Super 8 Review

Super 8 for me captures a feeling of childhood that I havent seen in movies in a long time. Hollywood doesnt make movies about kids these days, not without a big name stars and high concept condescending stories. What happened to the good ol’ coming of age story? You know, the types of stories which connected with the truths of childhood and growing up? I feel like none of the major studios would make The Sandlot, Stand By Me, A Christmas Story, My Girl or Angus in 2011.

The best compliment I can give Super 8 is that I could watch a whole movie with the characters of this film, a story that doesn’t involve a train crash, a mysterious monster on the loose, or any sci-fi aspects at all, and I would enjoy it just as much (if not more). Most movies of this type have paper-thin characters who only serve to get the story to the next plot point for the next special effects heavy tentpole action sequence. Super 8 succeeds where most of these types of movies fail. You care about the characters, maybe to much. If anything, it succeeds on such a grand level that when the story switches gears to full science fiction action adventure mode, you might wish it could’ve just stuck with the story of the kids.

When talking about Super 8, a lot of people are making comparisons to the Goonies orE.T., but to me it feels more like Stand By Me meets Close Encounters, by the way ofCloverfield. Yes, one of these three things is not like the others, can you guess which one? As the story goes, Abrams wanted to make a personal story about a group of kids making movies with Super 8 cameras. Abrams didn’t think he had a whole idea and with the help of producer Steven Spielberg, they arrived at the idea of combining it with another one of Abrams’ ideas which involved a monster on the loose in a small town. The resulting movie does feel like two separate ideas mashed together, and suffers from a couple jarring tonal shifts.

Most people think of JJ Abrams as a science fiction action director, but I believe that branded image is well crafted misdirection. Abrams’ strength is that he has always been brilliant at capturing the truth in character-centric drama and comedy as both a writer and director. Think about it. From the screenplays he wrote early in his career,Taking Care of Business, Forever Young and Regarding Henry, all character centric. He was given a writing credit on Michael Bay’s Armageddon, but his real contribution to that film was the two notable character-based moments in the story (I’m sure you could easily guess them if you try). After discovering Alias, I went back and watched Felicity — another great example of Abrams’ talent of being able to connect emotional truths in relationships. I would watch each episode, and without looking at the opening credits, most of the time I was able to guess which episodes Abrams had written.

Most people look at Lost as a sci-fi television series now, but in the first season it was very much a character-centric drama inside a mystery box. The best scene in Mission: Impossible III is not a special effects heavy action sequence, but the cold open, which involves the villain Owen Davian played by Philip Seymour Hoffman holding Ethan Hunt’s wife Julia at gunpoint as he demands information that Hunt doesn’t possess. And many people like to think that Star Trek is a science fiction action movie, but the film contains less than 10% of the action of a big tentpole blockbuster film (for instance, compare the minutes of action against 2012, an action movie released the same year). The reason why Star Trek works is purely because of the character moments. Again, the opening sequence aboard the USS Kelvin is another great example of Abrams’ masterful ability to manipulate emotion and make us care.

What does this have to do with Super 8?

Everything.

Because for me, Super 8 isn’t really about a monster on the loose in a small town.

Experiencing the death of one of your parents at such a young age may as well feel like a gigantic never ending train crash.

A monster runs wild and destroys everything you knew about the small little world you grew up in.

I try not to get too introspective in my movie reviews and screening reaction video blogs. But with JJ Abrams’ Super 8, I find it impossible not to be a bit introspective in my thoughts.

I grew up more than a decade after J.J. Abrams, yet I feel we lived through many of the same experiences. I didn’t have a Super 8 film camera, but instead a 8mm video camera. Instead of zombie movies, I produced movies like “Warriors Through Time”, an epic scale battle between two super-powered time travelers (all shot with low-fi special effects in a small backyard in Natick, Massachusetts), and a story of a pet hamster, left at home during a family vacation, who must defend the house from evil burglars (it was kind of Home Alone meetsLooks Who’s Talking, because you heard what the Hamster was thinking). Okay, maybe not the greatest ideas ever. I’d love to see what Abrams cooked up as a child director.

My Father had always been a little emotionally distant. My mother died before I hit double digits, and while it may have taken years to get past, it eventually brought us closer together. I’m telling you all this so that you can understand one thing — while I had never experienced any of the action you’ll see in Super 8, the movie connected with me at my very core.

