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.

Rom-Com Merry Go Round

Back in January, I reviewed a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. In the film, two friends decide to cast aside the emotional baggage of relationships and focus on the sexual gratification aspect with one another. No matter what happened, they would keep love out of the equation, and remain friends. Well, guess what? It didn't work then and it doesn't work in Friends with Benefits either, to nobody's surprise. Directed by Easy A's Will Gluck, Friends at least looks better than No Strings Attached on paper. While the earlier-released film has arguably the bigger star power (with the eventual Oscar winner Portman leading the charge), the overall production of Friends came off much more nicely in previews. This was thanks not only to the seemingly natural chemistry between stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but hilarious R-rated scenes featuring Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson. Though their themes would seem to be the same, I was expecting a better total film when I walked into the theaters to check out the newest of the new releases this past week. If at its worst it was still better than No String Attached, it could well be considered a success.

The closest Timberlake will ever be to a real woman?

When young headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis) successfully convinces indie journalist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) to take a groundbreaking job at GQ, the two fast become good friends. With Dylan adjusting to the pressures of leaving his family behind in Los Angeles to endure the rigors of New York City, Jamie becomes his constant anchor. Both are recovering from major relationship breakups, and while they don't want to become boyfriend/girlfriend with the other, they DO miss sexual intercourse. Like, a LOT. So they decide to make a pact; no emotional attachment, no jealousy, just sex. Oh, and no matter what happens, the two remain friends. That lasts for a while, but as things continue, they begin to grow together, and before you can shout that you saw it coming from the opening credits, the two fall in love. But with their relationship history, is this unlikely pairing even possible in the long-term?

Yup, she's helping!

While the story in Friends with Benefits is at least well told, one major misstep is that it ridicules the romantic comedy genre while at the same time committing all its cardinal acts. Characters shouting that true love is a farce pretty much guarantees that true love is what they'll find, and no amount of attempted diversions will make the audience believe otherwise. This is surprising considering how unique and few retread steps adorned director Gluck's last film, Easy A. Other rote rom-com trends include gay best friends, parent-child relationship issues, and one character suffering from an illness that many of us know about but not too many people have to live with. It's depressing how such an up-front idea (casual sex) might have added to the genre had it not merely been made into a set piece, and a poor one at that. There's already been a better casual sex comedy released, but I won't be getting to Crazy, Stupid, Love until next week.

Let the vigorous humping begin

The acting is quite good, but to be honest I wasn't as enamoured with the leading couple as I'd hoped I would be. My criticism with Timberlake is the same as with most of his film roles: all style, no substance. He's portrayed as being just like most of us, a down-to-earth guy who cares about all the right things. The problem with this is that it's not a person, it's a character, and Timberlake doesn't have the acting chops to make it more than that. Sure, he can trade barbs in a charming manner with Kunis, but that's about the highest peak of his prowess in front of the camera thus far. Kunis is by far the better of the main couple, though it would still be a stretch of imagine her as anything other than a slightly older and more mature Jackie Burhart from That 70's Show. It would be obvious that the role was written for her even if the director hadn't admitted to it anyway, and it's too bad, since I think she has some actual talent and hasn't really had an opportunity to showcase it beyond 2010's Black Swan. The duo have some chemistry, but not enough to make the audience stand up and take notice. That's why it's a relief that the supporting cast is much better than the two leads in terms of stealing the spotlight. Woody Harrelson gets the most laughs as GQ's homosexual sports editor who plays the role of romantic advisor to Dylan. Every like he utters is a hoot; it's just a shame they're all in the trailer. Patricia Clarkson is also a joy to see on screen, though it would be fair to say her role here pales in comparison to her part in Easy A. Playing Jamie's sexually-adventurous mother, Clarkson doesn't get nearly as much attention as perhaps she deserves, but does the best with what she can, which includes some truly hilarious and outrageous settings. And Richard Jenkins once again almost steals the show in his scenes as Dylan's father. Honestly, the film could have focused on these three characters and been so much better, but sadly that was not to be.

