Too Long a Wait

Last weekend, the much-awaited (by yours truly, at least) comedy The Five-Year Engagement was released to theaters. With only one week before the rise of eventual juggernaut The Avengers, the film's producers obviously thought they could make a quick cash grab with a strong romantic comedy and make out like thieves before the Marvel Comics' movie could simply take everybody's money. On paper, everything looked more than solid. Judd Apatow was producing, and Apatow's career seemed to be going upwards after he bankrolled a little film last summer called Bridesmaids. The film also reunited director Nicholas Stoller and star Jason Segel, whose former collaborations were the popular and successful Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Add rising star Emily Blunt to the mix, and what you should have is a hilarious romantic comedy that excels on all levels.

Well, let that be a lesson as to just how unpredictable this industry really is.

Audiences largely ignored The Five-Year Engagement, and in hindsight it's easy to see why. Its attempts to cling to the Bridesmaids's coattails were obvious ploys, as nothing in the trailer indicated that there was anything connecting Engagement to the 2011 box office giant whose popularity alone caused it to flirt with Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards. Secondly, there was already plenty of romance in theaters when the film released, especially two titles released the previous weekend (the Nicholas Sparks adaptation The Lucky One and surprise hit Think Like a Man both dominated Engagement at the box office in their second weekend), and nobody really cared that a new romance film was available to see. What at first glance seemed like a slam dunk became anything but, and to add insult to injury, critics seemed to agree with our collective apathy. Were they right? Is The Five-Year Engagement deserving of its failures? I was still too intrigued by the title's premise to completely ignore it.

Look at the happy couple. What can we do to change that?

The film starts with lovebirds Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Blunt) in San Francisco on New Years Eve, the night Tom proposes, and Violet of course says yes. While the pair are planning their upcoming nuptials, Violet, a psychology PHD graduate, gets a job offer for a post-doctorate program. The problem is that she did not get into a California program, but one at the University of Michigan, which puts the couple's plans on hold since they want to marry in California with their families present. Because the program lasts two years, Tom moves up with Violet, leaving his sous chef position at a popular restaurant and confident that he can "cook anywhere". Things get complicated in Michigan however, and as Violet's career surges forward, Tom is left behind, and the prospective wedding date gets further and further away. Soon it becomes a question of if, not when, the pair will ever tie the knot.

Tom just realized he's not wearing any pants. Violet just realized the same.

If there's one thing The Five-Year Engagement does well, it's that it establishes right from the beginning that these two people are absolutely perfect for one another. From the start, this is a couple that remember the moment they met one another, make each other laugh, and genuinely love one another in a way that communicates to every character in the film and every member of the audience that these two are meant to be together. It was a good call then to bring together Segel and Blunt, as the two share a chemistry that by itself nearly carries the whole movie. Segel is of course in his usual teddy-bear adorable mode, the one that makes women love him and men wish they were him. Segel defies the romantic lead stereotype in such a refreshing everyman way that it almost seems as though he can do no wrong. Blunt is also a hit, and her demeanor is more relaxed (and less "British") than I've seen in any of her other work. The pair obviously work hard to make this film a hit, but sadly it's due to forces outside their control as actors that hamper the title's effectiveness.

What they never say about weddings: all that free cake!

As you can probably guess, it's the story that is the main culprit in Engagement, and the blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Segel and Stoller. Yes, I did say that Segel was blameless, but only in an acting capacity. Unlike The Muppets, which the duo previously penned, this script has none of the wry wit and bursting humor that made Kermit and crew's return such a fun time. It would be easy to blame this on simply not having a female perspective, but it's plainly obvious that these men cannot describe exactly what it is that makes relationships work. As a movie, Engagement lacks subtlety, and the film's funniest moments are when the scenes are almost trying too hard to stand out. Too often does the movie rely on the comedic talents of its actors to make something much funnier than it actually is, and the result is a mishmash of drama and occasional spurts of laughter that doesn't quite pay off.

The couple we wish the movie had been about.

