Not So Amazing

People don't like to think about it, but the Spider-Man franchise NEEDED that reboot. After Sam Raimi's disastrous 2007 finale to his to-that-point beloved trilogy, Sony needed to get people excited about the franchise again, and reminders of "Emo Peter Parker" were not going to work. And so while the 2012 reboot The Amazing Spider-Man was not universally loved for rehashing the character's origin story, it WAS a well-crafted, superbly-performed summer blockbuster that succeeded in washing away the stink of Raimi's failure. The question now was whether the first sequel in this reborn series could maintain that momentum, especially with at least two sequels and two spin-off films planned for the future. It's a lot to place in the lap of director Marc Webb, whose only experience before 2012 was the indie sleeper hit (500) Days of Summer. Could an inexperienced filmmaker with one monster hit under his belt be counted on for another slam dunk? If you read the title for this review, you have probably already guessed that no, he did not.

Suit up!

To be fair, not everything that is wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Webb's fault. In continuing the story of Andrew Garfield's maturing superhero and his relationships with those closest to him, there were bound to be hiccups along the way. The sequel sees our hero during the summer after his graduation from high school, unsure how to pursue romantic interest Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) without putting her in danger, as he has made a name for himself cleaning up the streets of New York City. But he's also dealing with the fallout of mega-company Oscorp, whose CEO has just passed away, leaving son (and Spidey's childhood friend) Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) in charge of the corporation, and also accidentally birthing supervillain Electro (Jamie Foxx), whose obsession with the superhero turns deadly. On top of that, there are dozens of additional characters, plot threads, foreshadowing and aimless cameos (Hi, Paul Giamatti! Bye, Chris Cooper!) that keep the plot rumbling forward. And if you used that last sentence to sum up what was wrong with this film, you would be pretty spot on.

The romance!

You see, Sony - who owns the film rights to the character of Spider-Man - is trying desperately to compete with the "cinematic universes" which have become trendy among those studios out there powerful enough to be in the business, with Disney (The Avengers), Fox (The X-Men and Fantastic Four) and Warner Brothers (The Justice League) banking on those continuous, interconnected stories to fuel their respective franchises for years, if not decades, to come. Sony however has less to work with; they own the rights to one hero, one or two anti-heroes and a slew of imaginative villains. While Spider-Man is already a cash cow for them, they would love to make a bundle off of Venom, Sinister Six and The Black Cat if it was at all possible. And The Amazing Spider-Man 2 definitely drops breadcrumbs in those diverging paths, setting up not only future sequels, but what they hope will become new franchises. But that's also what holds this sequel back, as the story itself suffers from a serious lack of focus due to all the clues that are cool on the surface, but detract from the primary plot.

The bro-mance!

So how does a film franchise transform from a refined storyteller to the rambling drunk down at your local pub? My money is on screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who replaced the first movie's James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. Kurtzman and Orci are certainly talented scribes, however their projects seem to swing the divide between fun and exciting (the recent Star Trek films, TV show Sleepy Hollow) and terrible (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) with alarming regularity, and with little middle ground. Their strengths (and presumably Pinkner's, from working with them on Fringe) tend to be bombastic, action-filled sequences fitted around frenetic bursts of character development. While that in itself is fine, their style feels woefully inadequate to properly represent Peter Parker, a character who is not so much about macho action (though he's no slouch) as he is about inner turmoil and conflict. I hate comparing a sequel to the first movie, but Webb and his previous screenwriters had an EXCELLENT understanding of what made their characters tick, while here the new team seems more interested in fueling new franchises than allowing their movie to stand all on its own. The Peter/Gwen romance is hastily constructed, poorly written and painfully trite. The Harry Osborne character - while excellently acted by DeHaan - feels tacked on and undeveloped, not given enough time for non-comic fans to ascertain his motivations. There are WAY too many secondary characters with too many shallow, unfulfilled storylines, and Webb isn't even allowed to address the dangling threads he left open in the FIRST movie, such as the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer. But worst might be the way the film treats Jamie Foxx's villain, whose origins and rationale are about as cliched as comic book bad guys get. For a the sequel to a film that helped usher in a new age of superhero flicks, this followup is definitely a bit too safe and familiar for fans to rally behind.

No, wait, forget the bro-mance...

All this isn't Webb's fault, though he's hardly free from blame. His actors all acquit themselves nicely - which in addition to the ones I've already named also include Sally Field, Colm Fiore, Felicity Jones and Marton Csokas - lending to the fact that Webb is indeed an actor's director. Standing out, Garfield and Stone share some excellent chemistry, and even Garfield and DeHaan feel like genuine old buddies, despite the failings of the screenplay. And the action-packed fight scenes are well-done, though the special effects accompanying them don't look quite as impressive as they did two years ago. The 3D is especially disappointing - even by the low standards I've come to set - so I definitely don't recommend paying the extra cost to view it that way. But what Webb does most wrong is wilt under pressure, both from his corporate overseers (who doubtlessly demanded all the script's added nonsense) and from those who were disappointed in his work the last time out. While The Amazing Spider-Man carved its own image into the big screen, the sequel feels reminiscent and even derivative of Raimi's popular entries, from the bright colors to the cartoonish characterizations, diverting sharply from what we've seen before. And then he can't even get the pacing down, as whole storylines hinted at in the trailer are never even mentioned, no doubt edited out in a mad dash to meet deadlines and satisfy executives.

Explosions are much brighter this time around.