"Awww" moments are thankfully few and far between

But these acting performances do not save Friends with Benefits from itself. The funniest and best scenes from the film are covered by the trailers, the story has been done to death a billion times before, we really aren't compelled to root for these two lead characters to defy the expectations and get together. Throw in tons of obvious product placement, unfocused and unnecessary use of pop culture references like Olympic snowboarder Shaun White and flash mobs, and the fact that the film quickly becomes the monster it at first decries, and liking this film should not even be an option. Plenty of charm and some good bits do elevate it slightly higher than No Strings Attached, but not by as much as you would think. If you really want to see a sweet, engaging romantic comedy, do yourself a favor and see Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now THERE'S a film worth your hard-earned money.

Best Pun Ever

How many comic book movies are we up to now? Thanks especially to illustrated paper giant Marvel Comics' rush to get every major hero out into the theaters in record numbers (Thor, X-Men First Class, Captain America), the comic book film has been the definition of cinema in 2011. It hasn't just been the two major comic book labels (along with DC's Green Lantern) that have been releasing screen material either: independent comics have been adapted for the big show in 2011, including Dynamite Entertainment's Green Hornet and the Korean comic Priest. Not all of these films have been worth watching, but the success many of them have garnered is a positive sign for future projects in that vein. The latest to join their ranks is Cowboys & Aliens, based on the graphic novel from Platinum Studios. Combining themes of westerns and alien invasion, the film's trailers boasted of explosions, big-name stars (Daniel "007" Craig and Harrison "Indy" Ford), and the helm under the control of Iron Man director Jon Favreau, fast proving himself a talented action director. The real question going in was whether this particular title would be closer to Favreau's excellent work in the first IM film, or if it would be more akin to the train wreck that was Iron Man 2.

Obviously, the aliens worship Prince concerts...

It's 1873, and Jake Lonergan (Craig) suddenly awakes in the middle of the Arizona desert. He has no idea of who he is, what he does, or how he came to be in his current predicament. He certainly doesn't know how he came to be in possession of the strange metal bracelet stuck to his wrist. Stumbling into the closest town, he is recognized by the local authorities as a wanted felon, and news of his arrival reaches the ears of retired Civil War Colonel Woodrow Dollarhyde (Ford), who wants Lonergan to return the gold our amnesiac apparently stole. As this is going on, strange alien crafts attack the town and kidnap many of the local populace, leading Lonergan (who discovers his bracelet is a kick-ass weapon) and Dollarhyde to put aside their differences and hunt down the monsters who kidnapped their townsfolk, hoping to take them back.

Whew, that must have been a REALLY fun night!

Westerns as a genre haven't been major plusses in cinema in recent years. With forced hybrids like Wild Wild West, Jonah Hex and The Warrior's Way failing at every turn, the genre right now is a far cry from its heyday of Gunsmoke and The Magnificent Seven. The day of legendary western directors like Sam Peckinpah can be chronicled by my friend Brian, but these days success in that area is rare as the past year has featured a couple of major victories in the True Grit remake and the animated Rango. That doesn't make the idea of creating a western film any less hazardous to your financial backers, however. If anything, it will make some people too hopeful for the fading western genre to make a comeback, and disappoint many in the process.

He'd better hope there are no snakes... he hates snakes...

Still, regardless of the status of the western in this day and age, I had a lot of fun in Cowboys & Aliens. While the western angle is somewhat cliched (references to the Civil War, hostile Native Americans, wanted felons, corrupt authority figures, etc.), the sci-fi elements respond aptly by being just as if not more cliched. The result is surprisingly a film that feels fresh and almost original, thanks especially to a story crafted by a small army of screenwriters and expertly told by the ever-expanding Favreau, back on top after last year's IM2 debacle. The film has not a boring moment, and while some parts are so insane as to be unbelievable, my enjoyment at the theater never ebbed, which is more than I can say about most of the films I've witnessed this year. With a well-rounded cast of characters each with their own personal motivations, Favreau does a wonderful job developing them from somewhat-contrived personas to somewhat-contrived people we can root for. The story may be the weakest part of the film, but it considering some of what I've seen this year, here it is but a paltry criticism..

