Review of TOTAL RECALL (2012)

- Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, some sexual content, brief nudity and language.
- Starring Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Bryan Cranston, Bokeem Woodbine, Bill Nighy, John Cho
- Screen Story by Ronald Shusett & Dan O'Bannon and Jon Povill and Kurt Wimmer;  Screenplay by Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback
- Directed by Len Wiseman
- Running time: 1hr 58min.

I better get this out of the way:  I am a huge fan of Paul Verhoeven's 1990 version of TOTAL RECALL.  Arnold is such an iconic presence, the action is ultra violent, there's several great action set pieces (and quotable dialogue), fun performances from Sharon Stone, Ronny Cox and especially Michael Ironside, and Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of my favorite scores of all time.  Is it one of the "best" movies ever made?  Hell no!  But it's one of my favorite comfort films to watch when I'm in a certain mood.  So when I first heard that there was going to be a remake, I immediately bitched and moaned just like every other fanboy on the planet.  I mean the guy that ruined the Die Hard franchise was going to direct it!  Yuck!  But then I saw the first trailer, and I was surprised by how much it didn't look bad.  I like Colin Farrell.  Maybe this could be good?  I went into the film not ready to hate it (like many, many fanboy Internet critics.  I'm looking at you "Aintitcool"!), but optimistic.  So I did what Kuato said in the original and "cleared my mind" of the Schwarzenegger version as I sat down in my seat.

The story takes place on Earth in the early 22nd century.  The world is mostly destroyed except for a great part of Europe (which is now just called the united world of Britain or something like that), and Australia (which is just called The Colony).  There is a underground subway-like thing called "The Fall" that goes through the Earth's core bringing people from Britain to The Colony daily.  This is all explained in a text at the beginning of the flick.  It's a lot of info to take in at first, as it's kind of confusing and raises many questions right off the bat, but I eventually went with it.

Even though no one goes to mars in this version, it still mostly follows every plot point of the original.  Farrell plays Douglas Quaid, a ruggedly handsome, but normal blue collar city worker who has a ridiculously hot wife and a snazzy home.  Even though he's got a decent life, he longs for something more exciting.  There's this place called Rekal that can implant memories in your brain so you can live out some fantasies that may be too taboo or dangerous to carry out in real life.  Even though his co-worker tells him not to, Quaid goes to Rekal, but before they implant the memory, it's discovered that his mind has already been tampered with and immediately government agents show up killing everyone in the room (except Quaid).  Just as he's about to be captured, Quaid suddenly takes out all of the agents.  You see, he's actually a secret agent who had his memory erased, but his subconscious still knows how to fight.

Okay, I'm being too descriptive here.  Anyway, he goes home to discover his wife (Beckinsale) is actually an operative assigned to play his wife, and now that he knows she spends the rest of the film trying to kill him.  She is working for the President of Britain, Cohaagen (Cranston), who wants Quaid alive because that used to be his best spy.  Quaid was something of a double agent.  Also in the mix is Jessica Biel who plays a resistance fighter who's trying to stop Cohaagen.  She rescues Quaid and they spend the rest of the movie trying to stop Cohaagen and his evil plans to wipe out The Colony.

As much as the inner fanboy in me wanted to say that they should have never remade TOTAL RECALL, the openminded critic in me found plenty to like here.  It did take me about 15-20 minutes to get into it at first.  But once Kate Beckinsale starts kicking Farrell's ass, the pace picks up at a relentless speed and barely slows down until the end.  The best thing about this movie is that it has great action set pieces.  There are 3 or 4 really awesome chases.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The visual effects that set up this futuristic world is some of the best CGI I have seen all year.  Even though THE AVENGERS is a better movie, I would say the visual effects are superior in this.  Every detail put into the buildings (like the way they are upside down and sideways) blew my mind.  Even though it resembles other Sci-Fi films like MINORITY REPORT and BLADE RUNNER (which were also based on stories by Phillip K. Dick), it didn't keep me from being very impressed by the way everything looked.  From the robot drones, to the hover cars, it's all super cool!

Collin Farrell is definitely a better actor than Arnold, but he's not as iconic.  But still, Farrell does solid work here as Quaid.  Jessica Biel does action very well and makes a great companion for Farrell.  Bryan Cranston doesn't have as much screentime as Ronny Cox did as Cohaagen, but that's okay cause I found him to be the weakest of the actors.  Very much to my surprise, I just loved Beckinsale in this.  During the first 20 minutes, when she's the loving wife, she was fine.  But when she's revealed to be a wicked government operative, the actress gets to cut loose.  Gone is the generic American accent and out comes her sexy British accent that gives her character a nice evil twist.  She's got some great action moments that got my film geek blood pumping (loved the elevator attack).  After watching her performance in this, I realized that Stephen Sommers dropped the ball by casting Sienna Miller as the Baroness in the G.I. Joe movie.  Cause Beckinsale is pretty much the Baroness here, and would have been perfect in the role.  Not only is she playing Stone's role from the first one, but Ironside's as well, as the 2 characters are condensed into one.  I guess it pays to sleep with the director to get a meaty role.

