The Dark Knight Rises

If you are reading this I will assume you are not concerned about spoilers, so let that serve as warning and turn back now if you don't want to know about things that happen in the film.

Christopher Nolan finishes up his Batman film series with The Dark Knight Rises (starting with Batman Begins in 2005 and The Dark Knight in 2008). And as is Nolan's wont, he does it in epic fashion – the film is nearly 3 hours long and just generally huge.

The film has much more in common in style, story, and tone with Batman Begins than The Dark Knight. Batman Begins introduced two threats to Gotham – organized crime and the League of Shadows, which had targeted Gotham for destruction. Ra's Al Ghul was killed in Batman Begins, which presumably took care of the League of Shadows as well. And with the organized crime of Gotham more or less taken care of in the aftermath of Harvey Dent's death, Gotham is now in a state a peace. Until Bane is brought into town by Bruce Wayne's business rival, John Daggett, who is looking to bring down Wayne Enterprises so that he can take it over.

However, Bane has plans of his own. Following Ra's Al Ghul's death, he assumed leadership of the League of Shadows (he had been trained, like Bruce Wayne, in the League of Shadows) and plans to finish what Ra's started – completely and utterly destroy Gotham.

In Batman Begins we see as Bruce Wayne learns the skills and, seeing the corruption rampant in the city, makes the decision to become a vigilante. Here, in The Dark Knight Rises, we see as Bruce Wayne makes the decision to come out of retirement as the Batman, after taking the fall for Harvey Dent's death so that he may become the symbol Gotham needed. After the punishment he put his body through in the first two films, and 8 years hiding out in Wayne Manor, Bruce is not quite in the shape he once was, and his skills no longer as sharp. This ends in Bane breaking Bruce's back in an absolutely brutal, punishing fight.

As Bruce watches what Bane does to Gotham, he finds a new determination within himself. He must recover, get back in shape, and reacquaint himself with his skills. The result is that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises act as bookends. Batman Begins is the setup and The Dark Knight Rises is the conclusion that pays it off.

Initially, I thought that the idea of using a giant bomb that threatens the whole city felt a little too old-school comic book-ish (am I the only one who had trouble shaking the image of Adam West's Batman running around carrying a giant bomb from the 1966 movie?). Especially for what Nolan has done with these movies. However, as I thought about it, it made sense, it worked, and actually is not out of character of what he had setup in Batman Begins. As we find out in the end, Bane is working for Talia Al Ghul, Ra's' daughter. And Talia has been posing as Miranda Tate, a business parter of Bruce's, backer of a fusion-energy project which Bruce had canceled after discovering that the fusion device could be modified into a nuclear bomb. Which is what happens. And that was her plan – make the company lose money on this idea that sounds good but she knew Bruce would nix once he found out what could be done with it, and thus the company becomes vulnerable. And given Ra's Al Ghul's plan of tainting Gotham's water supply with an aerosol toxin and a device to turn Gotham's water supply into steam to thus weaponize it on board Gotham's city rail system in Batman Begins, this bomb acts, again, as a bookend - a call back.

And don't take this to mean that they're just re-hashing what they did before. They're not. Like I said, they've setup, they've built, now they're paying off. They use these call backs to the first movie to bring the series full-circle. Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer did a very good job in creating the story for this. They've been careful and deliberate in creating a series of films that tells a full, complete story. A story of Bruce Wayne. A story of the Batman. A story of Gotham.

Is The Dark Knight Rises as good as The Dark Knight? No. But that's an unfair expectation to saddle the movie with. I'm glad that they didn't seem to go 'we need to do that again' though. What's most important is telling a good story which concludes this arc, not competing with themselves. Is Bane as good a villain as the Joker? He's not as dynamic and electric as the Joker, but he's the physical, and mental, match the Batman needs. The Joker was chaotic – he plotted in order to push people to the edge and make them unknowingly play into his hands. Bane is cold and calculating – he plots to outsmart, give you hope then snatch it away. The Joker is just simply more fun to watch - that's why the character is so iconic.

I like what they did with Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Her and Bruce work well together. But she's just doing what's best for her. If it helps her to help Bruce, she will. Until it helps her to help Bane. It's not personal, it's just what she has to do in order to get what she wants. And that is to wipe her identity and any trace of her in order so that she can start her life over. It gives her a good, believable story and justification.