Super 8 is a movie that feels like it was made just for me. Have you ever experienced that? Some of my favorite movies of all time give me this feeling. And as you might imagine, its hard to be objective about such a movie (not that a movie review should ever be objective, but you know what I mean).

X-men First Class Review

X-Men First Class is an interesting animal. Knowing the love of the first X-Movies, the hate of the later ones, the insanely short shooting schedule, ret-conning the continuity, Matt Vaughn's movie reputation (including another comic adaptation, Kick-Ass) and everything else going on with this property, its a wonder as much of the movie works as well as it does. The very first trailers were a glimpse at something special. 

Early on, there were talks of reboots, talks of prequels, and talks of a Magneto spin-off movie. X-Men First Class is a mix of all of these things. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it all comes together. By now, many have praised the movie, and to be fair, it is a lot of "fun". It manages to balance the comic book sensationalism with the real world backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis fairly well. 

Full spoilers 

The X-Men movies have always had themes of prejudice, but now, being set in the 60s, they had a chance go even deeper with it (which the filmmakers promised) and sadly, it was a missed opportunity. There was no racial tension whatsoever with some of the minority characters (is this the 60s or not?) but overall there is no real sense of hostility towards any of the mutants outside of typical teen teasing stuff that could apply to any time period. In Bryan Singer's movies, you get the real sense the mutants have to hide. First Class is a pretty straight-forward revenge movie with the cold war material dominating the subplot. There just isn't enough room to really examine the mutant prejudice in detail. 

Also, it is sad to see the cliche that a black character is the first, and only mutant to die in this film. The other black character is the first to switch to the bad side, btw. Take that as you will. 

 

If you just look at the structure of the movie, its not as "fresh" as some are making it out to be. The protagonist is Erik Lehnsherr all the way, he's the one driving the plot, moving the action forward, and while he and Xavier share some nice scenes together, their friendship feels slightly rushed, as does Xavier's transformation from playboy Oxford grad to gung-ho human rights activist. Magneto essentially plays the "Wolverine" role, focused squarely on revenge and haunted by his past. Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw essentially plays the "Magneto" role- a superpowered villain who has big plans for the future of mutantkind. And even Emma Frost is basically just the "Mystique" role, as Shaw's right hand woman. Frost is such a great character that deserves better. 

Also, if you think about it, Magneto's hatred for humans is unjustified since the man who ruined his life, who made him who he is, is a MUTANT. Shaw's part in the story completely betrays Magneto's character motivation, so by the time he has his "Darth Vader" moment, it doesn't quite feel earned. 

For a movie about the creation of the X-Men, that comes into play relatively late in the movie, and is basically a brief series of montages before they are ready to go stop NUCLEAR WAR. 

 

But ignore thematic missteps. Ignore storytelling structure. What matters most to me is if it does right by the comics. If you can ignore the extreme changes made to the core mythology, you can like this film. But it took great effort for me to do this, and I've concluded that if you can ignore these things, you either don't know X-Men or you just don't care. Not even getting into the new mutants chosen for the "first class", this is a film that suggests Mystique and Xavier were best friends since childhood. That it was Beast that created Cerebro (the existence of Magento's helmet now makes no sense). That Moria MacTaggart isn't a geneticist, but rather an agent of the CIA- Rose Byrne is really weak in this btw (between her, January Jones, and Jennifer "Mutant and Proud!" Lawrence, why are all the women in this film so bad?). 

It should be noted that outside of his telepathy, McAvoy could have really been anybody because he just doesn't look or feel like Charles Xavier. But many characters aren't right in one way or another, be it nationality or anachronisms like Alex "hula hoop" Summers (Cyclops' younger brother), and having Nightcrawler's father (Azaezel) and mother (Mystique) in the film, but seemingly unconnected. 

Perhaps that falls into reboot category, but if it's a reboot, why directly lift from Singer's opening Nazi scene, and why keep Mystique's scaly design? The mere fact that the first class are all new mutants suggests they didn't want to step on the continuity of characters' ages. 