Fans of the original would probably really like this version if they would just get over their fanboy pride.  Sure, it's not rated R so it's not super gory like the first, but good movies can still be PG-13.  I mean, there are several PG-13 flicks that people love and don't mind that they're rated PG-13 (like THE DARK KNIGHT?).   There are several nods to the original, like "2 weeks" and the 3 breasted hooker (who actually bares it all despite the neutered trailers).  The finale is a bit different since they don't go to Mars, but the story is pretty much the same.  That doesn't bother me.  As long as the film is well made and fun.   And that's what Director Len Wiseman has made.  A fun popcorn movie that is the essential summer movie.  His action scenes are well crafted and thoughtfully storyboarded.  The first fight between Farrell and Beckinsale puts the husband and wife fight from the original to shame.  It's far more brutal and intense as it starts in their apartment, but then turns into a rooftop jumping chase across the city.  Then there's a terrific hover car chase, an elevator showdown, and an explosive finale.

I have read several other reviews complaining about the stupid dialogue and that the story is unbelievable.  You know what?  It's a movie!!!  The dialogue isn't any worse than the original, and in a Sci-Fi movie, I'm not looking for believability.  I'm looking for unbelievable things.  And that's what I got.  Good cinematography, sharp editing, solid acting, a fun chase scenario, outstanding special effects, and a decent score (it's not as good as Goldsmith's, but seriously, what is?) make for a pretty satisfying remake.  It's not without it's flaws (I didn't like a spoiler towards the end), but when a movie has such high energy and kicks major ass, it's easy to forgive it's minor shortcomings.

I prefer the original, but that's because I've seen it so many times and have grown to love it over the years.  But I wonder which one I would prefer if I saw both for the first time back to back.  It's possible that I might have liked this new one.  It is really good and I recommend opening your mind to give it a try.  Even though I would say that DARK KNIGHT RISES is a better film, I definitely had more "fun" at TOTAL RECALL. Perfect summer entertainment. 

*** (out of ****)

Review of ICE AGE: CONTINENTAL DRIFT (2012)

- Rated PG for mild rude humor and action, peril.
- Featuring the voices of Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Queen Latifah, Wanda Sykes, Jennifer Lopez, Peter Dinklidge, Seann William Scott, Aziz Ansari, Nick Frost, Keke Palmer, Josh Peck, Patrick Stewart, Alan Tudyk
- Written by Michael Berg & Jason Fuchs
- Directed by Steve Martino & Michael Thurmeier
- Running time: 1hr 27min.

I haven't really been the biggest fan of the ICE AGE franchise.  I hated the first one with it's terrible animation and cardboard characters.  The second one was an improvement, but still wasn't that great.  But I found the third (which had the dinosaurs) to be surprisingly enjoyable.  I thought that was a good way to go out.  But no!  They had to make another one!  And from the trailers, it looked like we were in for an uninspired ride.

Everyone is back.  Manny and Elle have a teenage daughter named Peaches who just wants to be excepted by her social circle, and especially by the cute popular mammoth.  Sid the sloth is visited by his family and they leave him his senile old grandmother.  Diego is there to, but he doesn't have much to do until later.  This time, the ice cracks once again and Manny is separated from his family.  He, Manny and Diego spend the rest of the film trying to find them.  Pretty standard synopsis, huh?

But this time, there is an inclusion of a villain, something that was missing from the first three.  Manny and the gang are attacked by a bunch of pirates led by an evil monkey named Captain Gutt.  Part of his crew include a silly Walrus and an attractive female Sabertooth, who catches Diego's eye.  This subplot adds a much needed sense of fun and adventure to the franchise.

I really wasn't expecting much, and let's be honest, these movies will never be mistaken as a Pixar-type movie, but you know what?  I had a surprisingly good time.  The pacing of the film is at a breakneck speed.  There are a good amount of exciting action sequences thanks to the addition of the pirates.  Manny and his friends are fine, but the cast of baddies are a breath of fresh air.  Peter Dinklidge provides Captain Gutt with slithery villainy.  He's a lot of fun!  His character design is also very cool.  The subplot involving Diego and his girl version was also involving.