Don't make the mistake of fist-bumping him

It helps that those characters are played by some of the most talented folk in Hollywood. With the future of James Bond in serious question, Daniel Craig was very much in need of a new career direction. I'm not sure how I feel about him doing films like this, but he certainly takes to it naturally. The English actor makes for the most unlikely American desperado, but effective he is. Even though Jake Lonergan doesn't have much that is different from many a western anti-hero, it's still fun seeing his past unfold, and to watch Craig believably learn it alongside us. Harrison Ford is also amazing as the "bad guy" Dollarhyde. Ford has played the Hollywood hero so long it's somewhat strange to see him play such a gruff and cruel character, but when you think about it you can see where the progression of his career naturally pushes him to this point. Perfectly blending rich honcho with concerned parent in a way that makes him even more compelling than Craig, Ford once again proves to us that he still has "it.". The two are easily the best the film has to offer. I wish I could say the same for Olivia Wilde as mysterious traveler Ella. While she starts off interesting as a gun-toting self-capable woman on the frontier, poor development and lousy dialogue sabotage what could have been a very good performance. Sure, Wilde has the looks and a good head for the business, but I'm starting to wonder when that great performance is going to arrive on the screen. The secondary characters in Cowboys & Aliens are a good bunch, manned by talented character actors who take their jobs seriously and know exactly what they have to do to be believable to the audience. Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, Adam Beach, Raul Trujillo, Walton Goggins and Keith Carradine all expertly play their roles, from Rockwell as a mild-mannered saloon owner to Brown's rifle-wielding priest to Goggins' sycophantic bandit. And as my compatriot Paul has often said, "There's no such thing as a bad movie with a Carradine," in this case the local Sheriff. Sure, these roles are anything but original, but this cast really works their chemistry and makes the hard work pay off, creating an authentic western setting to blow up with ray guns and plasma discharge.

Is Craig channeling a little Christian Bale here?

Sure, it's riddled with flaws. The story is comprised of two cliched genres that don't do much to deviate from their set procedures with the notable exception that they coexist in the first place. The special effects are top notch, but it is the stellar core cast and the smart directing from Favreau that separate this film from your average Syfy Original movie. While it's far from the best action film I've seen this year (or am likely to see), it inhabits that same realm of cool that was already kept warm by fun thrill-rides Fast 5, Captain America and Battle: Los Angeles. If you're tired of the typical adventure film and want something very different, Cowboys & Aliens should be right up your alley. At the very least, go see Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford out-act most of Hollywood for a couple of hours.

Rocket's Red Glare

The summer blockbuster train continues en route to 2012's Joss Whedon-directed Avengers movie, this time introducing to feature film audiences Marvel Comics' stalwart defender of freedom in Captain America: The First Avenger. Created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, Captain America was introduced to comic book fans in 1941 as a World War II hero who was made to be poster child for patriotism of the American soldier. Strong of mind but weak of body, Steve Rogers' bravery in volunteering for a risky procedure to fight the evils of Nazi Germany was the stuff of legends, and during the war Captain America was among the most well-received comic book heroes. That popularity faded with the War's end, but in 1964 he was brought back from the dead, revived from suspended animation to lead one of the most iconic superhero teams of all time... can you guess it? Yup, The Avengers team was partially as big and important as it was thanks to a thawed-out WASP from the forties. Since then "Cap" has been truly one of the most important characters in comics, though seemingly always overshadowed by flashier, grittier heroes such as Iron Man, The Hulk, Wolverine and Spider-Man. That lack of sparkle has always been a problem for him, and that was the main reason I wasn't sure whether I'd like this new film. Cap has always been relatively somber and focused, more of a sounding board for wittier men and women to bounce their best material off of, all the while unflappable and dedicated to his mission. This doesn't always make for a great main hero however, so director Joe Johnston was going to have to be near-perfect if he wanted this title to be close to Thor or the under-loved X-Men First Class in terms of sheer film quality.

Woah... Big Guns...