 

It is very clear Matthew Vaughn just wanted to do his own thing; Specifically, he wanted to make a James Bond movie, using X-Men characters, and he does. I suspect this is how David O Russel's Uncharted would have turned out: the studio letting him just do what he wants, core material be damned. But with all this said, X-Men First Class works more often than not. Fassbender truly is great, and there are a couple of excellent scenes (the the Argentinian bar, a memory sequence, a particular cameo) that are as good as anything the X-Men movies have ever delivered. Matthew Vaughn's direction is strong, especially the action sequences, Beast's transformation, and the final battle. As different as Xavier is, he is very likable, as are many of the new kids, especially Banshee who I wish was in this more. 

First Class is good. Sometimes its great. But I think its getting overpraised, and I wonder how well it will age. Everyone is already dying for a sequel, and I'm not sure if I want one or not. It's reinvigorating, for sure, but this just means we'll be even farther away from that ever elusive "proper" X-Men movie. Because this still isn't it.

Kung Fu Panda 2 Review

While once venerable film genres such as dramas and romantic comedies have been falling short for years, the one-time bottom-of-the-barrel filmic arena of the family film has risen to the top of the heap in terms of all-around accomplishment. Take the "Kung Fu Panda" films, for example. Fifteen or so years ago, the franchise title alone would've told you all you needed to know. Odds are it would've been a half-baked series of subpar Don Bluth animated films that no parent in their right mind would want to actually sit through it. How times have changed. In this day and age, the current crops of animated films are major cinematic affairs, spanning the demographic ranges of gender, age, ethnicity, and whatever else separates vast people groups. They are rendered in eye-popping computer animated 3-D, and feature the type of high-end celebrity vocal talent (whether the talent is appropriately cast or not) that appeals squarely to the non-children in the audience. More importantly, in the better efforts, the writing is legitimately sharp, witty, smart, and appealing in a way that most live action films are lacking.

Although I have been one of the loudest and most consistent proponents of Pixar as the crown jewel of computer animated storytelling and filmmaking, I must admit that certain challengers to the throne are looking more and more dignified all the time. Blue Sky Studios, makers of the "Ice Age" films, took a major technical leap forward with the predictable but nonetheless likeable "Rio" earlier this year. And now, Dreamworks Animation, home of the now burned-out "Shrek" series, is re-emerging from their recent quality slump with the "Kung Fu Panda" series.

When the first "Kung Fu Panda", arrived in the summer of 2008, it squared-off against Pixar's lofty message film "Wall-E". As a broad martial arts period comedy/talking animal film and Jack Black vehicle, it was easy to dismiss "Kung Fu Panda" at first glance. As a matter of fact, I admit that's exactly what I did. It wasn't until the movie hit the inexpensive local second run theater that I finally succumbed to the lingering positive critical and audience buzz it had been generating all summer long, and quickly conceded that it trumped the pompously cute yet heavy "Wall-E" as best CG animated feature of the summer.

For those who missed out, "Kung Fu Panda" is the story of an adopted, portly panda bear with self-esteem issues named Po (Jack Black). Set in an ancient China populated wholly by humanized talking animals, Po eventually overcomes insurmountable odds to take his place as an unlikely kung fu champion and hero - a far cry from his former humble existence in his father's noodle shop. What the film admittedly lacks in overall originality (in this age of constant super hero films and comic book movies, this is yet another zero-to-hero origin story) it more than makes up for in spark and vibrancy.

The makers of "Kung Fu Panda 2", particularly director Jennifer Yuh, have clearly gone to great effort to maintain the said spark and vibrancy of the first. With the venerable Guillermo Del Toro on board as a creative consultant and executive producer, it may come as no surprise that this first sequel effectively probes deeper into Po's emerging hero's journey and personal issues, evoking a truly fulfilling Campbellian archetype, but also remains fully viable as mainstream entertainment suitable for all ages. Yes, there is still an array of fat jokes at Po's expansive expense, and the overblown, overlong list of celebrity vocal talent is even longer this time around (just off the top of my head, the film co-stars Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogan, Jackie Chan, David Cross, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Danny McBride... the list goes on and on). And maybe Jack Black's once-novel "hardcore" shtick is sounding a bit passed its prime, but the film wins out in the end. It is a solid effort that evokes not only some good laughs and thrills, but maybe even a tear or two. Along with Po, we learn more of his mysterious early years, fleshing out a classic hero's origin that modern audiences may associate various portions of with Superman and Spider-Man, among others.