But at the core of the movie is a touching father/daughter story.  Maybe it's because I have an 8 year old girl whom I'm very close with, but their relationship touched me.  Everyone can identify with wanting to fit in and not wanting to listen to their parents.  I think it's very relatable to many kids and adults and was handled very well, I thought.

The humor wasn't as forced as the disappointing MADAGASCAR 3.  It's silly and somewhat juvenile, but it didn't have that snarky, smart-ass vibe that the aforementioned one did.  There was something refreshingly innocent about the slapstick jokes and irreverent humor.  I didn't laugh out loud often, but I smiled quite a bit.  My favorite scene was the encounter with the sirens, It was a clever, scary, but also hilarious sequence.  The movie is peppered with mild gems like that one.  It's not fantastic, but just good enough to be pleasant for it's almost 90 minute run time.

There's really not a whole lot to say here.  It's a typical ICE AGE movie, but done well.  I would say it's the best one.  Also, the 3-D was more impressive than any other animated film I've seen this year.  If you're into that sort of thing, it's worth the upgrade.

Out of all the summer kid's movies, I would say this is the most family friendly.  It doesn't have heavy thematic themes like BRAVE, it's not aimed strictly at adults (PIRATES) and it's not unpleasant (MADAGASCAR 3).  I think most kids would enjoy this over Pixar's latest.  Not that I agree with that, but I would agree that this is a fine summer flick to bring the entire family during the dog days of summer.

Oh yes, I almost forgot.  It wouldn't be an ICE MOVIE without Scrat, that little critter who is still on the endless quest to find the perfect acorn.  His vignettes tie the film together, and are always humorous.  He's a great character, and his last scene is pretty darn inventive.  

*** (out of ****)

Note: The Simpson's short that comes before the film is worth the price of admission alone.  Fans of the series won't want to miss it!

Review of BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD (2012)

- Rated PG-13 for thematic material including child imperilment, some disturbing images, language and brief sensuality.
- Starring Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, Levy Easterly, Lowell Landes, Pamela Harper
- Written by Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin
- Directed by Benh Zeitlin
- Running time: 1hr 33min

This film was the talk of the town at the Sundance and Cannes film festivals.  It definitely takes place in a world never really seen in film before.  The story takes place in "the bathtub" which is a community in the Southern Delta.  Away from the reality of the city, people do what they like here.  The folks are all low income, don't have all their teeth and are quite barbaric.  It's almost like they're from another planet. 

The main character is Hushpuppy, a seven year old girl who has a violent, ill-tempered asshole for a dad, who is called Wink.  There is a moment in the beginning that has Hushpuppy burn her house down while trying to cook a meal, then her dad chews her out for it.  He wasn't around to cook her dinner because he's a sick man, but it's still no excuse to be a dick all the time.  Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself here.  Back to the story.  There is a bad storm and everyone's homes in the bathtub are washed away.  Now, everyone is in their boats trying to survive in this mess.  Wink and some other community members have a brilliant idea to blow up the damn to bring the water down, but you know that can't end good.  Oh yeah,  there are also some weird mythical creatures roaming around that may or may not be real.  

Well, at least you can't blame the filmmakers for doing the same old Hollywood stories.  It's a complete original, and that's why I think it's getting a lot of praise.  It certainly has a unique tone throughout.  The performances by Wallis as Hushpuppy and Henry as Wink are incredibly raw and intense.  It sounds like they are going to be nominated and I can't really argue with that.  Their natural ability is clearly evident here. 

The story is going to turn many mainstream movie goers off.  It's so bizarre and out there that I don't think you're average Joe in a smelly T-shirt will get it.  I found it a noble, ambitious try.  I don't think it quite came together.  It's a bit of a mess.  Most of that has to do with Zeitlin's directorial choices.  Unfortunately, he decided to film the entire movie with handheld cameras.  That's fine, but it seemed like his camera operator had Parkinson's.  It is so incredibly shaky that I found myself having to look away much of the time.  I have seen many handheld movies (I even liked the last two BOURNE films), but this was out of control.  It was like he was shaking it on purpose.  It was distracting and completely unnecessary.  I don't understand why you would want to sabotage your film like that.  Did you want it to look like shit?  I'm a filmmaker myself which is why I'm asking this.  I have employed the handheld technique before, but I used it for a purpose.  And when I used it, I didn't over do it so it would take away from the story.  

This pains me, cause I really hate picking on an independent film.  These are the movies that take chances.  And this one certainly does.  The acting is brilliant and the story is truly original (though I think some of the fantasy elements don't quite gel in the end), but the shaky cam technique needs to be put out of it's misery.  It's destroying many potentially good movies.  If you use this technique, it must be used correctly.  And Director Zeitlin doesn't for his feature debut.  Let's hope next time he learns his lesson.  It's not horrible by any means, but I think I'm being harder on it than most BAD movies because this one had lots of potential.