After failing at attempts to enlist in five different cities due to his physical malnutrition and stunted growth, Brooklyn-born Steve Rogers (Boston native Chris Evans) doesn't know what to do. Men less brave than he are headed overseas to battle the oppressive forces of Nazi-occupied Europe, and Steve so desperately wants to join their ranks. His desire is not to kill men, but to combat evil, and even seeing his best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) off to war without him is almost too much for him to take. He finally gets his chance when Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) approaches him and offers a chance to get into the fight. Recruiting Rogers into his "Super Soldier" test program, Erskine injects Rogers with a secret drug that manages to transform the weak New Yorker into a bonafide power house, and eventually into a true-blue American hero.

Results are not typical. Do not take the Super Soldier Serum without first consulting your doctor.

Of course, the story of Captain America is pretty much academic, and not at all the reason you're going to see it in the theater. You're going for the special effects, explosions and gunfire, as well as 3D imagery and IMAX surround sound, and for those attributes this film is not at all lacking. Though more circumstance than pomp reigns the film's first half, once the action kicks in there is very little not to glue your eyeballs to. Even many non-combat sequences are well shot, with choreography and cinematography working extremely well together. Say what you want about Johnston's body of work (Jurassic Park III and The Wolfman, take your pick), but he does occasionally make good use of the camera in front of him. Sound effects are also nice and loud, for those of you who have yet to completely blow out your eardrums. The only real complaint I had was with the 3D, as has often been the case this year. With most visual technology, the best thing you can say about it is when you can't tell it has been implemented. The Incredibles is my foremost example, when you see the near-real island forests in that film's final act. 3D doesn't work that way. When a film is 3D, the audience needs to feel immersed while also being aware at the enhancement, which to be fair is a difficult line to toe. It certainly isn't IMPOSSIBLE, but very few films have adequately used 3D to properly stand out from their typical 2D variants.

Steve Jobs' early attempt to harness iPod technology goes a bit awry

It seems odd that I name my blog after a line from Hugo Weaving when Weaving has barely been made mention of at all in my work. My Transformers review notwithstanding, Weaving has simply not been in too much that I've seen of late, and his 2010 effort The Wolfman was ignored by me on the recommendation of several others. Still, I've loved the effort he has brought to modern-day iconic titles like The Matrix and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and nobody can doubt the talent he carries with him on the set. In this way, he is perfect as an unfortunately one-note villain, Captain America's arch-nemesis The Red Skull. Though Skull doesn't have too much depth to him, Weaving does his best to create a genuine menace around this simple character, one which dramatically poses while spewing generic. cliched bad guy lines, all the while berating his lackey (an underused Toby Jones) and rarely doing his own dirty work. That he still carries one of the film's better performances is as much a testament to his talent as one to the lack of strong character throughout Captain America. Chris Evans would not have been my first choice to play the eponymous superhero, but once again he surprises me with his ability to ease into whatever his director asks him to do, and that pure ability makes him worth more than a dozen Taylors (Lautner or Kitsch, or any other for that matter). If he's not one of the biggest stars in Hollywood a decade from now, something will have gone terribly wrong. And Stanley Tucci reminds us that he is in fact one of the businesses' best workers, giving a real heart to a character that probably would have been overlooked by other filmmakers. More than Evans, Tucci steals every scene in which he appears, the film being all the better for his abilities.

Putting her best chest... I mean FOOT forward

It's a shame the rest of the cast doesn't step up to the plate as much as those three. True, the simplistic dialogue and sparse character development is the biggest culprit, but the performers' inability to overcome these obstacles simply cannot be ignored. Best of "the rest" is Hayley Atwell as British Agent Peggy Carter, Cap's love interest and bad-ass soldier in her own right. A recent trend in the female hero community has brought us Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, strong characters that could go toe to toe with heroes and villains alike, whether by Jane's intelligence or Widow's more... PHYSICAL methods. The film tries to make Peggy Carter too much of both, and then fails to meet either standard. She does play well off of Evans, but in fairness so does everybody else. Relative unknown Dominic Cooper is fine and makes some waves as Howard Stark, father of the modern-day Iron Man, but is too patterned after Howard Hughes to be original in the slightest. Sebastian Stan tries his best as Cap's sidekick Bucky Barnes but doesn't quite fit the bill, while his character is marginalized to the point that true fans would (and do) cry foul. Tommy Lee Jones is by far the worst, playing the same damned tough-guy old man character you've seen him play a hundred times before. Sure, he chews up scenery like nobodies business, but there are no surprises with him anymore. Throw in a bunch of under-developed cannon fodder and you have a nice war film, but not one that capitalizes on the rich history of the comic book characters inherent.