In the story, an evil razor-feathered peacock with super-villain aspirations of ruling China channels the destructive capabilities of fireworks in his power play to overthrow the reigning hierarchy. Meanwhile Po, the still-new Dragon Warrior, is dividing his time between collaborating with the dynamic Furious Five (clever animal actualizations of the five animal fighting styles of certain martial arts), and his father's noodle shop. Just as he begins to question the authenticity of his birth to his goose father (he's yet to learn he's been adopted. Po may be the affable Dragon Warrior, but he's still not the sharpest tool in the shed), his martial arts master informs him that the time has come for the next phase of this training: mastering inner peace.

Talk about bad timing - just as Po learns the world-shattering truth of his adoption, he must mobilize against the tyrannical peacock and his minions to save China - and only through inner peace can he find victory. But inner peace is a far hope and nothing but an abstract concept for our pudgy protagonist. His struggle, through the lens of movie metaphor, is a legitimate and entirely relatable one. Like certain Pixar offerings, the film is not afraid to veer into territory that may be considered perhaps emotionally challenging, and that is completely to its credit.

"Kung Fu Panda 2", although it does bear a message (one that it isn't afraid to outright detail for the benefit of any younger and more dense viewers), it's not at all the usual patronizing refrain of "follow your heart" (gag!) or "love conquers all" (zzzz). The movie works as not only a family entertainment, but also as action spectacle and even a bit of epic mythmaking. It's also the funniest comedy of the summer so far (Sorry, "Hangover Part II"). While it's possible that Jack Black may've worn out his welcome with general audiences ("Gulliver's Travels", anyone?), "Kung Fu Panda" still has plenty of kick, and part two definitely brings the hardcore fireworks

The Hangover Part 2 Review

If you are reading this review, you are likely already strongly considering going to see "The Hangover Part II." Being a fan of the "Hangover" series is much like being a fan of the "Jackass" series — you either are a fan or you are not, with very few people labeling themselves as being somewhere in-between. The biggest question you probably have is whether or not the second entry in the series compares favorably to the first. The answer is yes, but it's a yes with a very large asterisk.

To label the two as different films is being rather generous to "The Hangover Part II" because the plot of the film is essentially the same as the plot of the first movie. There are almost no notable differences in the plot, other than the action takes places in Bangkok instead of Las Vegas.

Justin Bartha, who reprises his role as Doug, is just as underused in this film as he was in the first "Hangover". It's a shame that the film's director, Todd Phillips, doesn't seem to feel any kind of need to use Bartha more, because he's a very talented comedic actor, as evidenced by the fact he essentially carries the "National Treasure" series by himself.

His character Doug, however, has not gone missing in this film and instead the missing member of the group is Teddy (Mason Lee, who is director Ang Lee's son) which is a problem since Stu (Ed Helms) is supposed to be getting married to Teddy's older sister, Lauren (Jamie Chung).

If you've seen the first "Hangover" film, then you know exactly what to expect. There are no real surprises and the structure of the film is almost the exact same as the structure of the first one — I won't spoil the specifics, but let's just say that I'm having a lot of trouble thinking up any events from "Part II" that don't have a clear parallel from the first film.

You might be asking yourself why you should go see this journey to Bangkok if you've already seen the first film and the answer is pretty simple: despite its similarities to the original "Hangover," "The Hangover Part II" is still really funny. I found myself laughing out loud during the film more than I do during most films because the jokes are surprisingly fresh for a plot that is surprisingly recycled.

Alan, for example, is masterfully reprised by Zack Galifianakis and he is hilarious to watch on screen. He's given most of the punch lines that the script has to offer, but he also really makes the most of them. It seems like Galifianakis was tailor-made for the "Hangover" series and he deserves credit for nailing pretty much every line he's given. Despite the fact that Helms' character is the only one that ever seems to show any kind of sanity, Galifiankis is undoubtedly the anchor that makes the series work. While that may be a carry-over from the first film, it still works here, so it's not a reason to fault the film.

Likewise, Ken Jeong shows up again and provides a lot of laughs during his second encounter with the "Wolf Pack." Director Todd Phillips wisely recognized the fact that Jeong was somewhat underused in the first film and really increased his presence in "Part II" and the film benefits from that.

The hilarious Rob Riggle, however, is sadly missing and hopefully that's because he's being saved for a larger role in the future of the series.