**1/2 (out of ****)

Review of THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012)

- Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and violence.
- Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Campbell Scott, C. Thomas Howell
- Story by James Vanderbilt;  Screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves.
- Directed by Marc Webb
- Running time: 2hrs 15min.

Most reviews of this movie so far have really compared it (probably unfairly) to Sam Raimi's Spiderman films from the past 10 years.  I'll get my opinions of those out of the way right now.  I loved the first 2, and I think they're easily among the best superhero films ever made.  The third one had it's moments, but it suffers from trying to do too many things.  Now, this movie is completely different.  It's not a sequel or a prequel or anything like that.  It's just a different take on a familiar tale.  Some people have expressed that it's too soon to start over again, and that may be, but you know what?  The movie is here, it's a new beginning, and that's that.  Deal with it!

The story is basically the same as Peter Parker (Garfield) gets bitten by a spider and gets super powers.  But the specifics are different.  Parker is now a bit darker because he's haunted by his parents disappearance when he was a young boy.  He still gets picked on by the school bully Flash, but he doesn't seem to care about it as much.  I would say Parker is more confident than ever before, especially when he starts to use his powers.  He's almost cocky.  Instead of Mary Jane, there is Gwen Stacy (Stone), who is more intelligent but just as beautiful.  They're both science nerds and they bond together that way.  Her dad (Leary) is also the chief of police and is after Spiderman, who he thinks is a vigilante menace.  There is also Dr. Connors (Ifans), who knew Peter's father.  So there's a good deal of scenes with Parker trying to find out more about what happened to his dad by spending time with Connors.  But the Doctor discovers some kind of chemical that turns him into a lizard and becomes obsessed with turning the people of New York into reptiles.  All the while, Peter is struggling to find his identity and dealing with being a superhero.  Unlike any other film adaptations, Parker tells Gwen about his alias right away, adding a great deal of tension and complexity into their relationship.

The first half almost mirrors what we have seen before, especially with Uncle Ben's death.  The second half deals with more of the Lizard stuff, and that's not anything new either.  Not that it's bad.  If handled right, it could've been a fun popcorn movie.  There are some pretty spectacular action scenes, and the CG effects of Spidey swinging through the city look the best they ever have due to advances in technology.  But there isn't too much action.  In fact, I would say nothing really exciting happens until about 45 minutes into it.  And those are just short bursts of action.  The best action scene was probably one that had The Lizard and Spidey fighting underwater, and in Peter's High School.

Obviously, the approach was to make something a little more mature and grown up.  It didn't want to be an action spectacle.  Which is fine in my book.  Setting up all the characters in the first half brings a certain complexity to everyone.  My favorite story arc was with Gwen's policeman father.  And Denis Leary does a great job here as a man who is trying to protect the city, and is not sure what Spidey is up to.  Is he a threat?  Is he an Ally?  He doesn't seem to know.  The relationship between Gwen and Peter is very intense and will draw a lot of teeny boppers into it.  It's not unlike TWILIGHT since everyone is all filled with angst, but it's not as grating as it was in those films.  Emma Stone is fine as Gwen, but I've seen better from her.

But the real question is, how does Andrew Garfield hold up as Peter Parker?  Now, I'm a big fan of Garfield.  He was great in THE SOCIAL NETWORK, but his performance in BOY A is phenomenal.  It was the best performance by any actor that year and I felt he was completely robbed by the Academy by not getting nominated.  So I was really looking forward to his take on the role.  I understand a lot of critics are digging him as Peter Parker, but I just couldn't get into him.  I thought his Peter Parker was all wrong.  Now, he doesn't give a bad performance, just the wrong one in my opinion.  Others will like him, but it didn't work for me. 

Why?  Well, when I think of Peter Parker from the comics, I think of someone innocent, naive, and wide-eyed.  Here, Garfield plays him with a hint of manic depression, autism, and a hint of tourette syndrome.  Seriously!  Garfield does not stop moving his head from jerking one direction to the other every time he speaks.  And when he's not moving his head all over the place, his eyes are constantly shifting.  It was very distracting.  I kept on thinking that Parker should take a Xanax or Ritilin or something to calm him down.  Like I said, some people won't mind this approach and may actually prefer it to Maguire's Parker, but for me his constant fidgeting and stammering was annoying.  Also, Parker is too cocky at times.  I understand that Parker made lots of wisecracks during the comics, but I found him to be too condescending during some scenes when he's dispatching the bad guys.  A little too mean-spirited, and that's NOT Peter Parker.  At least in my eyes.