There are moments in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that live up to the pedigree that the first film afforded, but those are sadly few and far between. I'll give Webb some credit: this movie had lofty goals in mind, from its role as the catalyst to Sony's new cinematic universe to its adherence to the important Spidey stories fans grew up with. This man pulled his cast and crew together and collectively they did their best to turn a script with zero focus into something both entertaining and emotional. That they got as close as they did is primarily due to the talent in the director's chair. However, this is a spectacle that tries too hard to do too much and falls far short of even modest expectations, becoming easily the most disappointing superhero flick of the past decade. Whether this puts a hiccup in Sony's future plans of course cannot be known, but hopefully the next Spider-Man entry will be a step back up for a studio with their ambitions, because if The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is not a major step up from this mess, the future of the franchise is in serious trouble.

Open Letters Monthly: The Croods

This year is a wide-open field for animated movies. There's no major Pixar release, there are more animation companies than ever putting out new material, and we just came off of a year in which every major studio put out some excellent material. DreamWorks is off to a great start with The Croods, a caveman comedy featuring an all-star cadre of voices and an some excellent storytelling from How to Train Your Dragon's Chris Sanders.

At the end of the beginning of time, the last neanderthal family, the Croods, live day by day due to the strict rule of their father Grug: "Never not be afraid." They live with the understanding that new is bad and dangerous, spending days at a time in a cave built to protect them from the outside world. But when the planet begins to change around them and forces them to follow the nomad Guy to a place called Tomorrow, the Croods learn that change is not a bad thing, and that they will have to adjust their way of life if they want to become part of the next phase of human existence.

The Croods is co-directed and written by Chris Sanders and Kirk DeMicco and stars Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener, Clark Duke and Cloris Leachman.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Too Dumb

All I wanted to do was see a stupid movie. Why did the creators behind Movie 43 have to ruin that?

A series of sketch shorts from the minds of Peter Farrelly and Charles Wessler (who ruled Hollywood in the nineties with hits like There's Something about Mary and Dumb and Dumber) and filmed over the course of many years, Movie 42 uses a dozen directors and an insane number of A-list stars in fulfilling the most base of art forms; they try to out-gross one another with scenes that include a young couple with a poop fetish, superhero speed dating, teen menstruation, a truth or dare game gone out of control, violent leprechauns, and a man with testicles dangling from his chin. No connection other than existing within the same 90 minutes is made apparent, and if any of that appealed to you, I guarantee that Movie 42 will still find a way to disappoint you.

Yup, Emma Stone will officially do ANYTHING.

What fools you at first into thinking that there's something here is the multitude of top-notch talent involved in the process. There are two Academy Award winners (Kate Winslet and Halle Berry) in this cast, countless former nominees (as well as current noms Hugh Jackman and Naomi Watts) and even more respected character actors, all of whom apparently didn't realize what they were getting into when they signed on for the ride. Gross-out humor is one thing when it comes from people you expect (the Scary Movie and associated spin-off franchises use most of the same low-budget talent) but with the exception of Anna Faris (in a scene with real-life husband Chris Pratt), you wouldn't expect the same from this particular class of actor. Watching these celebrities do things they wouldn't normally on film was much of the appeal of seeing Movie 43, and likely the only thing to draw audiences this past weekend.

Anna, I thought you had gotten past this!

The problem is that for all the gross-out, completely obscene humor Farrelly and company put forth, they often forgot to make sure what we were seeing was FUNNY. You can get through entire scenes without even cracking a smile, and that happens far too often. It would be one thing if there were just spots of weakness, misogyny and the over-reliance of sex jokes that interrupted the gut-busting laughter, but that is tragically THE WHOLE THING. Even if the scene in question had a promising concept, it was quickly lost to easy sight gags and rampant stupidity. For instance, watching Richard Gere, Jack McBrayer and Kate Bosworth argue over why teenage boys are having sex with their company's new music player, the iBabe (which represents a full-sized, naked woman) gets old quickly. And Liev Schreiber and Watts playing homeschooling parents who don't want their son to miss out on all the bullying, awkward situations and humiliations of high school plays like a scene out of time. Berry, Winslet, Jackman, and Greg Kinnear are all wasted as they do little or nothing that could possibly get a rise out of the audience. The only moments I found remotely funny were the skits "Veronica", in which Kieran Culkin and Emma Stone murmur dirty things they want to do to one another over the PA system of a supermarket late at night, and "Victory's Glory", in which Terrence Howard plays a coach giving an inspiring speech to a black basketball team who believe they are inferior to the opposing, all-white team. In fact, Howard's emphatic screams of "You're black! They're white! This ain't hockey!" were the only times the entire film that anybody in the theater laughed out loud.

Yup, that's the whole game plan.

It's sadly obvious that Peter Farrelly has no freaking clue what funny is anymore. While he was able to get away with gross-out gags back in the nineties, those at least were both outrageous and hilarious when they needed to be. Here his antics (and those of directors like Brett Ratner, James Gunn, Steve Carr and Steven Brill) fall completely flat, easily maintaining the targeted level of obscenity but almost never getting off the ground with anything representing actual humor. As a result, it's easily the worst movie of 2013. Sure, it's still early, but you have to WORK to be this bad, and I can't imagine anyone else falling this low in the near future. My old movie-watching sidekick Anne used to speak of the "Stupid Factor", a phenomena in which something could be so stupid that it was actually pretty funny and clever. That used to be Farrelly's M.O. not all that long ago. Now he gives stupid movies a bad rap, possibly putting out not just the worst movie of 2013, but of the whole decade.

The Return of Ryan Gosling

This is actually a flick I've been waiting quite a while to see. Gangster Squad was originally supposed to hit theaters in September, but met with controversy over the summer. See, the original trailer, which first aired back in May, featured a scene in which Los Angeles gangsters opened fire in a crowded movie theater in what was surely meant to be an ambush on the film's heroes. That's fine enough, but with the similar and tragic real-life Aurora, Colorado shootings, it wasn't exactly something they could include in the final cut. And so the trailer and the scene were dropped, the scene was relocated and re-shot, and in January we finally get to see Ruben Fleischer's noir cop drama, based on the crime reign of mobster Mickey Cohen.