It is difficult to describe how funny this film is without giving away any of the jokes themselves, but "The Hangover Part II" is a worthy companion to the first film. It may quite possibly have found a place in cinematic history as one of the least original films of all time. Luckily, however, it's also one of the funniest films of the past decade or so, which is why I feel comfortable awarding the film four stars out of five.

I realize that four stars is the same amount that I gave Todd Phillips' previous directorial effort, "Due Date," but note the similarity in rankings is a compliment to both films — while "Due Date" was a nicely original, but occasionally unfunny journey away from "The Hangover" despite the similarities in the cast and crew, "The Hangover Part II" sacrificed originality to avoid any of the duller moments that held back "Due Date" from being a truly great comedy. Both films have strengths and weaknesses, the problem is that both go too far in one direction and are prevented from being truly great films.

If you go out and buy a ticket for "Part II", you may feel a little bit of deja vu when you're watching it, but I can't imagine that you'll feel disappointed after you've left the theater. You'll have laughed too hard to care about anything else.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

 Setting sail for another adventure on the high seas, Captain Jack Sparrow returns to cinemas in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the fourth film in Disney’s popular franchise. 
Borrowing elements from the Tim Powers novel On Stranger Tides, the fourth film in the Pirates series follows Captain Jack Sparrow on his quest to reach the Fountain of Youth.  
However, he isn’t the only one with his eyes set on the mythical fountain. On his journey, Jack will cross paths with naval fleets, a mysterious woman from his past, and the most infamous pirate of all, the fearsome Blackbeard.
Unlike the previous entries in the series, On Stranger Tides is directed by Rob Marshall, director of the film adaptation of Chicago. Bringing his new viewpoint to the franchise, Marshall manages to pull off an entertaining adventure movie that feels closer to the original Pirates film. 
Returning from the previous franchise entries are Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush as Hector Barbossa. Joining Depp and Rush are Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s Penélope Cruz as Angelica and Deadwood’s Ian McShane as Blackbeard. Overall, the cast delivers solid performances, but McShane’s heartless portrayal of Blackbeard is definitely the stand out.
Usually a high point of the films, the score from On Stranger Tides was surprisingly disappointing. As opposed to being unique and varied, much of the score was rehashed and recycled from the previous movies with completely original tracks feeling few and far apart.
However, there is much good to outweigh the bad as well. The visual effects, both computer and makeup, are worth mentioning. From the fearsome mermaids and the intimidating zombies to Blackbeard’s fire-breathing ship and a certain scene involving gravity defying water, the effects in the film were fantastic, even if they were used in some rather odd sequences.
Overall, the film surpasses the previous two entries in the series, but still can’t come close to hitting the quality of Curse of the Black Pearl. 
With a 7 out of 10, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is an entertaining popcorn movie that doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t.

Priest Review

'm a fan of many film genres and so, too, it would appear, is Priest's director, Scott Stewart. For Priest encompasses elements from sci-fi, western, vampire, horror, fantasy, revenge and post-apocalyptic movies, at times in a gloriously fun fashion and in its weaker parts, playing like a ‘best of' rehash from a truckload of movies from previous decades, including Blade Runner, Star Wars, The Matrix, Mad Max 2 and Blade 2.

Priest isn't afraid to aim high in its aspirations and deserves praise for doing so, with the backstory plastered over a bloody and enjoyable animated credits sequence, leading into the live action, high walled, dystopian city that now safely houses humanity after the vampire scourge threatened to take over.

The cityscapes and streets affectionately homage Ridley Scott's vision, while adding the big brother broadcast element seen in Equilibrium, with Christopher Plummer's sinister face (instead of Sean Pertwee's) adorning the sides of buildings, which are also branded by stylised cross insignias.

Indeed, Scott Stewart's film shares many similarities with Kurt Wimmer's: a fascistic state ruled by fear, guardians of the state capable of being a threat, a rebellious brooding British lead with a gruff American accent, even gun-fu (though the fight scenes never quite match Christian Bale's helmet smashing antics).

Sadly, though, as with the much underappreciated Daybreakers, no sooner have you admired and adjusted to the sights and sounds of this new future society, then the film quickly shifts to the much more budget-friendly, familiar climes of the desert wasteland, where the movie spends the majority of its all too brief eighty-eight minute runtime.

The always excellent Paul Bettany leads proceedings as the titular Priest, channelling parts of his rosary clutching psychosis from The Da Vinci Code, full of brood and conflict, on a mission to save his niece from the villainous clutches of former brother in arms, Karl Urban.