The movie is long, but it never feels that way. It moves along quickly. It's just that the story is so big it requires the time. I like that the story isn't just a simple, straightforward setup that could be taken care of in closer to two hours – that sort of story isn't Nolan's style. It keeps you guessing, unsure of where it's going and what will happen next, which gives you the uneasy feeling that at any time something can go wrong as opposed to being sure everything will work out. And, most importantly, with something as expansive as this, it doesn't feel unwieldy, it doesn't get lost.

Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance as Bane, despite the fact his face is hidden the entire time by a mask. It's a performance of eyes and body language. Anne Hathaway is good as Selina Kyle. She's physical, sensual, and playful. Christian Bale does a good job portraying a character who has essentially given up on life. Gary Oldman is a man worn out by carrying the weight of a massive secret. Christopher Nolan, as always, keeps the film grounded – nothing feels superfluous or coincidental.

It's a fantastic film that closes out the series in a way that it deserves. It doesn't fall into the trap of doing the same thing as before because it worked or just treading water because they know they have an audience. It's the film the series needed as well as the film the series deserved.

4 out of 5

Safety Not Guaranteed

I didn't know what to expect from Safety Not Guaranteed. I didn't know much about it. I just knew it was about a man who put an ad in the paper for a partner for time travel and that it had been getting reviewed very well. As I said, not much.

At first I was curious to see how Aubrey Plaza works carrying a movie. I've only seen her in Parks & Recreation and her small part in Scott Pilgrim vs the World. While she's good in Parks & Rec, she doesn't exactly show much in it. So, does she have what it takes to be the lead? Yes. At least, for a movie such as this she does. All I've seen her do before is be sarcastic and misanthropic. I was quite pleasantly surprised to see her pull off a performance of subtlety, honesty, and tenderness. There actually is more to her than being the funny, sarcastic girl.

She plays a girl, Darius, who, since her mother died when she was young, has gone through life expecting the worst. She has no friends. She, as far as we can tell, has not gotten with anyone romantically. And you think “Aubrey Plaza is a cute girl, even if she was awkward or inept, she should be able to have gotten something.” But they do a good job, in the opening sequence, showing that that's not the issue, it's that she hasn't to get involved with people because she expects the worst from life. So she's gone through life choosing to avoid these things so she doesn't get hurt, which is what she expects.

Working as an intern at a local magazine in Seattle, living with her father, she's not happy. When the magazine has a idea meeting, one of the writers pitches the idea of doing an article about a classified ad that had been placed which read: "Wanted: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed." The ad interests her and she volunteers to join the writer, Jeff, on the trip to profile the man who placed it.

Kenneth is the man who placed it. He's a loner. Jeff attempts to contact him, but he believes Jeff is just attempting to make fun of him. Jeff sends Darius to try and contact Kenneth. They connect and Kenneth brings her in to his world – she doesn't tell him she's working for a magazine though. Kenneth starts training her and through this they bond and connect.

You're never sure of what to think of Kenneth. Is he crazy? Is he paranoid? Is he delusional? Does he honestly believe he can build a time machine? I think they do a good job of never revealing too much or trying too hard to make him come off as crazy to make us doubt him. They give just enough to make you think or feel what they want you to – building slowly to the reveal at the end.

Safety Not Guaranteed a unique movie. It's not science fiction. It's about looking forward, not backward – along with Darius and Kenneth wanting to change events in the past (Darius, her mother's death; Kenneth, the death of the only girl who treated him with kindness), the reporter Jeff suggested this story in order to travel to this town to find an old girlfriend; and the other intern to go on the trip, Arnau, learns to live while he can and enjoy his youth so he doesn't come to regret wasting it. It's a well done movie. Well written. Well acted. And quite enjoyable.

4 out of 5

Brave

I'll just be straightforward and say that Brave is good...for your typical, average movie. For a PIXAR movie? It's kind of a disappointment. It feels more like a Disney movie than PIXAR. So, while it's good and enjoyable (it is, don't get me wrong), it just seems like there should have been more to it.