In the late 1940's, Los Angeles is as corrupt as any city can get. Mafia boss Cohen (Sean Penn) rules ruthlessly, buying off the law and eliminating both those who oppose and fail him. When the chief of police Bill Parker (Nick Nolte) calls upon the likes of honest cops and WWII vets O'Mara (Josh Brolin) and Wooters (Ryan Gosling) to assemble an "off the books" squad to wage a guerrilla war against Cohen's operations, it's more an act of desperation as anything else. Cohen has such a stranglehold on the city that nobody else wants to even try to fight his criminal empire. O'Mara and his men have some initial success, but to truly end Cohen's reign, it might take more effort than six men are able to handle.

Be cool guys, be cool.

If you're like me, the words "Based on a true story" have little meaning in a Hollywood that doesn't hesitate to bend our outright twist the truth to benefit their narratives. Though several characters in the story - from Cohen to Parker to gangster Jack Dragna - are based on real-life counterparts, the film doesn't bother sticking to all but the basic truths about them. Even if I hadn't fact-checked a number of egregious falsehoods that the story presents, I still wouldn't have bought it; the action scenes - while mostly beautifully shot - feel too much like a video game, as heroes and villains alike fire endless bullets unless the lack of ammunition could be used as a quick plot device. This would have been welcome had this been a fantastical action piece a la The Avengers and not a gritty crime drama supposedly in the vein of LA Confidential. There are also major logic holes in the story, moments that make no sense in the sense of what we have followed, leading to confusion among the audience. Fleischer, who is better known for his comedies Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less, is a bit out of his element here, opting to go for the classy visuals but not adding any real meat to the imaginative script.

Worse makeup than Joseph Gordon-Levitt in Looper.

Fleischer at least puts a competent cast in front of the camera, but he then wraps them around stock characters and so perfectly wastes their potential. Rising stars Anthony Mackie and Michael Pena are the Gangster Squad's requisite minority members. Robert Patrick is literally a cowboy, complete with duster and matching mustache. Giovanni Ribisi is the lone family man whose death is all but guaranteed. Nolte is the quintessential grizzled Police Chief. Ryan Gosling (returning after not appearing all of last year) and Emma Stone reunite for the first time since Crazy Stupid Love, and while they're hardly original as a smooth-talking Vice cop and a good bad-girl, respectively, they at least have the chemistry to make their on-screen romance work. The film ends up being owned by Brolin and Penn, though it's not easy. Brolin is a solid force, lacking in anything that makes him excellent or even charismatic, but maintaining his stoic leadership throughout his scenes. He's too used to performing dramas; Men In Black 3 perfectly exhibited his comedic abilities, and he'd be wise to pursue that vein. Penn meanwhile has to overcome horrible prosthetic makeup and a hammily-written caricature, but still manages to tap into the essence of the deeper character, brilliantly stealing more than his share of moments.

This one's for the ladies (and select gentlemen) in the house.

Still, despite Gangster Squad's liberal interpretation of history, quarrelsome script, boring title, uneven direction, dependence on style over substance, massive plot holes and wasted acting, I was found to be actually enjoying myself overall. Why? Fleischer keeps the story (as poor as it is) moving forward, and as cardboard cutouts go, the heroes were actually root-able to sufficient a degree. And in most cases, the director's manic action sequences are exciting enough if you keep expectations reasonable. It's not all that much of a movie, but at least for 2013 it's a step up from Texas Chainsaw 3D, and sits prettily at #1 for the year. Sure, I know Ryan Gosling fans were hoping for more from their hero after his star-turning 2010-11, but for that they may have to await the upcoming The Place Beyond the Pines or Only God Forgives, both slated for later this year. Gangster Squad is good for a bit of fun, but be sure to lower your expectations at the door.

Totally 'Amazing'

Now THIS is the type of summer action movie I like to see! Though there was no way it could be possibly outshine The Avengers, and there's a good chance it won't be quite as good as Christopher Nolan's conclusion to the Batman trilogy in The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man was one summer blockbuster I'd been waiting months to see. Having seen so many big budget duds, I NEEDED something genuinely good to write about, especially with a July that sports only seven major film releases (I write about a dozen reviews a month; you do the math). Thankfully the superhero reboot directed by (500) Days of Summer's Marc Webb (I don't think his name had anything to do with the selection process) was exactly what both Todd and I needed, as both of us wanted something that came CLOSE to bringing back the giddiness of seeing The Avengers on screen.

As a film franchise, Spider-Man had hit on some hard times. Remember, the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spidey films were all released in the past decade, and most people going to see Andrew Garfield play their favorite web-slinging hero not only remember Tobey Maguire's take on the same role, but in fact bought tickets for it in May of 2002. But after Sony Pictures (supposedly) screwed up Raimi's vision of the series in 2007's second sequel, they're giving it the old sophomore try in the reboot. There's little question as to why Sony reset the series; the previous stars were getting old, Raimi wasn't on board, and if they didn't do something with the license the rights would revert back to Marvel, as well as all those box office dollars. That wasn't much of a problem when Marvel couldn't make a good movie if they tried, but now that they're owned by Disney...

Oh, Peter Parker; you nerd, you!