The film is not without its charms, but most belonging to Tom and Violet burns out quickly. Eventually a shitty situation turns the happy couple against one another, and as the audience we just wish that we could stop focusing on this pair until they can get their act together. Best friends to the rescue! Community's Alison Brie and Parks and Recreations' Chris Pratt are easily the best parts of the film as Violet's sister and Tom's best buddy, respectively. Besides being the funniest actors in this comedy (no, I agree that's not saying much), Brie and Pratt act as a calendar of the world outside our main pairing, and their development as characters is the one thing that works amid a sea of poor film pacing. Also standing out is Animal Kingdom's Jacki Weaver as Violet's wickedly fun mother, who says what's on her mind and to hell with the consequences. I really wish Weaver had been used more, but her effectiveness is sadly restricted to the film's opening half-hour. The cast is rounded out by Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart, and if the talent here doesn't prove to you just how poorly the script fails the movie, nothing will.

Don't worry, big guy... you know you're getting the happy ending.

What we are left with at the end is a barely funny, overly-long (at two hours, I shouldn't believe that) movie that wraps itself up way too quickly to be believable. While the film does have a few funny bits, I'm hard-pressed to remember any single one. It DOES however contain one of the more memorable wedding scenes in cinema in recent memory. The Bridesmaids comparisons may ultimately have been what killed this film, as it was probably impossible for most people to imagine this title one-upping that modern classic. It's a shame, as with a few changes behind the scenes The Five-Year Engagement could easily have been a funny, competent and engaging romantic comedy. Instead it's barely humorous, and there can be no doubt that it deserved all those empty seats opening weekend. This might seem like small fries after I watched The Avengers twice in the past three days, but Engagement was one of more looked-towards titles this past spring, and I can't help but feel a moderate level of disappointment in its failure.

Life at Home

Well, it's now that awkward time between blockbuster releases. Last week Todd and I saw The Hunger Games, and now this coming weekend will bring the monster-mashing Wrath of the Titans and fairy tale family comedy Mirror Mirror to the big screen. In between, however, there's just not a whole lot of stuff out there to see. I've been pretty good at seeing most of the big releases so far this year, and there's nothing I feel I have to rent right at this second. I only ever use Netflix to catch up on old TV shows, and so pretty mush all of the films I watch these days are in the theater. for that reason. it's a good thing there's always something that slips between the cracks, and in this case that meant a showdown between Best Foreign Language Academy Award winner A Separation and new indie comedy Jeff, Who Lives at Home. Since I'm sure you can all see the poster to the left, you can probably guess which of those films won the coin-toss. This is nothing personal, Iran; I had a small window to catch a film, and Jeff simply had the better available showtime. This was a film that had caught my attention from the first trailer, thanks especially to its all-too-human family who seem to both despise and love one another at the same time. It was one of my more anticipated films for March, so I was happy that I was able to finally fit this particular title into my busy schedule.

"No, thank you, I'm very happy with my long distance provider..."

In this comedy by brother directors Jay and Mark Duplass, Jason Segel plays the titular Jeff, a pot-smoking thirty year-old slacker living in his mother's basement. Forced out of the house on an errand by mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon), Jeff becomes obsessed with the name Kevin, sure it will lead him to something of great importance. Meanwhile, his brother Pat (Ed Helms) is having issues with his marriage, and begins to suspect that his wife Linda (Judy Greer) is having an affair with another man. Finally, Sharon is trying to consolidate her frustration with her children when she gets an unusual surprise, the discovery of a secret admirer who apparently works in the same office that she does.

The look on his face says it all; this won't end well.

When the film first starts, we can learn a lot about how things are going to go. Jeff loves the movie Signs by M. Night Shyamalan, mostly for its idea that everything and everyone is connected in some way, and despite the 2002 film's apparent unevenness and issues, he appreciates how it threaded multiple narratives on course to the "perfect moment" at its climax. Well, what do you know? I just summarized Jeff, Who Lives at Home pretty much perfectly. Jeff takes a long time to find its feet, struggling through some early scenes with Segel that are barely watchable thank to Jeff himself, whose "unique" take on life takes a lot of getting used to. By this time you might feel as though seeing Jeff was a monumental mistake, but I promise you this: it does eventually get better. The show finally gets going when Jeff and Pat collide, as the main plot of the film finally gets around to being told. Pat's relationship issues are so realistic that you would swear they were written by your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, and thankfully it is this aspect that drives the film for much of its narrative, taking a break from the existential mumbo-jumbo that began the whole thing. Unlike the plight of her sons, the story revolving around mother Sharon is never dull or feels astray, and its truly original tale is easily the best part of the whole film experience.

Why, hello creepy man.