The story is just underwhelming. It doesn't have the sort of daring or adventure you might expect from PIXAR. It feels ripped out of a book of stock Disney stories. You know – child unhappy with family runs away and through events that happen learns to appreciate and love their family, and the family them. It's nice. But it lacks anything deeper to it. PIXAR is a company that isn't afraid of telling unusual stories (Ratatouille makes us sympathize and like a rat in a kitchen) or touch on more serious themes (Toy Story 3 has the characters facing certain death, Wall-E touches on environmental issues, Up love and death), so when they do something that's just so...unremarkable, it's a bit of a let down.

It takes place in 10th century Scotland, but you could take the story and set it anywhere and any time period and not lose anything. It's a unique and specific setting, so you'd want something that really uses and takes advantage of it. Instead, it seems more an excuse to have funny accents, a couple kilt jokes, and very pretty landscapes (the visuals cannot be knocked, in any way, with this movie). So, aside from the landscapes, the setting is squandered because the story just doesn't utilize it.

The main character, Merida, isn't fully utilized, either. She's presented as a headstrong, independent young girl. And, she is. But, you know what? I want to see that character go on an adventure and kick some ass. There's potential that just isn't grabbed. She runs off, comes upon a witch, asks for a potion to change her fate so she's not forced to choose a suitor, the potion turns her mother (who is the one that is set on Merida being and acting like a proper princess) into a bear, and her and her mother must find the witch and the way to undo it and through this they learn to understand and accept each other. Of course, the problem is that the character that really needs to make a change is the mother. Merida isn't really changed, she's sorry for the argument they had, but she still wants the same thing at the end. The mother must make the change from being stuck in the old way to accepting Merida's wishes for something different. So...it's not Merida's story. But it's supposed to be and it should be. And that's the ultimate problem with the movie and what holds it back. Something that feels like it should be an adventure turns out to be two characters butting heads.

I mentioned it earlier, but I should bring it up again...the animation is beautiful. The visuals are beyond compare. The character design, the backgrounds, the detail – outstanding. I saw it in 3D, I'm not a fan of 3D in general because I don't feel that it really adds anything essential, and this didn't change my mind on the subject, but it did look great in 3D – it had great depth and fullness to it.

Also, it's really nice to see a strong female main character. A princess who doesn't want, or need, a man. She can take care of herself, and wants to. How many movies with princesses end with them unmarried or uncommitted to a man? None come to my mind. Merida is a character you can show young girls and they can look up to. And that's why I wanted more from the movie. As good as she is, the way the movie is, it'd have been so much better if they could have let her loose on her own.

So, as I said before, the movie is good, it's enjoyable, it's fun. For your typical animated kid's movie, it's good. It's just that PIXAR has set the bar higher for themselves in the past and Brave is perhaps just under it.

3 out of 5

Bernie

I didn't really know much about this movie going into it. I had read a brief synopsis and thought it sounded interesting. And it was. It was also extremely funny. And, in the end, a very pleasant surprise. Bernie is based on a true story about a murder in a small town in Texas and has the dramatized action interspersed with interviews of local people who knew those involved.

Bernie (played by Jack Black) is a mortician – sorry, assistant funeral director – in Carthage, Texas. He's very good at his job, he takes it seriously and goes that extra step to ease the pain of those grieving. He's also beloved by the people of Carthage, as he's active in the church, local theater, willing to help anyone out, and just generally a nice guy. Even though he's a little “light in the loafers” and there's speculation that he might be homosexual, the people of this small, conservative town love him.

After the death of a local businessman, Bernie befriends the widow, Marjorie (played by Shirley MacLaine), who is not well-liked in the town, described by one of the locals as 'she'll rip you a new, three bedroom, double-wide asshole.' It starts as him just being the nice guy he is and wanting to check up on her. They become friends – they go on trips together, there are rumors that they're intimate, and she convinces him to only work part-time at the funeral home and work for her full-time as her assistant/companion. As time goes on she becomes increasingly dependent on, and possessive of, him. He begins to feel trapped but he's too nice to say 'no' or stand up to her and tell her off.

Finally, one day, in a fit after having her trap him in her driveway as he tries to leave rather than argue with her, he shoots her four times in the back. For the next 9 months, he goes on as though nothing has happened. As she had no other friends, she wasn't really on speaking terms with any of her family, and she more or less had him do everything for her, he was able to convince people that she had suffered a stroke, wasn't well, and went somewhere to recuperate. In the 9 months he continues to spend her money...but not on himself. He donates to help build a new wing on the church. He buys cars or houses for local people who need them. He invests in local businesses. All in her name. Eventually her stock broker becomes suspicious of her absence, as Bernie has been smart enough to not try doing anything in her name with her investments. Her stock broker gets the sheriff to search her house, where they find her body in a freezer.