Well, it doesn't matter anymore. Despite any early reservations, both Todd (who doesn't miss a superhero movie if she can help it) and I loved The Amazing Spider-Man. This was a classically-told story executed so well that it mattered little if Webb and company didn't add anything significant to the mythology of the character. Peter Parker is the same loner, smart-ass high-schooler that the comics remember, trying to make it through his school years while living with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). A renewed search into the disappearance of his parents as a boy brings him to OsCorp, the scientific research company for whom his dad used to work. There he meets the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who had worked alongside Richard Parker on genetic research intended to cure diseases around the world. Peter also manages to get bitten by a genetically-modified spider, which somehow turns him into something more than human, with the proportionate strength of a spider, excellent reflexes and the ability to cling to walls and ceilings. Eventually the genetic experiments break down (as they invariably to at the cinema) and the newly-christened Spider-Man must protect the city from Connors, whose work has resulted in him have transformed into the rampaging Lizard.

He's just hangin' around...

Most Spider-Man fans know the major events that have shaped the unusual life of Peter Parker. First of course is the spider bite, the source of all his powers (when I get bitten, usually all that is involved is a lot of scratching). Others include the myriad of tragic deaths left in Spider-Man's wake, usually those close to him. I won't say who perishes for the sake of the dozen or so people out there who have somehow managed to escape all references to pop culture, but trust me on this one: Spider-Man is definitely the harbinger of death. But one thing I don't recall from any comic books was the loss of Parker's parents, or at least the idea that their absence is a major factor in his development. It is here where Webb makes his biggest divergence from the source material, and it is indeed a welcome change from what we already know about the teenage superhero. The character was never so driven in the original trilogy, and that change of focus does wonders for making this film fresh despite everything else remaining practically the same.

The sequel will feature Spidey vs. the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Garfield is especially impressive in his first major leading film role. Throughout the movie, Peter Parker goes from smart-assed teen to super-powered bully and arrogant jerk (where I became worried would be his final resting place) to, finally, the wise-cracking, responsible superhero we know and love. I was so relieved than the creative minds behind Parker manged to perfectly emulate what was so great about the teenaged hero and get it so RIGHT. Garfield is simply amazing, bringing with him a darker, more brooding tone to the role and  actually taking the character on an emotional journey that changes how he sees the world and his place in it. Not to disparage Maguire's impressive (if somewhat campy) take on the part, but Garfield simply blows his predecessor's incarnation out of the water. It's a moment of celebration when Spider-Man finally attains that "hero" status from the city of New York, especially since he's no longer seeking approval for his actions, but just trying to do the right thing. This was a rushed process in Raimi's version, but Webb allows Parker to mature as a character over the length of the film, not something you often see in blockbuster movies.

Peek-a-Boo!

Webb did a great job in surrounding Garfield with exceptional talent, both on the acting and creative sides. Most notable is the fantastic Emma Stone as legendary Spidey girlfriend Gwen Stacy, as she and Garfield together possess excellent chemistry, far more than Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (as Mary Jane Watson) ever boasted. Gwen is the kind of seemingly unattainable girl we've all known at one point or another; beautiful, smart and driven, but without the bullish attitude that often accompanies those qualities. She has very strong feelings on right and wrong, and with a police Captain for a dad, it's easy to see from where those good qualities came. It feels like Stone has been around forever, though it's easy to forget that she made her big screen debut AFTER Spider-Man 3's launch in 2007. Her rapid ascent has been her legacy, and she has quickly garnered quite the impressive list of credentials. Her inclusion here is the perfect example of casting done right. Other examples include Sheen and Fields, whose character's no-nonsense goodness exemplify the Golden Age of Comics in being bright lights in otherwise dark surroundings. The always-strong Dennis Leary also impresses as George Stacy, where his unique personality (I like to call it "Charismatic Rage") fits perfectly with the perpetually-stressed and high-strung officer of the law. Ifans is another actor who has really turned it up a notch of late, with his excellent turns in Anonymous and The Five-Year Engagement. The Lizard is one of those Spider-Man villains I had not been familiar with, and I was afraid that The Amazing Spider-Man would turn into a "monster-of-the-week", doing little but prep you for a more plot-based sequel. Thankfully (as Todd later related) Curt Connors has always been a strong villain, and continues to be so here. He's really a tragic character in fact, trying desperately to use his new-found formula for good, only to change his tune and turn into a fearsome creature when things go horribly wrong. Ifans plays a good (ish) man forced into an evil destiny because he was pushed one time too many, and it's easy to sympathize with his plight. It makes for a great tale, and along with the rest of the cast really sets the standards for the whole theatrical experience.

Dramatic pose... and GO!

The best things about The Amazing Spider-Man were all the little things that Webb and company got right. Gone are the "organic webbing" that Parker could somehow (and conveniently) excrete from his wrists in the Raimi films, replaced with the gosh-darned web shooters we knew we always wanted. I loved how Parker, while top-of-his-class smart, used technology derived from OsCorp designs to develop his shooters and web fluid, as even a genius-level student designing those from scratch would have been a bit of a stretch. Speaking of OsCorp, I loved how corporate head Norman Osborn's presence was felt but never overtly shown, even in the post-credits "reveal." They're taking their time with Osborn, which is great since the character is easily Spider-Man's nemesis in the comics, even more so than the popular Venom. I loved how the ending left a number of things in the air, not forcing itself to resolve every little conflict in Parker's life in just 136 minutes. I loved the special effects, which felt both realistic and breathtakingly spectacular all at once. Even early scenes of Parkour are excellently conceived and pulled off, though they're all but gone once Parker finally dons the famous red and blue spandex.

"I'm going to throw you out the window, now."

