but this is a clearly a very new take, so that's good, right? Yes.

My only real problem with what they did is give it a sort of Wizard of Oz type of story framework (which is ironic since Lewis Carroll's original Alice stories can likely be pinpointed as an influence in L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – young girl gets whisked to a strange, magical land and meets various strange characters). While it works for Oz, here it just feels cheap. Does there really have to be character's in Alice's real life that mirror those found in Underland? No. Especially when you want to believe that Underland actually is real, this just suggests it's her imagination. A bit of a let down.

As to be expected from a Tim Burton film, it's visually stunning. Very unique set and character design. But it doesn't distract from what's going on. Unlike other visually powerful, CG-heavy, 3D movies, the setting and all of that does not take center stage and is not the only real reason for the film. In 3D, the movie looks good, there's a few unfortunate instances where they obviously chuck things at the screen for the effect, but the movie just looks full (in a good way, not a distracting way).

Major kudos to Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter for their performances as the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen, respectively. The film is unquestionably theirs. They bring real character to the roles, beyond just being 'mad' or shouting 'off with their heads!' There's emotion in these characters as well. And they play them superbly well and it's a delight to watch them work. It's also somewhat humorous to contemplate the level of weird to have two actors known for taking, and portraying, very eccentric roles and characters in Johnny Depp and Crispin Glover sharing the screen in a Tim Burton film.

The film is very good and a visual treat. It's a joy to watch. Great? No. But so much fun and interesting.

3 stars out of 5

Cop Out

For the past 15 years, Kevin Smith has been making his living writing and directing independent movies. Some very good (Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma), some not so good (Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Cop Out is his first foray into the studio system, making a movie which he did not write. It made me uneasy when I first heard about it, a director whose work I really enjoy, for the most part, cashing a check and, from the sound of it at the beginning, playing it very safe. And the trailers and commercials didn't instill any confidence in the film.

So I'll start out by saying this – the trailers and commercials don't do the film any justice. They make it look like a very different, far inferior movie. It's a pretty funny movie. And it's good fun. Unlike the extraordinarily dumb movie the trailers and commercials paint it as.

The film has problems. The story is just good enough. It doesn't bring anything new to the table (not that it has to, or is supposed to, for this kind of movie). It's nothing to write home about, but at the end of the day, that's fine. Some of the characters don't seem to really serve a purpose or add anything to the story, and that kind of is not fine. As nice as it is to look at Rashida Jones, playing the wife of Tracy Morgan's character, in the end you ask yourself if the movie would lose anything if she wasn't in it and the answer is 'no.' The subplot involving her doesn't add anything to Morgan's character or the story. There's quite a bit of time devoted to Jones' character and her possible affair with the next door neighbor, the thing is, we see it affect Morgan's character, but we don't really feel anything or feel that it actually has any effect on anything...it's just kind of there. Without her in the movie, he'd still be exactly the same. It's just a distraction. It's the same with Seann William Scott's character. He's a lot of fun, but just a distraction who doesn't really factor in to the story enough to justify his screen time (which isn't a lot, despite what the commercials make it appear). If they don't bring anything, why are they there?

The cast is fantastic. There are times when Tracy Morgan mugs a little too much for the camera or acts a little too goofy, silly, or dumb for the character, but for the most part he does a fine job. Bruce Willis is, well...Bruce Willis. He has the tough guy, action thing, and he also has the comedy chops. The two of them work well together. And I really enjoyed the supporting cast. The already mentioned Jones and Scott (while their characters may not be essential or matter at all, both their presences are welcome, Scott especially), but Kevin Pollak and Guillermo Diaz are both make very good turns as an antagonistic detective and a baseball obsessed gangster, respectively.

It looks like a movie and feels like a movie, which is not really Kevin Smith's trademark, so he did a good job with that. A movie with something resembling a real plot, not just characters talking about movies and comics. And so I have to commend Smith, by maybe taking a safe step into the studio system, he actually ended up challenging himself a little more than he would most likely have, otherwise. And there's action...Kevin Smith directing action. There's no real big laughs, but the laughs are there and frequent enough to be fun.

That's basically all there is to say...the characters and story leave a little something to be desired, though the actors all do fine jobs. It's not a movie that I'd run out and tell everyone they need to see and it's the funniest thing ever, but I'd definitely say it's worth a shot if you're looking to watch a fun movie.

2 1/2 stars out of 5

The Book of Eli

In film, as well as literature and theater, we become involved and interested in a story because we've come to be interested in the main character who has an emotional involvement in the story. The main character is our guide. They are who we identify with. We care because they care.

So I have a question for the Hughes Brothers, directors of the Book of Eli, and Gary Whitta, the writer: when the main character is uninterested and uninvolved in the conflict and story, how and why are we, the audience, supposed to be interested and involved?

Eli, played by Denzel Washington, walks around the entire movie with the basic attitude of 'whatever, just don't touch my book.' He's not interested in anything other than taking the book west. He only cares when someone tries to take the book. And, honestly, it's hard to feel attached to a book. Especially when even we the audience are kept at a distance from the character and the book.

Gary Oldman as the villain, Carnegie, is the best part of the movie. And his run and control of the town would be the most interesting part of the movie, if it was actually a part of the movie. Instead, Eli doesn't care and just moves on. Carnegie wants the book though. So he goes after Eli.

Carnegie wants the book (the Bible) because he knows it has the power to control people. Eli is righteous, but he has no interest in trying to make things right...which feels odd. How can a man who feels he is being guided and protected by God not try to right wrongs? Selective righteousness I guess.

I wanted more of the world in which the movie takes place. We get a little taste of it, but it'd add so much more to the movie if we could really see the world, see how the people live, and to find out a little more about what exactly happened and how they got to this point. Again, we get a little, but then, of course, Eli doesn't care, just moves on, and so do we.

So, basically, all we get, and all we have to hold our interest, is fight scenes and shoot outs. Which is fine for the few minutes they last.

And, here's some spoilers so if you care, skip ahead. We spend two hours watching Eli not let anyone get near his book. Protecting it with his life. He will kill to protect it. And he definitely doesn't want Carnegie to get it. Two hours of this. Only for him to then give up the book without a second thought. Because he has it memorized and it's in Braille so no one can read it anyway. So what did I just spend two hours on? The movie could've been 30 minutes long had he just been willing to show Carnegie the book is Braille and can't be read by him, refuse to read it for him, kill Carnegie when he tries to force Eli, and be on his merry way. It's an unnecessary complication. There has to be a better way to create and tell this story.

Anyway, there's some cool action here. I guess that's the real point of it. Though it's funny that throughout the movie people wonder whether the gun Eli has has bullets in it, almost as though bullets are some rare commodity, and then there's this huge shoot out with tons of ammunition spent. Why wouldn't his gun have bullets? Go for the action, don't expect to be blown away by story or character.

2 ½ out of 5