Urban clearly relishes every second of his drawling, vampire cowboy role (he's a huge fan of westerns) and is an actor I've been following since his breakthrough role as Eomer in The Two Towers. So more's the pity that his screen time seems to be far too short, as he's noticeable by his absence.

Bettany, under Stewart's guidance for the second time after Legion, proves to be a strangely apt action hero, throwing himself (literally in the film's better moments) into the fight scenes with an aggressive vigour. By his side is the fantastically named Cam Gigandet, who plays the young, trigger happy sheriff with the requisite amount of brash narrow mindedness. Though I have difficulty seeing him as a hero, after his less friendly roles in the likes of Never Back Down and The O.C.Here's hoping his Twilight followers watch Priest and appreciate vampires' true, cinematic nastiness.

Maggie Q also appears as a fellow priest, but suffers from having arguably the most clichéd character to flesh out. She's loved Bettany's Priest for years, but their faith and his devotion to a love he left behind has meant she's suffered in silence. But worse, she only has one brief action scene to shine in.

Even genre favourite Brad Dourif gets a few minutes of screen time, as a snake oil salesman, but is gone in the blink of an eye, with a potential part in the film's bigger plans never exploited.

In fact, the actors' roles summarise Priest's best and worst traits. It's solid, at times beautiful, but cliché-ridden and cut short. The film constantly seems to take two steps forward and one step back. When the two leads' first vampire fight hits, it incorporates some great violence, made more threatening by the humanoid familiars, then piles on the reasonable CGI beasties, and the mix works well. When the second encounter happens, it's just one big CGI beastie, which is in no way scary and the film falls flat.

There's an abundance of recent films that have openly invited comparisons tocomputer games, but it's one I normally tend to shrug off. (I even liked Battle: Los Angeles, despite similar criticism.) Yet, Priest really did have that fault, made more noticeable after a good start to the action.

I never understand why bigger monsters seem to be seen as a bigger threat. If you're dealing with vampires, the biggest danger isn't being swallowed by a big monster. It's the fear of infection or being torn and devoured piece by piece. By way of comparison, just look at Paul W S Anderson's Resident Evil. Instead of guns versus zombies, there was a pointless Cube rip-off. I wonder how much of a coincidence it is, with both films released by Screen Gems, that the early promise of originality mixed with potential horror violence, give way to PG-13/12A tailoring, and therefore, cash-friendly stability.

If the above issues are a matter of taste and opinion, then there's one major flaw in Priest that is absolutely irrefutable: the dialogue. I can deal with clichéd and broadly drawn characters. They're par for the course in this kind of movie, as are the odd spoken clangers. (I'll confess here to even warming to Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day. Oh, yes.) But, my god, every other line in Priest is a near indigestible rock.

Things get so bad that you can start to predict every one-liner, to near spoof-level heights. There's a drinking game to be had with every clichéd utterance and movie reference (there are characters called Hicks and Uncle Owen, a black-hooded Bettany races across the desert on a speeding bike like a biblical Darth Maul), which will end with even the most hardened drinker in an unconscious mess.

Against the contrivances, there's still much to enjoy, with the production design (including all manner of futuristic guns, gadgets and bikes) and Christopher Young's superbly rousing score being standouts, while Stewart's direction and composition really does excel at times. I thoroughly enjoyed his debut feature, Legion, for dealing out a solid B-movie fix, setting about its familiar business with a wry sense of humour, a humour that the all too dour-faced Priest would have been utterly lifted by.

I should also mention the 3D, for the sake of completion, which seemed passable, but unnecessary, especially when the heavy 3D glasses made my nose hurt and distracted me from what was happening on screen, as I shifted them about.

Still, if Priest spawns into the franchise it would love to be, then I'd be more than happy to sit through more, and I'll no doubt watch Priest again on Blu-ray at home, with some almost requisite beer.

With an increased budget and runtime, more intimate horror-based action and a complete dialogue overhaul, Scott Stewart could really deliver on all fronts. But for now, it's much fairer to compare Priest to the similar work by his peers (including Wimmer's Ultraviolet), than any involving electric sheep.

Bridesmaids Review

In most weddings, the bride garners the undivided attention of the audience.