Bernie's arrested and confesses immediately. He's charged with first-degree murder. However, he's so loved by the locals, the D.A. (a fully-clothed Matthew McConaughey) realizes there's no way Bernie would be convicted. So he has the trial moved and Bernie is ultimately convicted and sentenced to life (I'd worry about spoilers but it's a true story).

The movie is surprisingly funny, especially the interviews with the locals. They're so funny that you start to think that it can't be real, they must be scripted. But they are real. And, really, those interviews and that humor is what makes the movie. If you were to take it away, the story wouldn't be that compelling or interesting – a nice guy befriends a mean old woman until she becomes so mean and unbearable he snaps for a moment, kills her, when caught he gives up, and there's no real drama during the trial. It's the perspective from the locals that does it.

It's an incredibly funny, enjoyable movie. Director Richard Linklater is able to make a compelling movie of a story that by itself is only interesting because it's somewhat quirky. Jack Black plays Bernie very well; he actually acts, he doesn't just do the typical Jack Black thing. At the end, you'll feel for Bernie because he is a genuinely nice man who just broke for a minute but still must pay the price. But you'll also be laughing.

3 1/2 out of 5

Goon

I love hockey. I don't know if you heard me. I. Love. Hockey. So I got excited when I started hearing the buzz that Goon was creating, especially among hockey fans, writers, and even players. So once I was hit with the void created by the end of the Stanley Cup Final (in which my team won its first championship!) I moved Goon up to the top of my Netflix queue, ready for something good.

I was disappointed. Severely. This wasn't a case of a movie that's pretty good but gets a lot of hype and is built up as great. It's just not a very good movie. It's got a couple laughs and funny lines, but other than that it's lacking.

Let's take the main character, Doug Glatt, played by Seann William Scott. He's a nice guy, bouncer at a bar, not very bright while the rest of his family is. However, he's more written as just plain stupid, bordering sometimes on challenged. As if there's no other way to make character nice and sympathetic. There's no depth. He's just...simple. He has no real thoughts or concerns about what he's doing, he's just glad to find something he's good at. It's pandering, not endearing.

So, Doug goes to a hockey game with his friend, the incredibly annoying Ryan (played by co-writer Jay Baruchel). When a player from the opposing team goes to the penalty box and decides to go into the stands to attack Ryan for taunting him, Doug intervenes when the player calls Ryan gay, because Doug's brother is gay so he takes offense. The player punches Doug, who is unfazed by it. Doug then knocks the guy out quickly and easily, because, you know, he's a bouncer. Apparently Doug's ability to take and throw a punch is all that's needed for him to be offered a spot on the home team in the next few days. Doug can't skate, he gets to the point where he can stand and slowly make his way to where he needs to go, but I guess this doesn't matter as he can fight.

After a short time, his fighting ability gets him noticed by a minor-league team who signs him to protect their star player. He instantly becomes a star and a leader on the team – after a few weeks he is made an assistant captain – merely for his fighting ability. In this movie, hockey is all about the fighting. The game is simplified and boiled-down to the most brutal bits – which make it look exactly like what people who don't know anything about the game think it is. You know how hockey only gets attention on ESPN when something bad happens and people think that's all it is? Yeah, this is like that.

As a fan, I find that insulting. Yes, we do, for the most part, like fighting. Yes, we do often like the tough guys. But not so much, really, when they are a one-dimensional player who only fights and offers no skill – we'll like them as a person because by and large they're actually good, friendly people but not as a player. More often than not, fans will bemoan their team playing someone who offers nothing but an ability to take and throw a punch over someone who might not be as good at that but can bring something else to the table. Fighting doesn't win games, scoring goals and keeping the other team from scoring does. And Doug is one of those one-dimensional players, so, in reality, he wouldn't be as adored as he is. I feel as though the movie whiffed on a chance in the slot to make a statement on fighting or the role of the tough guy or enforcer in hockey. The classic Slap Shot, known for its portrayal of fighting, does this with characters who see their team descending into goonery and making a mockery of the game.