Here's a nice action scene to soothe your palette

At about the film's halfway mark, the story breaks down to random battle scenes and violence that could only be referred to as gratuitious. While not BAD, it definitively strays from the strong narrative we that had been standard issue for Marvel Comics films this year. From this sequence, it takes far too long to get back on track, and it would have probably been easy to make a trilogy of films surrounding the shambles of bits and pieces strewn throughout. When you compare this tale to the cohesive stories of most of the other superhero films released in 2011 (and yes, by that I mean even Green Lantern), it's the one thing that prevents Captain America: The First Avenger from being among the best action films this year. A strong showing among that lot help damper excitement surrounding this title, especially with it being portrayed as an elaborate lead-in to The Avengers in the first place. As nice as it was to see the familiar red, white and blue hero make a successful transition to the big screen, Captain America works better in a group, and that's most of what I'm looking forward to in the 2012 blockbuster. Still, I had a lot of fun and would at least recommend checking this one out, at least as long as you avoid the useless 3D showings.

Cobbled Together

Okay, I know I said I was done with the recommendation titles for a while, and my Horrible Bosses review was a step in that direction. But despite there being a bevy of titles awaiting me in the local theaters (A Better Life, Winnie the Pooh, Friends with Benefits, Captain America: The First Avenger), I was thwarted by my worst nemesis: my schedule. I just haven't had the time to get away this past week, and this nice little heat wave is certainly doing me no favors by confronting my departure from air conditioned environs with a solid wave of hot. No civilized creature should have to trek out in the open, and if you don't understand where I'm coming from I'm not sure you ever can (I got some choice scorchings while visiting family in Florida recently, so I think I have a good idea what amount of heat the human body can handle). It has been a terror, though hopefully a mix of lighter temperatures plus a more beneficial schedule will open up my out-of-the-apartment questing in the near future. Until then, it's another dip into the bag with 2003's Secondhand Lions. I briefly remember when this film was released, as it carried top-tier talent such as Michael Caine and Robert Duvall, not the mention a post-peak appearance by one-time Oscar nominee Haley Joel Osmet. But it was far from the center of my attention (as was the case for most people) and I didn't bother with it. Enter my friend Anne who recently has made it her duty to expand my cinematic horizons. And so this film makes its way back into my immediate perimeter, with a plot that includes drama, laughs and wildlife of both the two and four-legged variety.

Yeah, this is kinda what Florida was like...

When young Walter (Osmet) is forced by his absentee mother to spend the summer with her two uncles Hub (Duvall) and Garth (Caine) at their isolated Texas ranch, he is as miserable as they are to have him suddenly thrust on them without warning. Worse, his mother wants him to spy on her reclusive uncles, since it's rumored that the two are filthy rich my unknown means. Walter has been seeded to root out and discover where the two old men keep their money, but the boy doesn't want anything to do with his mother's treacherous ways. He just wants to get the summer over with, but before he does, he will learn the secret history of his family, a story his great uncles have never told anyone in decades.

The best friends a country bumpkin could have

Much of Secondhand Lions is not unlike a fairy tale, where a boy is transported to a magical land and learns much about life and living through the experiences he encounters. Such is as it is for Walter, whose uncles could hardly be called normal. Hub and Garth are an odd duo; they stake out their front porch with shotguns waiting to pepper the vehicles of traveling salesmen who would enter their property, build (and fly) antique biplanes and perform stunts, and purchase their own formerly-owned African animals to host a hunt on their land. That's interesting enough, but everything really gets your attention when Garth begins to tell Walter about their past, which are not all that different from the best parts of my favorite Tim Burton film Big Fish. Using parody of old-school comics like Prince Valiant, Garth tells of a much younger Hub who joins the French Foreign Legion and can battle thirty men at once. These flashbacks are hardly top of the line, but they are different enough from the rest of the film to be appropriately dream-like, which is good since we're never secure in the knowledge of whether they are accurate of fictional until the very end. Even the modern-day scenery has a bit of far-away land in it, as the ranch feels alien to any who've never lived in the middle of nowhere. This is especially true when the more fantastical creatures begin to inhabit the corn stalks.