The direction is pretty smooth, but I could've done without the POV Spidey cam.  That looked too much like a video game.  But Marc Webb (who's 500 DAYS OF SUMMER was terrific) handles most of the action quite well with the exception of one scene.  And that's the moment when Peter first uses his powers on some innocent people on the Subway.  There were too many jump cuts, making the scene irritatingly self-conscious.  Webb handles most of the dramatic scenes very well, but the tone doesn't seem one of a comic book movie.  It almost seemed like they were trying to go for a kind of DARK KNIGHT-vibe, but guess what?  Spider-man is Spider-man!  NOT Batman.  I don't think adding realism to every superhero story is the right way to go.  It worked for THE DARK KNIGHT, but just because that was successful doesn't mean you need to do that for every character from a comic book.  It seemed like the movie was searching for it's own identity during it's 135 minute running length, and in my opinion, never found it.

There were some stand out moments during some of the action scenes.  My favorite was probably when Spidey had to save a boy from a car about to drop in the Ocean.  Seeing him take off his mask and giving it to the kid to give him confidence to climb into his arms was one of the more inspired moments in the film.  Martin Sheen makes a fine Uncle Ben.  I guess I haven't talked about Rhys Ifans yet as the Lizard.  He's an interesting actor and puts in some decent work here, but his character could have been written better.

That's probably the main problem with the film here.  I felt like the writers were really trying to tell the story with a unique voice, but didn't really get there.  There were a couple of embarrassing moments written in too.  I probably could've done without Spiderman shouting "I'm swingin' here!  I'm swingin' here!" as he makes his way through the busy New York streets.  Nice MIDNIGHT COWBOY reference I guess?

Now, I'm sure there will be tons of fanboys that will love this movie, and you know what?  That's fine!  I love it when someone finds something to love out of a movie I didn't really care for.  My goal isn't to convince you that something is good or bad.  I just like to let everyone know where I'm coming from, and based on what I say, you can determine whether you want to see it or not.  No big deal.

Unfortunately, I didn't like it.  I really wanted to.  My 8 year old daughter liked it enough to want to see it again (though she said she had problems with Garfield too).  My problems stemmed with Garfield.  He makes some bold acting choices, but I felt they were the wrong ones for the character of Peter Parker.  Marc Webb created some cool action sequences and the special effects look better than ever, but it just didn't feel like a Spider-Man movie to me.  Maybe over the years this will hold up better, especially when you can separate it a little more from Raimi's films.  But for now, I don't like it.  It's a superhero film trying something new, but I don't think everyone was on the same page for them to achieve success. 

** (out of ****)

Review of TED (2012)

- Rated R for crude and sexual content, pervasive language, and some drug use.
- Starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi, Patrick Warburton, and featuring the voices of Seth MacFarlane, Patrick Stewart
- Story by Seth MacFarlane;  Screenplay by Seth MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin, Wellesley Wild
- Directed by Seth MacFarlane
- Running time: 1hr 45min.

I have been a fan of Family Guy since the first episode premiered in 1999.  I absolutely love it!  The humor is full of 70's & 80's pop culture that I swear that the show is aiming every joke at me specifically.  Seth MacFarlane is the creator of the show, and now, he has finally made his long awaited directorial debut.

TED begins in the 80's, when a kid named John gets a Teddy Ruxpin-type plush bear for Christmas.  He makes a wish that he could talk for real.  Well, his dream comes true, and after he gets over the initial shock, John and Ted (which he names the bear) become best buddies.  And the talking bear isn't kept a secret either as Ted became a bit of a celebrity.  Now it's 2012, and John (Wahlberg) is now 35, still living with the Ted.  But instead of doing kid things, they swear a lot, drink, smoke weed and watch cheesy old movies (like 1980's FLASH GORDON).  John also has a girlfriend named Lori (Kunis), who has put up with Ted for 4 years, but is now ready for her relationship with John to take the next step.  John must make a choice between Lori or Ted.  There's also some subplots involving Ted getting a job at a supermarket, Lori being pursued by her boss (Joel McHale), and a creepy stalker/fan who wants to buy Ted from John (Ribisi). 

To tell you the truth, I guess I was expecting the plot to be a bit more fresh from someone as humorously brilliant as MacFarlane, but I understand why he did what he did.  He wanted to make the story simple so he could just focus on coming up with some of the most hilarious, offensive and bizarre gags of the year.  Also, the plot is so cliched that it practically becomes a parody within itself, complete with obvious musical cues and convenient plot twists.  I'm sure this was all intentional, and it works as both an homage and satire of buddy, romantic/comedies. 