Sure, Spider-Man has a few blemishes, but that was mostly in the visual department. Maybe it was just because we were late getting to the show and the only central seats left were in the front row (damn you, MBTA!), but the action scenes were often shot much too close to what was happening, obscuring any details. It's a common problem in even great action films, and for a first-time action director like Webb, it's unsurprising that he would fall into that trap. Also, as I stated earlier, there was little beyond the focus on Peter Parker's parents that mark this as anything but a typical Spidey film, and so the director has little to actually call his own when all is said and done. Still, The Amazing Spider-Man is a well-cast, well-made and ultimately "amazing" movie, and easily the 7'th best film this year. It contains by far the best Stan Lee cameo of any Marvel movie, and is one of the best superhero films in recent years, better even than any of those released in 2011. I know it's easy to get excited for the new Batman film on July 20'th, and don't think this excuses you from not having seen The Avengers, because you really need to do so. But this was a pleasant surprise while I await other things, and if you'd be doing yourself an injustice if you don't take the time to check out this worthy reboot.

A Helping Hand

Getting ready for the changes every September 1'st brings has been a challenge this year; that's why you haven't seen Hello, Mr. Anderson following its usual Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule these past few weeks. Between helping people move and preparing for my own new housemates, not to mention the stresses and cracks in everyday life, it's been difficult to put out a product consistently for you my readers. Now that things have settled down a bit, I'll be trying to get back onto that road that worked well for me for so long. Maybe I need to bring some help in getting this together. Oh, look, a segue! (Note to self: work on trimming down the segues)

The Help is probably the first genuine awards contender I've seen in 2011. While most of the likely nominees and critical darlings are released in the winter months leading up to award season, there are always a few that come out during the summer, hidden among the explosive action films and kooky comedies. There are some every year, with Inception, The Hurt Locker and Little Miss Sunshine perhaps the best examples from the past few years. I've actually been surprised not to have come upon a similar contender earlier in 2011, a year not lacking in good films but in stellar ones. Before the release of this review, my Top 10 list had only one title from the entire year (J.J. Abram's Super 8) with realistic potential for a Best Picture nomination, while several great films (Hanna, Win Win, Midnight in Paris) will likely go unrecognized. The Help won't. It's got all the trappings - I mean strengths - that make it an ideal contender: an all-star cast playing strong characters; an easily recognizable and culturally important dichotomy of racism in the Old South; and most importantly, the story is based on the bestselling novel by Kathryn Stockett and directed by the author's childhood friend. At the very least, it wants to be the audience darling of 2011, and my trusty cinema sidekick Anne and I caught this latest piece before I would move back to the more typical summer fare of Conan the Barbarian, Fright Night and Final Destination V.

Move over, Skeeter; there can be only one Mr. Anderson!

When Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan (Emma Stone) returns to her hometown of Jackson after graduating from the University of Mississippi, she wants to change things. An aspiring journalist and author, she desires to write a story from the vantage point of the "help", the poor black women who serve as housemaids, cooks, and surrogate parents to the spoiled upper-class white women who effectively run the small town. She is inspired by her own experiences growing up, as well as by a new initiative by the "Alpha" housewife Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard) to legally require every house to have a separate outhouse for the required use of the help, due to the "diseases" they supposedly carry. Skeeter is determined for the disenfranchised to be better respected by the local community, and teams up with local maids Abileen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) to get their story, good and bad, be told.

Oh, my, is that a Best Supporting Actress nomination you see?

Okay, it's not all about the white women. My description above doesn't quite lend evidence to the fact that the film is equally told from the twin perspectives of Skeeter and Abileen. One is a downtrodden servant hoping things don't get worse, while the other is a privileged young woman pushing for things to get better. The two find unlikely allies in one another, and it's a common tale of two mismatched individuals teaming up against a common enemy. That enemy may be a seemingly simple combination of intolerance and cruelty, but The Help threads an entire spectrum of entertainment for the audience to gather in. The last movie I can remember that could have you crying one minute and roaring with laughter the next was last year's The King's Speech, the eventual Oscar winner for Best Picture. Director Tate Taylor does a surprisingly strong turn here, as you would never expect this level of artistic sophistication from a mere rookie to the silver screen. It's not perfect, as some things are a little too neatly wrapped by the film's conclusion, but as a title its cohesion was far more secure than it had any right to be.

Bargain hunting is a much more dangerous sport in Jackson

Possibly the most important story here is the number of impressive female actors and characters that fill this film's roster. The Help is a title where men have little impact on the story as a whole or are not seen at all, and one very effective bit of evidence of this is when one character's abusive husband is never actually shown on the screen, despite his obvious presence in the household. It's obvious from the get-go that the women rule the roost, and with this collection of talent it can never be accused that this would be a bad thing. Emma Stone continues to impress as she uses 2011 as a major stepping stone to perhaps bigger and better things. Playing an ugly duckling is difficult enough for Stone, doing so believably while being a hero to root for comes so naturally that it's hard to connect her previous comedic roles to this very elegant dramatic performance. Viola Davis meanwhile plays a role much closer to her usual fare, but since that is the same level that got her nominated for awards in films like Doubt, that is hardly folly. She manages to be the heart and soul of The Help, no easy task with the cast around her. One that nearly steals the show is Octavia Spencer, an underrated character actress who enjoys some of the film's best sequences as a sass-mouthing, trouble-making maid. Bryce Dallas Howard also defies all my expectations in the Cruella deVille role in which she is presented. I've never been a fan of her work, but this particular film exemplifies her best traits and lets her be as saucy as she wants. These four are surrounded by a strong core of talented women, each with something special to bring to their roles. Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, Sissy Spacek and Cicely Tyson all put on amazing work, some surpassing even their own high water marks. Sure, there are some men visible in the foreground (most notably Private Practice's Chris Lowell) but these men have little to do with how the story is told and for the most part are simply unimportant.

Sissy Spacek is still good! Who knew?