As a film fan, it's really poor film making and story telling. There's no real struggle here. There's no actual obstacle for Doug – everything just falls into his lap. His parents don't like that he's a goon and think he could be doing something better, but we only see that in one scene which is just a ham fisted way to make us sympathize with him. It's there and then gone. It's not earned and it's not followed-up.

The film climaxes with a game between Doug's team and the team of a legendary fighter at the end of his career. So of course it's played as the changing of the guard type deal. But...there's no real build-up to it. Ok, this guy delivered the Marty-McSorley-on-Donald-Brashear-esque hit that gave the star player a concussion and made him too scared to play in the big leagues anymore, hence why he's in the minors. But that didn't happen during the movie, it happened a couple years ago. There's no bad blood between Doug and him or between the two teams. It's just that we're supposed to care because we're supposed to care.

Ok, ok...the two teams are also playing, in the last game of the season, to decide which one makes the playoffs. Not win the championship. Make the playoffs. The stakes just aren't there. I'm not invested enough to care whether or not one of them makes the playoffs. Give me a reason to root for them other than that I'm supposed to. In Miracle, Team USA doesn't win the gold medal by defeating the Soviets in the climactic game of the movie, but it has enough emotional power to serve the purpose. Not so here.

The love story between Doug and Eva similarly offers nothing for you to grab hold of. She has a boyfriend but he's out of town so there's no trouble at first. When he comes back and discovers that she's been seeing Doug, they break up, she gets with Doug for reals (because they pretty much already were) and Doug goes and lets the guy punch him for taking his girlfriend. It's all very easy.

So, at the end of the movie, you walk away with nothing but a couple good lines to remember and share with others who've seen the movie. There's nothing else memorable. And you have a lesser appreciation for the game. I wanted to like this movie, I really did, but it just gave me no reason to. Like Patrik Stefan it had a wide open net with a few seconds left, missed, then the other team took the puck the other way, scored and won in OT (if you don't get this reference, YouTube is your friend).

1 out of 5

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)

So, this is the American adaptation of Stieg Larsson's novel of the same name, previously the subject of a rather highly regarded Swedish film adaptation. I've seen the Swedish film and have read the novel (which I hadn't before seeing the Swedish film). This, American, version is directed by David Fincher, director of films such as Seven and Zodiac, so this is sort of in his wheelhouse. The film still takes place in Sweden, just as the novel does, possibly resisting the pull to Americanize it in that way.

In case you haven't read the novel or seen the Swedish film, the story goes something like this: Mikael Blomkvist (here played by Daniel Craig) is a disgraced journalist, just convicted of libel. He's contacted by the lawyer for an old businessman, Henrik Vanger, with a proposition for Mikael, while he rides out the storm of the controversy – to investigate the murder of his niece, Harriett, some 40 years previously. The police were never able to solve it and Henrik wants to give it one last go, while he can, with a new set of eyes. During the course of the investigation, he is brought into contact with hacker Lisbeth Salander (played by Rooney Mara, who told off Mark Zuckerberg in the opening scene of Fincher's The Social Network) who investigated him for Vanger before hiring Blomkvist and joins his investigation of the murder.

Both the novel and Swedish film, in my opinion, start agonizingly slowly (and given that I know people who couldn't get through the beginnings of either, because of how slow they are, bears that out). Here, Fincher and screenwriter Steve Zaillian, are able to get the story going much more quickly. In the novel, Larsson drags things out for pages and pages to the point I wanted to scream at him to get to the point. In the Swedish film, the pacing drove me crazy – just as the story seemed to get going it had to stop, and almost get sidetracked, introducing Salander. Fincher and Zaillian create a much more even pace, where the two characters' stories are intercut better and one never feels as though it's getting in the way of the other. They cut it down to only the necessities in order to get the story going.

David Fincher has the skill and confidence to let a few shots give you needed information. Whereas the novel and Swedish film often felt as though they lacked subtlety and belabored points. If they wanted you to notice something or get a point or message, they sort of beat you over the head with it. Especially with message. There's nothing wrong with having a message, but it's less effective if you wield it like a sledgehammer. Here, it's toned down – the points are still made but with more finesse. Information and message is never a distraction from the story here.