The acting is at least good enough to keep things interesting, even when the story doesn't. You would think Segel to be perfectly at home as an oversized manchild, but unlike his usual over-animated roles in How I Met Your Mother and The Muppets, Segel plays Jeff's eternal optimism with a level of sincerity I've never witnessed from the actor. Segel is a big kid, but it's nice to see him stop and ACT instead of merely playing. The result is a nice fit for him, and a side I'd love to see more of in the future. Helms is also great, though he occasionally gets into the screaming mode that has already gotten a bit old after two Hangover films. Still, he gets to perform as a great character and run with it, and every scene with him feels completely honest. Sarandon does a wonderful job as the stressed, depressed mother of two disappointing boys, not a surprise to anyone who has seen her in action. While it might seem like a while since Susan Sarandon has made an impact on the big screen, it sure felt like she still had "it" when given the chance. Judy Greer and Rae Dawn Chong also do great work as Pat's estranged wife and Sharon's office friend, respectively.

She doesn't look a day older than Bull Durham

Unfortunately, the film takes a few too many cues from master Shyamalan in telling the tales of these three relatives. I already mentioned the slow opening, but too many scenes from the middle on feel contrived or simply pointless when compared to the big picture. Jeff especially feels out of place as the story takes off without him, hilarious since he's supposedly the film's titular character. That changes at the end, but even the film's supposed "perfect moment" feels forced, though I do have to admit that I never saw it coming. The film really gives too much credence to Jeff's mystical insight, and wraps up the family feud way too quickly to be truly believable. Still, the interaction between the main characters was great, propelling the material above the farce it could have been. The script could have used some cuts or revisions in some places, but on the whole the story felt sincere in its intentions, at least.

Jason Segel is a BIG man...

It's that sincerity that makes Jeff, Who Lives at Home watchable, if not necessarily good. This was probably a film better suited for DVD than the big screen, as the mindset for enjoying this might be so narrow as to encourage pausing midway through and coming back to it later. You might want to see this if you're really itching for an indie comedy, as long as you don't mind that Jeff is really far more dramatic than your average comedy. Otherwise, I'd avoid it, waiting instead for the new blockbusters coming out this weekend.

Professional Puppet Productions

Well, what's a decade between friends?

It's 2011, a dozen years since the Jim Henson-created puppet characters known as "Muppets" appeared on the big screen, in 1999's Muppets from Space. The franchise, which began as a variety show and had been most popular in the seventies and eighties, was hitting popularity canyon around that time, as Muppets from Space was a financial failure and a signal to the entertainment industry that the franchise as a whole was no longer popular enough for mass entertainment. What followed was less than thrilling, as the puppet troupe pulled out a couple more made-for-television movies, and the Muppets themselves slowly faded into obsolescence. Well, that wasn't enough for How I Met Your Mother and Forgetting Sarah Marshall star Jason Segel, who along with running buddy Nicholas Stoller pitched a new entry to the series, a tall order considering the aforementioned lack of presence in today's pop culture. Still, that persistence (and a fiercely loyal fan base) paid off, and this Thanksgiving weekend became host to The Muppets, the first appearance of our favorite cast of misfits and divas on the big screen in twelve years.

Kudos for fitting them all into one station wagon

Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a new Muppet) are brothers, living in the small town of Smalltown, USA. Always feeling like an outcast, Walter has survived mainly thanks to the love and care of Gary and his fascination with the old Muppets television show, the characters of which are his idols and heroes. When Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) bring Walter along on a trip to Los Angeles with the intent of seeing the renowned Muppet Studios, they unwittingly set off a chain of events that sees them get a group that hasn't performed together in over a decade back into show business. The Muppets are constantly told that they are no longer popular, but they hope to shock the world in their big comeback that will include wisecracking bears, pig and frog duets, a barbershop quartet, and perhaps even Walter as the troupe's newest performer.

Animal! We LOVE Animal!

I was surprised to discover that The Muppets was in fact a full-blown musical, a fact that could have been suspected had I actually paid attention to the trailers but still somehow caught me unawares. Naturally I expected there to be a few songs from the Muppets themselves, and the film doesn't disappoint, especially when you have Kermit the Frog singing the original song "Pictures in My Head" and later on playing a duet with Miss Piggy of the classic Muppets' tune "The Rainbow Connection". And of course the original Muppet Show theme is still around, as delightfully cheer-inducing as ever. Only a couple of songs fail to entertain, though that isn't entirely the music director's fault (okay, some of it is, but we'll get to that later). Even though these specific song-and-dance numbers don't quite work out as planned, they still contain a ton of charm, and don't detract much from the film.