I knew going in that The Help would be an entertaining film, one that would evoke several emotions and many at once. What I wasn't expecting was the best movie I've seen all year. For the first time since April, I have a new #1 for 2011. It may have taken forever for a legitimate Academy Award nominee to rear its head, but this one was well worth the wait. I simply cannot recommend it enough, especially considering the lackluster fare that currently clogs the majority of cinemas this summer. With this especially stellar cast, a talented storyteller at the helm, and laughs and tears a plenty, The Help is definitely a title you should be making plans to see even as you finish reading this review.

Clever, Smart, Love

I'm still finishing up the last of the July film releases as we finish the first week of August. Now that I'm back on track with the new films, and this month has some of the less anticipated titles for the summer, I considered this an opportune time to catch up on one of my must-sees. In this case, it was the romantic comedy Crazy, Stupid, Love starring Steve Carell alongside an ensemble cast that simply oozes talent and charisma. The film was also directed by Glenn Ficara and John Requea, whose debut 2010 Jim Carrey project I Love You Phillip Morris was an under-appreciated gem. These contributing factors, not to mention a hip and fun trailer (about divorce, no less) that ironically inspired love at first sight, made me very excited for this summer release. Sure, I've seen a large number of romantic comedies this year, but most of them have either been bad beyond comprehension or entertaining but with completely derivative plots and storylines. One look at Crazy, Stupid, Love seems to dissolve all those fears, and now that I had time to visit theaters, my friend - the Rom-Com expert Anne - and I checked out a show this past week. Despite the trailers being fairly clear on what story to look forward to, it was the breakdown of said plot that would most determine whether this film would stand atop the year's best or wallow in the mess that has consumed most of Hollywood's 2011.

Carrell shouldn't have told Gosling about his problems with "Little Stevie"

Carl Weaver (Steve Carell) has just gotten a divorce from his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) in response to her cheating on him with a co-worker, David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon). Naturally this throws the pair and their two children into an emotional tailspin, especially Carl, who had become so ingrained to married life that he has no idea how to re-enter the dating scene. While bemoaning his fate at a local bar, Carl meets Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a smooth-talking ladies man who agrees to help with Carl's physical and emotional makeover. Soon, Carl is entering the wild world of modern dating and casual sex, but Jacob finds his own path diverting when he meets Hannah (Emma Stone), who makes him look at his relationship with women in a whole new light. While both are going through their changes, Carl's son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) pines after his babysitter Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), who herself has a major crush on Carl.

"If you want them to be President, you have to start them off at an early age"

From what you can see of those intermingled plot points, Crazy, Stupid Love gets very complex very quickly, with a large number of events simultaneously occurring on multiple levels. That said, most of the film focuses on Carl and other characters' actions around him. This makes the most sense, as just about every other character has some sort of connection to him, but it slightly damages the ensemble feel of the cast by focusing so much on Carl and his problems. This is especially true since while he is interesting in his own right, Carl pales in comparison to Jacob, who as a character could easily headline his own film. In fact, the Jacob/Hannah storyline is shunted into the background a bit too much (though there is a reason for this), and Carl gets a little tiring by the time we're not focusing quite as much attention in his direction. These are small missteps and surprising ones considering how strong the storytelling was in I Love You, Phillip Morris, but not so bad as to cause any actual demerits to be dispensed unto this title. The story behind Crazy, Stupid, Love might have been told slightly more in tune, but in the end it's unpredictability works wonders to make up for that offense.

I wasn't kidding. Carell is in every screenshot I could find for this film

Oh, yes, the unpredictability. It would not be uncommon for you (as if was for Anne and me) to place your hand over your eyes and face for much of Crazy, Stupid, Love, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. While I can't (and won't, you'll have to figure it out for yourself) go into too much detail, you will see things go completely out of control, only for it to be compounded by more things going out of control than you had ever anticipated. It's not an entirely comfortable scenario, but one that manages to be a lot of fun nonetheless. The result is you half-hiding your eyes from the screen while witnessing this madness, yet the film never really lets you look away. You're easily compelled to see it through to the end, which is the mark of any good film.

Auditioning for the next "Oceans" movie, are we Ryan?

Of course this movie would have to be populated by interesting characters to be truly good. As you probably gathered from the previews, Ryan Gosling is just amazing as ladies man Jacob, a role that doesn't quite fit with his career thus far. Though he failed to rightfully garner a Best Actor nomination at the last Academy Awards (no offense Jesse Eisenberg, but I would've rather had him over you), Gosling has finally gotten the attention of mainstream Hollywood after building his career on small but well-received films Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl, and Blue Valentine. Now that he's getting star treatment, you might think his output would drop right into the deep end like so many others who have made the transition from indie to the big leagues. However, Gosling is a lot of fun and keeps all of his strengths on board while playing Jacob, and never does he do something which isn't completely believable. Carell is the film's star, and he tries his best to give us the same charm he does in just about every Steve Carell movie. Performance-wise, this is probably the closest he's come to his Little Miss Sunshine peak, but still doesn't deviate too far from his usual fare. He's still good, and as a lead he's more than serviceable, but I was hoping for much more from the character we're expected to mainly follow for two hours. Emma Stone is once again a lot of fun, though her character's major decision between sex with the hot bar guy (Jacob) and her boring relationship with boring lawyer Richard (Josh Groban) is hardly the stuff of legends. Her main source of power is her boundless energy, which here she displays in spades. Is Julianne Moore's career going to turn into a revolving door of cheating spouses now? First it was her great work in the widely overrated The Kids are All Right, and now she's doing the same here. Hopefully this is just a glitch in her resume and not full-blown typecasting, but she at least puts on a good show for the audience. She's completely sympathetic, unlike so many similar characters who would be instantly hated by the audience. I will watch Marisa Tomei and Kevin Bacon in just about anything, but while both do great jobs, neither is used to their full advantage in supporting roles. Analeigh Tipton is surprising on two counts. One, far more of the story is dedicated to her point of view than I had anticipated; and two, the young actress is actually quite good as the Weaver's teenage babysitter. She carries a certain innocence to her that isn't apparent in the trailer, and she's easily better than Jonah Bobo, the young Weaver spawn who eventually becomes the film's most annoying character.