Of course, being a film by MacFarlane, it's loaded with pop culture references.  Some of them are so obscure that only a handful of viewers will get them.  I was surprised by how many FLASH GORDON references there were.  Even Sam Jones (Flash himself) has an extended cameo and it's hilarious!  But there is also inspired sight gags, raunchy sex jokes, juvenile bathroom humor and plenty of racial slurs.  Most of the humor works.  When I wasn't laughing, I was smiling.  But I laughed out loud quite often.  A highlight for me was a far out parody of AIRPLANE.  I mean, seriously!  It takes balls to parody a parody.  Very unexpected.  And if you're a fan of Star Wars, Star Trek and Indiana Jones, get ready to laugh your ass off at some of the references here. 

After being a serious poopy pants for the past few years, it was a genuine treat to see Mark Wahlberg let loose in a fun, silly and dopey performance.  Seeing him drool over Sam Jones, or rattling off white trash names to a talking bear was a pure delight.  I sure hope he makes more comedies (I guess he was in THE OTHER GUYS, but I didn't care for that too much).  Mila Kunis doesn't have a whole lot to do other than play the straight man (or lady), but she's such a good sport about the gross jokes she's involved in.  She did a good job.  Patrick Stewart is the narrator of the film and it's a perfect way to move the story along.  He has such a great voice, and of course he says stuff that you normally wouldn't hear him say.  That was a smart move.  Giovanni Ribisi made me want to take a bath.  He's deliciously sleazy here as the sort of villain in the flick.  But the best performance comes from MacFarlane himself, who voices Ted.  Sounding pretty much like Peter Griffin, Ted definitely has all the best lines.  The special effects team have done a breathtaking job making Ted come to life.  After only a few seconds, I totally forgot that he was a special effect and just accepted him as a character.  It's usually convincing visual effects like this that get overlooked come Oscar time.  But it's worthy of one.

If the movie has a weakness, it would probably be Seth MacFarlane's over-confidence in the material.  He tries really hard to make the greatest comedy of all time, and sometimes it seems like he's trying too hard (especially in one scene where he references Family Guy, which was more of a distraction than anything).  But I can't fault the guy too much.  His effort did make me laugh my ass off quite often.  Fans of Family Guy aren't going to be disappointed.  It's pretty much the same stuff.  Lots of 80's jokes and since it's rated R, we get even more inappropriate humor than you could get away with on television. If you don't like Family Guy or MacFarlane, well then, you have no business seeing this movie.  You'll probably be scratching your head at all the obscure references.

Ted isn't perfect, but it really doesn't need to be.  I'm just happy that MacFarlane didn't pull any punches on his first feature film.  I mean, it's about a talking teddy bear who says "fuck", does cocaine and has dirty sex with chicks.  Throw in some Temple of Doom jokes, and you got a comedic winner.

*** (out of ****)

Review of MAGIC MIKE (2012)

- Rated R for pervasive sexual content, brief graphic nudity (which is actually silhouetted), language, and some drug use.
- Starring Channing Tatum, Cody Horn, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Matt Bomer, Joe Manganiello
- Written Reid Carolin
- Directed by Steven Soderbergh
- Running time: 1hr 50min.

Director Steven Soderbergh is by far the most ambitious working filmmaker today.  It seems like he's willing to try just about any type of film.  Starting off as an Indie darling (SEX, LIES & VIDEOTAPE, KAFKA), he moved on to make daring studio films like OUT OF SIGHT.  He's made thrillers (THE LIMEY), remakes (OCEAN'S ELEVEN and SOLARIS), experimental films on shoestring budgets (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, BUBBLE), a four hour epic biopic (CHE), a throwback to cinema of the 40's (THE GOOD GERMAN),  and has taken typical Hollywood fare, fusing it with an independent sensibility (ERIN BROCKOVICH).  After the epidemic drama CONTAGION and martial arts flick HAYWIRE, MAGIC MIKE make this his third film in under a year.  Not all of his films are successful, but I sure love to watch him try. Always making interesting movies, I was curious to see how he would tackle a film about male stripping.

The thin plot is about as simple as it comes.  Channing Tatum plays Magic Mike, a 30-year old male stripper who works for a burnt out beach bum (McConaughey) in Tampa.  He does have a dream, though.  To start a custom furniture business.  While working at his construction day job, Mike meets Adam (Pettyfer), a 19 year old slacker who, almost by accident, gets drawn into the world of stripping with Mike.  Adam also has an older sister named Brooke (Horn), who is disapproving of his lifestyle, but is strangely drawn to Mike, who is also taken by surprise by how much he likes her.  And... that's about it.