For this particular occasion, however, Kristen Wiig steals the bouquet and runs with it. Both a co-writer and star of the film, Wiig takes viewers on a hilarious journey to the altar in “Bridesmaids.”

After Annie’s (Wiig) best friend, Lillian (SNL alum Maya Rudolph), asks her to be her maid of honor, chaos ensues. Out to steal the best friend role is the manipulative trophy wife Helen (Rose Byrne), who tries throwing a myriad of bridal luncheons and bachelorette parties. The movie follows Annie as she attempts to fulfill her duties in the midst of her life spiraling down around her.

From the opening scene onwards, Wiig steals the audience’s attention. Her performance is complemented by an array of interesting cast characters from bridesmaids to sex partners (Jon Hamm) to roommates.

The comfort between the actresses is easily seen in the banter between Rudolph and Wiig in the opening scenes – it is one of the better chemistries seen in recent comedies.

Rounding off the bridal party are three hilarious contributors: the sweet Becca, the mother of three foul-mouthed boys in Rita, and the tomboy in Megan (Melissa McCarthy). McCarthy’s character could have easily been the brunt of stereotypical lesbian jokes, but the writers avoid this pitfall well, giving each character their own dialogue to shine.

Like Producer Judd Apatow’s other comedies, “Knocked Up” and “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” this comedy has depth and draws the audience in to root for Annie in a sea of impossibility. While the film is highly lauded for its female cast, it is anything but a chick flick. This R-rated comedy can be enjoyed by women and men alike thanks to great dialogue, hilarious sight gags, and Wiig’s ability to make any moment funny or heartfelt.

“Bridesmaids” puts a spin on wedding-related antics like few others – the role of bridesmaid will hardly be looked at the same way again.

Jumping the Broom Review

Salim Akil's feature directorial debut, "Jumping the Broom," is a predictable, yet funny and endearing, comedy about the clash of two families from different socioeconomic backgrounds coming together for a wedding. As expected, their emotions are high and drama ensues. 

After a string of relationships going nowhere, Sabrina (Paula Patton) makes a deal with God that she will save herself if He sends her the right guy. Bam! She crashes into Jason (Laz Alonso)—literally. She runs into him with her car, and they are swept into a whirlwind romance. Before she even meets his mother, Pam (Loretta Devine), the couple is getting married. The families finally get to meet on the weekend of the wedding at Sabrina's family's home on Martha's Vineyard, and neither family is happy about it.

The humor in the film is frequently based on familiar characters and situations, but the screenplay by Elizabeth Hunter and Arlene Gibbs gives nearly each of the characters in the large cast a story arc of his or her own, which allows character development and prevents them from dissolving in to one-dimensional stereotypes. Sabrina's family is the wealthy high-class type, while Jason's family represents the lower class. 

At the heart of the drama is the secret Sabrina's mother, Claudine (Angela Bassett), is keeping from her, which threatens to destroy the wedding. At first glance, Claudine is a snobby ice queen. But, as the story progresses, Bassett infuses her with a vulnerability and tenderness that makes her sympathetic. Pam—Jason's religious mother who is ironically in anger management classes—could easily have been a one-note character, bogged down with the one-liners; but, from the start, Devine brings the character to life, imbuing her with emotion and love to keep her well-rounded. Both actors establish their characters as flawed but clearly motivated by love for their children.

Patton and Alonso turn in respectable performances, but despite that the story centers on their characters, the draw is the cast surrounding them. The stellar supporting actors elevate the material, creating authentic characters that make the tale believable despite all the drama going on. 

Brian Stokes Mitchell's stoic father of Sabrina soon transforms into a loving, hard-working man who is able to persuade his wife to accept Jason. Mike Epps takes the sleazy character of Jason's uncle and gives him heart, making him the voice of reason when Pam threatens to destroy everything. Julie Bowen turns in a hilarious performance as the wedding coordinator, leaving a solid impression in a short amount of screen time. And Tasha Smith's portrayal of Pam's best friend is fun and authentic.

The multiple storylines combined with the comical characters keep the film moving. Despite the lack of clear connections between the two main plotlines—the families coming together and the family secret—the cast is fun to watch and manages to bring laughter and tears.

Genre: Comedy
Written by: Elizabeth Hunter and Arlene Gibbs
Directed by: Salim Akil
Starring: Angela Bassett, Paula Patton, Laz Alonso, Loretta Devine, Meagan Good, Tasha Smith, Julie Bowen, Romeo Miller, DeRay Davis, Valarie Pettiford, Mike Epps.