Here's looking at you, kid... seriously, you're young enough to be his daughter

Looking at love from too many angles to count, Crazy, Stupid, Love really goes without sleep to deliver a strong narrative that makes you feel every emotion that the filmmakers want of you. Not the least bit subtle, the film makes up for that fact by presenting everything to you on a silver platter of fun, empathy and wisdom that can't help but charm. It's not the best romantic comedy I've seen this year (that would be Woody Allen's  Midnight in Paris) but it's right up there among the year's smartest and most heartfelt releases. To say it's worth seeing would almost seem like a disservice, but then again I would have to worry about anyone who can't get behind the excess of charm and heart that this film delivers to its audience. So go see it; Ryan Gosling deserves your patronage.

The Race is On!

This past week, I went on something of a film binge. With the first major awards show up this Sunday (The Golden Globes, for those of you who might have lost track) time is running out to catch up on all the 2010 releases that made an impact. Though time didn't permit me to see all the films I probably should have (take THAT, 127 Hours!), I did get a trio of films under my belt that will get some attention this Sunday, and may even do so when the Academy Awards roll around next month.

The first of the three movies I saw was the Will Gluck-directed Easy A, starring Golden Globe nominee Emma Stone. Stone plays Olive, an anonymous teen in a Los Angeles high school whose life goes awry after lying about losing her virginity to her best friend. That lie quickly becomes problematic as it turns into a full blown gossip nightmare, with Olive being branded a whore by her classmates and eventually leads her to branding herself with a red letter A, inspired by the Nathaniel Hawthorne novel The Scarlet Letter. Eventually she has do decide whether to tell the truth or risk the people she cares about getting hurt for a lie.

Stone, who I had never been particularly impressed with before, is very much in her element here, though I guess "high school student" wouldn't be much of a stretch for her, having turned all of 22 last year. Still, her portrayal of Olive as feisty and smart with a take-no-prisoners swagger makes for a great hero, and her performance alone would have made the film worth watching. That said, the support of a surprisingly-strong cast make every scene enjoyable, with some of the younger stars such as Amandy Bynes, Penn Badgely, Cam Gigandet and Aly Michalka putting forth some good work, while vets such as Thomas Hayden Church, Patricia Clarkson, Malcolm McDowell, Lisa Kudrow and Stanley Tucci blow them out of the water. Of special note are Tucci and Clarkson, who absolutely kill as Olive's hippie parents.

Somehow I doubt Olive is anonymous after being seen in this

If only the story was as interesting as the film's characters. Though I respect the throwback to 80's style teen dramas like Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club, Easy A has something of a shallow tale that, while it cranks out the laughs, goes over the top on quite a few occasions. A perfectly good film and worth a rental, there are probably more worthy titles awaiting your perusal.

Despicable Me was the second film I checked out, just the second animated film I've seen from 2010. Though Toy Story 3 will be the likely victor come awards presentation time, I figured this would be worth the time taken. Led by the voice of Steve Carell, I was sure there would be enough laughs to keep me at bay for a while at least, and while the film isn't a masterpiece by far (not surprising coming from the creator of the superbly-okay Ice Age) I wasn't disappointed either.

Carrel voices Gru, a veteran super-villain eager to prove his worth as he's seemingly never reached his villainous potential. His target? Vector (Jason Siegel), the man who swiftly and unexpectedly became the world's number one villain and in possession of the one tool Gru needs to steal the moon and regain his mojo. For the plan to work, he needs to adopt three cute kids, not realizing that having these children in his life will change him in ways he couldn't imagine...

Don't you just want to market them to tots??

Carrell and the voices around him do an amazing job with their characters, but the film is truly stolen by the Gru's "Minions," tiny yellow creatures utterly loyal to him. Each seemingly with a personality all their own, they manages to steal every scene in which they appear, much like Scratch the saber-toothed squirrel in the Ice Age films. They make perfect sidekicks to Gru, and really make the film differ from it's 2010 peers in the character department.

I liked Despicable Me, though it's second half is much too predictable for all that.. Good triumphs and all that, but when you consider that the film is made for kids it's pretty difficult to argue for a more textured plot. Like most animated films, I was glad I watched it but now have it out of my system, and while I will think it a good film, I'll probably never watch it again.

Finally, I saw a film that is actually getting a lot of Oscar buzz, and has been gathering admirers since it's July release. The Kids are All Right is a look at the modern American family, which in this day and age may not be what it was even twenty years ago. Based at least partially on the life of writer/director Lisa Cholodenko, the film looks at what it means to be a family in today's world, and how those families that seem 'different' might not be nearly so when you take a close look at them. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play lesbian partners and parents to Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson. When the kids decide to seek out the man who donated the sperm to get their mothers pregnant with them, the inclusion of Mark Ruffalo into this family's world might be too much to handle.

The film is getting a ton of attention from critics leading into awards season, especially for the three leads. It's puzzling because none of the three is necessarily doing anything that stretches the boundaries of what they've played before. Bening plays a drunk neurotic, and there's actually not much to the role besides the strength she puts into her delivery. Moore is a stifled housewife. Again, not a lot of depth. Ruffalo is a carefree man who finds out he can actually be a decent dad given a chance. Wow, that's an award-winner. These are not great characters, but the talent playing them seems to have fooled some people into thinking that they somehow deserve praise like no other. Frankly, I have to think that the most cosmetic differences, that of Benning's and Moore's sexual orientation, has put this film on the Juno fast track, trying to make everyone think that it's a better film than it is.