Unfortunately, due to how much story there is in the novel and having to compress it for a film (even, here, with a two-and-a-half hour movie), some things will suffer. Characters and relationships kind of get glossed over in this film. Aside from Blomkvist and Salander, we don't really get to learn much or get to know the other characters, apart from what part they might have played in Harriett's disappearance. Literature has the luxury of being able to take the time to delve into characters and relationships and story. And there simply is just too much to be able to get into it with a film version. I'll be curious, though, on whether or not there will be an extended version once it hits home video.

Any discussion of this film would not be complete without getting into the performance of Rooney Mara. It is fantastic. I don't feel that I can really describe how great it is. It's just – wow. I'd also want to mention Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography, it's natural and just looks fantastic. The score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who won the Golden Globe and Academy Award for their score for Fincher's The Social Network) is also excellent - perhaps highlighted by a version of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", with vocals by Karen O, that accompanies the opening credits.

I know it may not be a totally popular opinion, but I, personally, liked this version better than the Swedish one. And I definitely liked it more than the book, which I got dangerously close to chucking. But, of course, they're all their own pieces that stand on their own merits and provide their own unique insights and twists on the characters and story. I think that people who may have had problems getting into either the book or Swedish film will have a better time with this one.

4 out of 5

For reference, see also my review for the Swedish film.

Midnight In Paris

I can't really think of a way to write about Woody Allen's new film, Midnight in Paris, except to say that it's just fun. I thoroughly enjoyed because it's just plain delightful. Allen deals with issues such as the fear of death, love, and the folly of nostalgia without getting serious or heavy. He keeps it light and fun.

Gil, a screenwriter who is trying to write a novel, is visiting Paris with his fiancee, Inez, while her father conducts a business deal. Gil is captivated by the city, but longs to be in the city during the 1920s, when it was a hotspot for artists and writers. He views that time and place as a sort of golden age. This tendency of people will become a theme throughout the film.

After a night out with Inez and a couple of her friends who happen to be visiting Paris as well, and some wine, Gil decides to walk back to the hotel rather than join them dancing. He gets lost, of course, and takes a rest as the bells chime midnight. A strange, antique car drives up, stops and the people inside beckon him to join them. He at first resists, but, come on, a bunch of French people offer you wine and continue to insist you join them, you go.

And go, they do (spoilers ahead). To a party. For Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald. And Cole Porter's there, playing the piano. The Fitzgerald's take Gil to meet Ernest Hemingway. After a conversation with Hemingway, Gil asks him to read his manuscript. Hemingway declines ('I hate it.' 'You haven't read it.' 'If it's bad, I'll hate it because it's bad. If it's good, I'll be envious.') but tells Gil he'll give it to Gertrude Stein, whom is the only person he trusts to read his work. Gil leaves to grab the manuscript from his hotel, but once he leaves he's back to modern time.

Over the course of the next few nights he goes back to the 1920s. He meets Gertrude Stein, Picasso, and Picasso's mistress Adriana (whom Gil is immediately smitten with). As he goes back more, and spends more time with her, his feelings for her and Inez become complicated. Does he really want to get married to Inez, whom he doesn't seem to have much in common with? If he's falling in love with a girl from the 1920s, how can that work? In a very humorous scene, he meets Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, and Man Ray and explains to them that he is from the year 2010 and in love with a girl from the 1920s. They see no problem with this, however, because, well, they're surrealists.

Gil spends a night with Adriana. She's always wished to live in Paris in the 1880s. When he confesses his love to her, a carriage approaches and beckons them inside and they're transported to the 1880s, where they meet Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Gaugin, and Degas. When Gil finds out that they wish the live in the Renaissance, he realizes that people are always nostalgic for a time past and you just have to accept the time you're in. After getting offered a chance to design costumes in the 1880s, Adriana chooses to stay, but Gil goes back to 2010. He ends the relationship with Inez and chooses to stay in Paris rather than go back to California.

I don't know what I can say, it's just fun. Gil is the typical Woody Allen character, but Owen Wilson doesn't try to be Woody Allen or play the Woody Allen persona, and he's good and works really well. I enjoyed the scenes with Hemingway. I can't think of anything that I didn't especially like. Inez was maybe a little two-dimensional (odd given the way Allen's female characters are generally very strong), but given the needs of the story and how little she really featured, I don't know how that could be changed without effectively changing everything else. It's intellectual without being condescending. It feels fresh and light but meaningful. It's an excellent film. That's it.

4 1/2 out of 5