Seriously, who's that big blue guy in the back? Why is he there??

What does detract unfortunately is the human element that has almost ungraciously inserted itself into the narrative. Oh, I'm not talking about Amy Adams. Adams, for whom the part was specifically written, is the perfect actress to take on this kind of light parody of a real human being. As an elementary school teacher who fixes cars and speaks in a consistently high-pitched accent, there's no actress I can imagine besides Adams in the role. And of course when it comes time to actually sing, Adams' pipes come in handy for fending off critics of the relative simpleness of the songs themselves. I am also not dissing Chris Cooper, who but for an ill-advised albeit short hip-hop scene is perfectly at home as sleazy businessman Tex Richman, the film's main antagonist. And I'm not speaking of the hosts of guest cameos that make their way into the Muppet's latest film endeavor. The never-ending list includes Jack Black, Alan Arkin, James Carville, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Emily Blunt, Donald Glover, Dave Grohl and Zach Galifianakis, and those are just the interesting ones.Well used, the constant stream of cameos makes for at the very least an interesting ride and at best shows how influential the Muppets are among the current Hollywood stars. No, when I say that the film's human element is underwhelming I'm really talking about Jason Segel, which is a shame for several reasons. I hate to discredit his work because I love his role on How I Met Your Mother (no, I haven't seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall yet, sorry) and because of the obvious love he has shown in pushing this film forward, both in its creation and in its marketing. While he nails the huggable teddy-bear type for much of the film (that's pretty much HIS role...), this can't block the fact when the music numbers roll around he's not that good a singer and obviously suffers from having two left feet. When he's just called on to act he's fine, but the film would have been better with another, more musically-oriented actor in the lead role.

Uhm, yeah, you don't want to see that

Of course, the best (and perhaps only) reason to see The Muppets is... well... The Muppets! It was fun to see the film poke fun at how out of touch the characters are with the times; they constantly rock out to "We Built This City" and reference Dirty Dancing, and Kermit tries to get President Jimmy Carter to be their show's celebrity guest host. If you have a favorite character from the old show, new show or any of the movies, you likely won't be disappointed by their absence. Most of the "classics", as well as a few newer personas, make at least sporadic appearances, though you might have to hunt visually for them. The focus of the story is very top heavy, and most of the light is shone on stars Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie and Walter. Some effort is made with a few others, most notably Animal, but some fan favorites such as Gonzo and Rowlf the Dog are almost completely cast aside. This wouldn't be too bad in itself, but Walter's story of finding himself isn't always fun to watch. That some characters were pushed to the sides to make room for such a short-sighted character seems wasteful.

There's nothing like taking in The Muppets live on stage!

But perhaps I'm being a bit too critical. The fact is that if you can stand sitting in a theater surrounded by small children with short attention spans, The Muppets is a fun way to spend less than two hours of your weekend. As Jim Henson always intended, and Jason Segel dutifully followed, the film is silly enough for kids while still being entertaining for the adults who brought them there. That makes sense, as it would hardly be appropriate to alienate that nostalgic audience who made this title a reality to begin with. While not perfect, lacking perhaps the ability behind the camera to match the wit and bravado of titles earlier in the franchise's history, it's a nice opportunity to try and take this oft-neglected property as far as it can go. If people come out and support this film, good things will happen. I don't see any reason that shouldn't be, as the real crime would be to take something with this much promise and tuck it into a dark corner to stagnate and dull.

Bad... Just Bad

Sometimes as a film reviewer I absolutely KNOW when I'm going to hate a movie well before I've purchased a ticket for entry. While some films have surprised me as to the levels of their suckitude, such as Sucker Punch, many more have met expectations well below even baseline standards, their ranks flush with titles like The Eagle, Your Highness, and Red Riding Hood. At a certain point I can only justify so much, and often I go into a theater knowing that I won't emerge pleased with the experience, ready to warn you my readers of crimes against your sensibilities and your wallets. Bad Teacher is another in that growing list of titles in which I knew any preexisting standards would be too high. For one, I can't think of a single film I'VE seen where Cameron Diaz has proven her star status. Sure, she was good in The Mask, but what has she done lately that has been remotely interesting? Secondly, the trailers seemed to rely on vulgarity over anything actually comedic, a sad trend to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Finally, the story that was presented came down to a complete insult to educators in general, portraying the "hero" of the tale as someone who doesn't care at all about her students, only bothering with them when there's something in it for her. As someone who is friends with teachers and holds great respect for the work they do, I couldn't help but feel like this subversive fantasy paints these hard-working sorts in a negative light with little to no redemption on the horizon.