Yes, we GET it, you're gay! No more group hugs!

What really brings The Kids are All Right down though, is the story. Or rather, lack thereof. I guess realizing about halfway through shooting that there was no story, the film throws in a twist so conspicuous that we're stunned into disbelief. That the film jumps the shark so eagerly to appease audiences brings down the film's authenticity, and while it was still a film I enjoyed, it was nowhere near the critical darling I was expecting. Funny, yes. Caring, yes. Legitimate Oscar contender? Don't get your hopes up.

And so that's it, while there are some films left to see from 2010, I've worked my way much closer to finishing off 2010, much more than I have for any year before already. A few more films and I'll finally be done with last year, just in time to see what I'm sure will be great films like Green Hornet, Season of the Witch, and Cedar Rapids.

Okay, there MUST be better films in 2011. I'll find 'em.

Zombies in the Mist

End of the world zombie comedy? No thanks, I already saw Shaun of the Dead.

That's what I thought last summer, anyway, when Zombieland took number one at the box office and went on to become the most successful zombie movie ever. Despite the success, and despite the stellar reviews it received, I was not very enthusiastic about seeing the movie in the theaters. When Shaun of the Dead came out back in 2004, it was the critic's darling. All the reviewers loved it, and it seemed like everyone I knew, whether fans of zombie movies or just movie fans in general, would shout from the rooftops about how great this movie was. So finally I relented, but instead of this fantastic film that would be worthy of such praise, my response? "Meh."

It wasn't that I thought the movie was bad. On the contrary, I thought it was very clever, with some outrageously funny moments. It seemed to carry a good balance between respecting the source material while at the same time parodying it's cultural commentaries. I simply thought that the film didn't live up to the hype put upon me by people who seemed to think it was the best movie that came out that year. It's the reason I still haven't seen Hot Fuzz despite actually wanting to see it at some point. And it's why I waited almost a year to see Zombieland, despite much interest I had in the Woody Harrelson-fronted film about surviving after the worst has come to be.

The narrative for Zombieland is told by Jesse Eisenberg's character, called Columbus. Columbus is a college student who has managed to survive the zombie apocalypse by following his thirty-three rules of life, many of which somehow translate perfectly into surviving zombie attacks or surviving in Zombieland altogether. Some, like Cardio (1), Wear Seatbelts (4), and the Buddy System (29) make sense in real life as well as the endtimes. Eisenberg is headed cross-country to his hometown of Columbus where he hopes to find his family and see if his home survived what has happened to the rest of the world, despite not having been very close to his family to begin with. On the way, he encounters Talahassee (Harrelson), a somewhat crazy survivor who has made a business out of killing the undead, and to hear him put it, "Business is good!" Not only is Talahassee two cans short of a six pack, but he's on a peculiar quest to find Twinkies: "not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go... empty." Despite each of their eccentricities, the two decide to team up, if at least for the short term, and their chemistry and scenes together often make for the most enjoyable parts of the movie, as each mocks the other with mutual respect as fellow survivors would.

Before too long, the duo meet up with the sister con-girls Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who manage to rob and abandon them multiple times over the course of the film. The sisters are on their way to Pacific Playland, a California amusement park, where it's rumored that there are no zombies. Wichita merely wants Little Rock to be able to have fun at least once in a world where zombies are pretty much the dominant species. And so the sisters team up with our heroes, if only so long as to reach the park.

That's the plot in a nutshell, and though it's weak and nothing to write home about, it's fine because the movie is buoyed by it's characters and acting. Eisenberg (Who had a breakout year with this and his summer comedy Adventureland) is perfect as the neurotic Columbus, not only in his deadpan narration and comedy timing, but also in his body language, which manages to properly convey his fear and his incredulity to the situations in which he finds himself. But he's got nothing on Harrelson, who had some unique conditions for signing onto the project (including ecologically-friendly sets and director Ruben Fleischer not consuming dairy for a week) and proved he was worth it, putting together a kick-ass performance in which he owns every scene and makes this Twinkie-hunting, zombie-killing maniac believable and sympathetic. Who can say 2009 wasn't his year, as in addition to this film, he had a notable role in the action film 2012 and an Oscar-nominated one for The Messenger. Emma Stone may be known to most as Jonah Hill's romantic interest in the 2007 film Superbad, and while she is fine as older sister and con-woman Wichita, she's up at the same level as the other people in the cast. Abigail Breslin may be forever identified as Little Miss Sunshine, but she still does an amazing job here as the smart but still incredibly and impressionably young Little Rock. She outperforms everyone in her scenes, with the notable exception of Harrelson.

Although the movies does have problems, they are mostly trivial and don't overly affect the enjoyment of the film. Mostly, they are continuity errors, far too many to account for in print. Fortunately, IMDB maintains an extensive list of them, if you wanted to check them. Most of these could have been avoided, and can likely be attributed to the inexperience of director Ruben Fleischer and his crew, whether by haste or just plain error. . Obviously, if this movie had been made with a more experienced crew, perhaps these errors could have been avoided. Oh, well, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I went into this film with no expectations and little idea as to the plot of the film, but even if I had, I'm not sure it would have altered the level of enjoyment I had during it's viewing. For a horror comedy, Zombieland doesn't skimp on the blood, gore and special effects, and manages that perfect balance of respecting the original source material while parodying it perfectly to fit the story. It's easily the best zombie film I've seen since Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead, and I'd heavily recommend to anyone interested in the genre as a humorous aside to the more serious Romero flicks. Toss in a hilarious cameo from one of the funniest actors alive, gut-wrenching laughs and more zombies than you can unload a shotgun at, and you've got one of the few movies from last year that I'd watch again and again without hesitation.