You have your standard veteran-showing-the-rookie-the-ropes plot, which involves lots of sex and drugs of course, but this film is very much above it's simplistic story.  You see, it really cares about it's characters.  The plot is just there.  There's no big twists.  No big third act reveal.  This is just about how real characters deal with real situations.  And that's what took me by surprise.  MAGIC MIKE is nothing like the goofy, campy trailers at all.  It's a very serious movie about a seedy career.

In anyone else's hands this could have been bland, or worse than that, a broad comedy.  But Soderbergh wisely directs the film in the same vein as some of the great dark dramas from the 70's, like SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and (especially) THE GAMBLER.  He also won me over by using the 1970's Warner Brothers logo to open the film, which really set the proper tone for me.  Shooting in orange hues, the movie has a very gritty look which added to the film's darker elements.  Now, this doesn't get as dark as BOOGIE NIGHTS, but it's not a super happy movie either.  The cinematography is quite good, but Soderbergh doesn't overdo it.  The shots are unique, but they don't draw attention to themselves.  It's like he made an effort not to be stylish, which in turn, made it stylish.  If that makes sense.  Whatever it is, it's a really neat looking film.

With a film this bare on plot, you better have interesting characters.  And that's where this film succeeds.  Channing Tatum's Magic Mike is very compelling and it's 100% due to the incredibly engaging performance he gives.  Apparently, this film was based on some of his experiences as a male stripper before his acting career took off, which seems to add to making his character authentic.  Just as good is Cody Horn as Brooke.  She doesn't have normal leading lady looks (thank Christ), and she's all the more attractive for it.  She almost looks like Hilary Swank, but the difference being that Cody is actually hot.  She has an untrained aura about her, making the performance all the more raw and honest.  Horn and Tatum are terrific as they flirt together.  They're dialogue seems very improvised, giving their scenes undeniable realism.  The rest of the cast is fine too.  McConaughey is appropriately sleazy as the host of the strip show, but he at least seems like he's trying this time.  Alex Pettyfer is also decent as Adam.  There aren't any big "acting" moments in the movie, therefore giving it a natural flavor. 

The film has a very slow and leisurely pace as the characters just hang out, getting to know each other.  I loved this approach.  The heart of the story is the budding relationship developing between Mike and Cody.  I love how unconventional in which way everything plays out.  And the ending couldn't me more perfect.  But how is the stripping?  Very good actually.  To be honest, I feel very uncomfortable in a female strip club, but think male strippers are hilarious.  The acts and dance numbers are pretty laughable here, but no more so than in real life.  Even the ladies at the club in the movie are laughing, which is how it would be I imagine.  Tatum is a great dancer and gets to showcase his moves here.  Even McConaughey gets to show off a bit.  There is nudity here, but (with the exception of one jarring moment involving a penis pump) it's all bare asses.  There's arguably more female nudity here.

I'm wondering how audiences are going to take this movie.  Are people who thought this was going to be a cheesy guilty pleasure ready for a harsh slap of reality?  Will they be ready for a heartfelt, and honest character drama?  I'm not so sure.  The people who will most likely enjoy the film will probably be turned off by Channing Tatum and the misleading trailers.  This is an art house film for sure.  It's a surprisingly involving, well acted, carefully crafted slice of life.  If you would have told me that a movie about male stripping starring the guy from STEP UP would be Soderbergh's best film in 10 years, I would've laughed in your face.  But guess what?  It really is his best film in 10 years, and so far one of the highlights of the summer movie season.

***1/2 (out of ****)

Review of BRAVE (2012)

- Rated PG for some scary action and rude humor (but the MPAA failed to mention that there is animated bare ass on two occasions.  Way to be consistent, jerks).
- Featuring the voices of Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters, Robbie Coltrane, Kevin McKidd, Craig Ferguson
- Story by Brenda Chapman;  Screenplay by Brenda Chapman, Steve Purcell, Mark Andrews and Irene Mecchi
- Directed by Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews
- Running time: 1hr 33min.

There's always great anticipation when Pixar releases a new movie.  They have definitely raised the bar not only in animation but with family storytelling as well.  I've liked all of their films except for A BUG'S LIFE.  The CARS movies are decent but not great.  I personally love THE INCREDIBLES and UP, but my favorite has to be WALL*E.  This time, Pixar has made a movie with a female protagonist which is sure to draw in hordes of little girls.  However, this movie has had a bit of a checkered past.

Originally called, THE BEAR AND THE BOW (which is a more appropriate title for the story if you ask me) with Brenda Chapman at the helm, she was replaced by Mark Andrews and the title changed to BRAVE.  Now, I'm not sure what happened and why, but the most important thing is how the finished product turned out, though I would love to interview Chapman to hear what her thoughts are about the situation.  Anyway, back to the movie. 

