Review of THUNDERSTRUCK (2012)

- Rated PG for mild language and rude humor.
- Starring Taylor Gray, Kevin Durant, Brandon T. Jackson, Jim Belushi
- Written by Eric Champnella & Jeff Farley
- Directed by John Whitesell
- Running time: 1hr 33min.





                                                                 Generic.





* (out of ****)

Review of HOPE SPRINGS (2012)

- Rated PG-13 for mature thematic content involving sexuality.
- Starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones, Steve Carell
- Written by Vanessa Taylor
- Directed by David Frankel
- Running time: 1hr 39min.

Usually I watch every trailer I can before I see a movie.  Not because I want to be spoiled, but I just love the anticipation of a film (good or bad). It drives my love for films.  Sometimes the anticipation can even be better than the actual movie.  But for HOPE SPRINGS, I didn't see anything.  Not sure exactly why, I just never got around to clicking on any of the trailers.  I didn't even really know anything about the movie at all, except that Meryl Streep was in it.

Streep stars as Kay, a middle aged housewife who has been married to her husband Arnold for 30 years.  They have a very routine marriage.  They sleep in separate beds, wake up together, eat breakfast while they Arnold read the paper, Arnold goes to work, comes home, they eat dinner and then Arnold falls asleep while watching golf shows on TV.  It's been this way for quite some time now and Kay wants something more.  She wants passion back in her life.  She hears about a marriage counselor named Dr. Feld (Carell) who offers a week long session in Maine to fix marriages.  Kay signs her and her husband up.  Of course Arnold refuses to go, but seeing how much Kay wants this, he reluctantly goes, complaining the whole way there.  During the sessions, Kay and Arnold discover that their problems stem with intimacy issues, so Dr. Feld tries to make them more open with each other by giving them various exercises (including sexual activities).  But will the stubborn Arnold open up, and is the main problem just his fault?

It almost starts off like a typical Nancy Meyer film (IT'S COMPLICATED, SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE), which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It has a nice lighthearted feel going for it, but then when the sessions start I was pleasantly surprised by how much dramatic weight presented itself.  This is a pretty grown up movie about grown ups.  There aren't any cheap sex gags (though there are some clever ones).  Instead we get to see characters facing uncomfortable and honest sexual problems in realistic ways.  After seeing countless teen sex comedies, this mature approach was very refreshing.  These intimacy problems are things couples deal with every day, and not just old couples.

This movie would only be half as good as it was if the 2 leads weren't in this.  Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones are just wonderful!  For a change, Streep is playing a bit of a frumpy housewife who keeps her feelings bottled up inside her.  She handles the dramatic moments very well, and is even terrific during some comedic moments (there's a pretty funny oral sex scene.  Yes, even in a PG13 movie).  It's nice to see Tommy Lee Jones play something other than a hard-nosed cop, a disgruntled military official or a lawyer.  He's an average, blue collar American who is afraid to express himself.  It's one of my favorite performances of the year. During the first half, when he's complaining about how much he hates the marriage sessions, he's a hoot.  It's not a showy performance either.  He incorporates several subtle touches that made me laugh out loud quite often, like when Kay is talking about their lack of a sex life to Dr. Feld, he vigorously plays with a crease in his pants.  It's little touches like this (as well as several amusing facial expressions) that make his performance and the movie rise above other titles from the same genre.  These two actors are so strong that it's easy to forget about Steve Carell, who thankfully doesn't try to upstage them.  He is simply there as a mediator for the 2 characters.  No ad-libbing, which is what I was expecting.  He does a solid job here.

I have often compared director David Frankel to TV directors.  No style.  Just standard generic work (MARLEY & ME, THE BIG YEAR).  But here he lets the actors do their thing by just leaving the camera on.  He doesn't try for any cute shots or montages.  This is essentially an actor's movie and Frankel understands that.  The script by Vanessa Taylor is mature, honest and smart.  There are so many movies that treat older couples in a juvenile manner, but that's not the case here, thank goodness.  My only real problem is that the music is quite distracting.  There were many serious moments that have either an over-sentimental score or schmaltzy songs dominating the soundtrack.  It sucks cause it takes you out of the moment emotionally.  The worst case is when Jones is thinking about something he did wrong and Annie Lennox's song "Why" is blasting loudly.  It feels too manipulative, which is too bad because most of the movie has a more honest feel.  I also thought it was a bit too short, because the resolution comes too soon.  I think there needed to be more of a lead up to it in order for the ending to be believable.

But, overall, it's a pretty darn good movie.  It's a very good take on how older couples deal with intimacy issues after several years of marriage.  The biggest reason to see this is for the performances of the always reliable Streep, and especially the great work from Tommy Lee Jones.  People who like stories about real people dealing with real problems should find enough to like (and possibly relate to) here.  It's not just a women's picture as Jones' character has just as much screen time as Streep.  This is just as much a guy's movie as it is a woman's.  I think the 2 perspectives are pretty equal.  This film is a terrific and welcome break from the loud and noisy films of the typical summer blockbuster.

*** (out of ****)

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 ****)