Something Borrowed Review

Something Borrowed is based on a 2005 work of chick literature by Emily Giffin. It was directed with extraordinary impersonality by Luke Greenfield (Rob Schneider’s The Animal), and produced by Hilary Swank in collaboration, apparently, with the restaurant Shake Shack—one of the lifestyle brands prominently featured in this tale of love and betrayal among New York City’s young and affluent.

Rachel White (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a successful single gal, though her face in repose is a frown, with creases starting to show at the corners. As the film begins, she walks into her own dirty 30th birthday party, thrown by her lifelong best friend, Darcy (Kate Hudson). Among the guests are Darcy’s groom-to-be, Dex (Colin Egglesfield), and Ethan (John Krasinski), the comic-relief platonic pal.

Normally, Rachel’s the schoolmarm and Darcy’s blond and having more fun, but something is askew tonight. Maybe it’s Rachel’s shock at starting a fourth decade, maybe it’s Dex’s pre-wedding jitters, maybe it’s the way Darcy leaves Rachel with the fond slur “I just hate your shoes so much” as she stumbles home early—but Rachel and Dex go for a nightcap together, and wake up in the same bed.

In addition to giving them a guilty secret to conceal, this act shakes loose an avalanche of flashbacks. Before Darcy got Dex, he was Rachel’s study-buddy at NYU Law, and it seems their flirty friendship stopped just shy of a hook-up six years prior, when Rachel stepped aside for Darcy, as we’re told she always has. Ethan’s given the job of explicating that friendship dynamic to Rachel—and the viewer. Goodwin’s an appealing wallflower, and Hudson shows flashes of blithe, funny egotism, but they lack moments together that illustrate Darcy’s feminine gamesmanship in action. From the opening birthday-party scene, in which Darcy narrates a slideshow introducing the cast of characters, it’s clear that Something Borrowed finds it easier to tell us about relationships than to show us them under way.

For the rest of the summer, spent between Manhattan and the Southampton rental, Rachel and Dex carry on and off, hesitating to drop the bomb on Darcy. Dex’s other big roadblock in breaking off the wedding are his stereotyped WASP parents, a neurasthenic mother and disapproving father who says things like, “It’s not the kind of people we are”; wants to buy the newlyweds a Westchester manor; and presumably quashed Dex’s dreams of being a teacher—because he is having a career crisis on top of everything else. (A Happy Ending showing Dex’s first day at some Bronx P.S. would be welcome.)

In other romantic complications, Ethan is followed to Southampton by a hopeful, puppyish old fling, played by Ashley Williams—a chewtoy for Krasinski, whose comedy always seems to require someone to cut. Still, Ethan’s a more appealing bachelor than Dex. Egglesfield has fine genes, but he’s a limited actor playing a character that requires a vulnerability in order for us to forgive his frequent caddishness and constipated decisionmaking. Egglesfield can’t transcend his guy-who-just-cut-you-off-in-his-convertible air; misting up over his family troubles, he registers as schemingly sensitive, looking to take advantage of any sympathy that comes his way.

The Something Borrowedis, of course, the premise, embellished from a 1997 Julia Robertsvehicle, My Best Friend’s Wedding. Befitting a demographically precise movie about second-chance nostalgia, Borrowed raids young professionals’ Clinton-era pop-culture memories. Dex’s wildman pal, played by Steve Howey, resembles Mark McGrath, the middlebrow go-to “bad boy” in 1998. At one point, Rachel goes to check out a “ ’90s cover band” for the wedding, and we’re treated to meaningful renditions of Third Eye Blindstandards; later, Goodwin and Hudson perform a Salt-N-Pepa dance number, rehearsed to perfection in distant youth. (This is the one moment they actually seem like symbiotic BFFs.)

The poster, featuring colorful little boxes with headshots of the stars, is nearly the same lazy design used to promote the superb, humane comedy How Do You Know last year—a disturbing example of insensate Hollywood selling its best and worst in the same package. If not the worst, this is at least the most dissembling. It’s no coincidence that Something Borrowed features lawyer protagonists; while making a pretense of being a comedy of modern sexual ethics, the movie never asks a hard question without an answer prepared in advance.