So who's the bigger tool?

Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) dislikes her chosen profession as a teacher, a career that she for some reason at one point chose. After a failed engagement to a rich sucker ended an early attempt to quit teaching, Elizabeth is forced to return to the classroom she hates. Determined to escape, she tries to gain the attentions of the new substitute teacher Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), who has a substantial family fortune, and to that end is trying to save up for a super expensive boob job. Elizabeth is confronted on many sides, however; the teacher across the hall, Amy Squirrell (Lucy Punch), suspects the worst in Elizabeth, while gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) vies for her affections.

Diaz won this year's "Wrinkled Fish" competition hands down

I'm really not sure where the appeal for this type of film lies. It's certainly not in the storytelling, which is haphazard and all over the place like a drunk driver on New Year's Day. That's an appropriate comparison to Elizabeth, who is so unlikable that it's amazing that she's portrayed as the hero of the tale, not to mention a potential romantic interest for not one but two characters. Is it me, or is the whole notion of the "good guy" being the person who has no compulsion to help her students out of the goodness of her heart while the "bad guy" is one who actually has the interests and well-being of the children in mind completely insane? Not helping matters is the focus of the film. Concentrating on the three least sympathetic characters does Bad Teacher no favors, with the story and dialogue failing to provide amusement through either comedy or commentary. There's nothing here about the rigors, excitement or rewards of being a teacher; students are mere caricatures and the people making up the faculty aren't much better.

The most balls the film can muster

A little bit of humanity wouldn't have hurt, especially distributed among the main cast. What attracted Diaz to this offensive role is in serious question, as she usually chooses more audience-friendly fare in which to be seen, such as the crowd-pleasing Charlie's Angels. I guess she liked the idea of being part in such a foul-mouthed comedy, but there's very little to the character Elizabeth Halsey that is either challenging or deep. Diaz is fine as a uncaring educator, but this is just more proof of a low-ceiling role that Diaz takes to make a buck while neglecting to challenge herself, which is why she's not and will never be a top-flight talent. Timberlake is similarly wasted, as even his trademark charm does him no good with the realization that his character is a brainless tool, deserving of neither Elizabeth's nor our admiration. Unlike last year's Social Network, which utilized near the entirety of Timberlake's charisma, there's no reason this film couldn't have cast a nobody performer; the audience probably wouldn't have noticed the difference. Punch is the best of the three, but of course her character is villainized due solely to her opposing Elizabeth. She does get a few moments to shine, but she's neither a well-known enough actress nor particularly consistent enough to engage us.

No, those aren't Muppets with Segel, but I can see what you're talking about

It's with the secondary characters of Bad Teacher where you can start to see where things could have gone right for the film. Jason Segel is great in his smallish role of the gym teacher with interests in Elizabeth. Segel does a great job with these "nice guy" roles, further evidenced here with a character that is as fun to watch as he is underutilized. This also comes through as the film uses its smaller roles to inflict its best impacts upon the audience, with Modern Family's Eric Stonestreet, The Office's Phyllis Smith, and Reno 911's Thomas Lennon sharing not only the best dialogue and comedic elements, but the film's best overall acting talent with Segel

Why do I suddenly have Fountains of Wayne going through my head?

I could go on for paragraphs about the twisted morality of rooting between the characters of Elizabeth and Amy Squirrell, but I have no interest in giving this film more attention than it deserves. Among the worst that 2011 has so far offered, Bad Teacher could have been more than the obtuse, crude fantasy for the teachers out there who really hate their jobs, but not by much. This is likely the worst from director Jake Kasdan, and since he was responsible for the farce that was Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, that says a lot about what I thought of this Bad Teacher. There are a lot of forgivable crimes in the world of film and Hollywood, but a comedy that isn't funny doesn't get a lot of respect or leniency from me, and it shouldn't from you, either.

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.