Taking place in the Scottish highlands (during the middle ages I presume), the film opens with a short prologue showing how young Merida can see magical blue sparks called whisps, which are supposed to lead you to your destiny.  Then a big nasty bear attacks the village, which leaves Merida's father with a peg leg.  Then the movie jumps ahead 15 years or so to when Merida is a young lady.  Since her father is king, she's a princess and the time has come for her to meet 3 suitors from different Scottish clans.  But she doesn't want to get married.  And if she does, then she wants to marry the person SHE wants to marry.  Also, her mother overloads her with all the rules to follow in order to be a proper princess.  Merida ends up resenting her mom, and runs away from home so she can live the life she wants to. But when she meets a mysterious old woman (who claims she's a wood carver) is when her fate will change forever.  Oh yeah, and Merida has 3 little triplet brothers that like to eat a lot, not that really has to do anything other than make 5 year olds laugh.

It's at this point the story changes tones and goes in a different direction than you would expect.  It's not exactly an original twist or plot development, but not one that I was predicting.  Even though some trailers have given aspects of this away, I won't say anything too specific about the second act.  Read Roger Ebert's review if you want to know the whole thing.  I also want to get this out of the way: This is NOT as good as Pixar's best.  It's toward the bottom of their dozen or so films.  That's not to say it's bad, cause it's not.  It's actually pretty good, just not great or revolutionary.  And that's okay.  Because Pixar has raised the bar in the past, it's almost unfair that we expect so much from them.  To ask a ballplayer to hit a homerun every time they're at bat is ridiculous, not to mention selfish. There's nothing wrong with a single or a solid double, is there?  And that's what I would call BRAVE, a decent single.

For me, I would say that the weakest part of the movie was the first half.  It wasn't terrible in any way, but it was all too familiar.  How many times have we seen the tomboy-ish princess not wanting to follow tradition and marry someone she doesn't want to, or her defying her mother.  It's the oldest Disney story in the book.  But the pre-title sequence does a good job setting up what's in store for us in the second act, which involves magic spells and slight fantasy adventure.  I've read some reviews that didn't like the shift in tone, but I welcomed it.  Even though it wasn't a groundbreaking twist, at least I wasn't expecting it.  This is also where some of that Pixar magic comes to play.  The heart of the story reveals itself.  From the trailers, I assumed the movie would be about Merida finding her true self, but it ends up being more about her relationship with her mother, and this portion of the story is often touching.

Some of the humor, which was mostly in the first half, felt kind of forced to me.  It was very much like a Dreamworks movie as far as the comedy was concerned.  I guess I don't find old Scottish men mooning each other funny, and the triplets weren't as adorable as the filmmakers thought they were. But then there were some moments in the second half (that involve the story shift, so I can't mention specifics) that had me laughing out loud.  But this isn't a comedy.  It's a story about mending bonds and relationships, with some adventure laced in (since they set up the bear story early on, you know it's going to come back).

As you would expect, the animation looks great, though not quite as good as Pixar's last few.  In fact, if you would've told me that this was from the creators of HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON (by Dreamworks), I would've believed you.  That's not too much of a knock, but it's just not groundbreaking.  And I guess it's okay that it's not.  As I said before, that's unfair to expect every time.  The landscapes are terrific, and the character designs are wildly exaggerated, Merida's beautiful flowing red locks are absolutely gorgeous, and the bear is pretty menacing (he might even scare small children).  Patrick Doyle has crafted an appropriate Scottish score and even Mumford & Sons contribute to one of the film's songs.  Merida is a great role model for kids, and I think many little girls are going to want beginner archery kits for Christmas, cause she sure looks cool flinging arrows. 

I think most kids will enjoy BRAVE and parents with the right mindset should like it as well.  Just don't expect anything terribly deep and epic.  In fact, I was surprised by how self contained the story and scope were.  It's a relatively small story, which was good cause that meant it was tightly focused.  This is probably the best bet for family films this summer, as MADAGASCAR 3 was a bust (at least for me).  My daughter ate up the magical elements of the film and says it's her 3rd favorite film of the year (next to THE AVENGERS and MOONRISE KINGDOM).  After the predictably generic first 40 minutes, the movie turns into an unexpected magical journey that was moving the way we expect Pixar movies to be.  It's worth a look! 

(Note: The 3D looked pretty good, so if thinking about the upgrade, go for it.  But most little kids won't keep the glasses on, so if you have real little ones, I would see the 2D)

*** (out of ****)