Sure, my brother's English, but what else is new?

The cast are certainly a lively bunch, keeping in step with the constantly-shifting boundaries of the story. Osmet is a bit past his prime (odd to say about someone born seven years after me) and barely hanging on to the "cute kid" image that made him a household name in The Sixth Sense, made just four years earlier. His voice is starting to change, he's awkward in both right and wrong ways, and like it or not you likely won't see him in these roles anymore. At least he seems to be hanging around in the voice acting biz, hopefully ensuring that his career doesn't entirely emulate the Frankie Muniz route. Robert Duvall continues to prove himself as a compelling actor, as even a relatively lesser role here is beefed up by his not inconsiderable talents. Though he is portrayed as being larger than life, Hub never becomes so inhuman that he's unbelievable, which can be attributed to Duvall's ability to make any character remarkably human. Of all the characters, he is the one that best carries the film. Michael Caine might seem like an odd casting choice for the role of a Texan farmer, but then again, he's Michael Caine. His career choices might not have always been at their peak (I'm thinking On Deadly Ground, but there's plenty to choose from), but he's also fricking Michael Caine. He can act his ass off when he tries, and while he's not at his best here, he does do better than most actual American actors would have done in the same role. Acting as the film's narrator for much of the story, his steady tenor instills even more fairy tale into the story, which is probably why he was cast in the first place.

Arguing over who should get top billing on this production...

If there's fault with Secondhand Lions, it is the film's trend toward schmaltz as an art form, creating some of the stickiest sap known to man. This is I'm sure in part to the feature film inexperience of the man in charge, Tim McCanlies, who also wrote the screenplay. Known more as a television screenwriter, McCanlies has had few opportunities to stand out as a film director (anyone who can even name another McCanlies movie might be immediately congratulated and abandoned), and while his work here isn't at all bad, one must wonder if this is in fact the high water mark of his talent. Like Osmet's chances of another Academy Award nomination, McCanlies might never get any better than this, and while Secondhand Lions is GOOD, it's a title that is carried by the strengths of its cast and storytelling that greatly evokes a sense of wonder, while its intangibles feel a bit creaky and well-worn, like a bridge about to collapse beneath your feet. In the end, Secondhand Lions is not unlike the surprise the brothers receive when they open that animal-containing crate: good and a lot of fun, but not the way you imagined it would be. If you want a fun, cheap film to see, look no further.

Every Worker's Fantasy

That's right! Even though I'm a little behind on the new releases, Mr. Anderson is back in theaters! Anyone else as excited as me? Hello?

I'll take the cricket chirps as a sign of support.

Anyway, my return to the big screen begins with a film I didn't even know I'd be seeing this year. As I transcribed the comprehensive Summer Movie Preview back in May, Horrible Bosses was barely a blip on my radar. Sure, I knew it starred Jason Bateman, Colin Farrell and the amazingly-talented Kevin Spacey, but there wasn't much more information available than that. No trailers (that I could find) had been released. Sure, it was getting a wide release, but so did Dylan Dog, and look what happened to that one. It wasn't until June that things finally began to come together, and Horrible Bosses actually became a film I wanted to see in theaters, and not just put off for DVD like so many Cedar Rapids. After all, how many of us have had desire for bad things to happen to our less-than-perfect bosses? Sure 99% of us would never do anything about it (I'm watching you 1% closely, you hear?), but here is a film that lets you - even if only a little - see what that experience would be like.

Athos, Porthos and Aramis they ain't

Three friends, Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), hate their jobs. More accurately, they hate their bosses, who do everything in their power to make their lives miserable. Nick, who slaves for insurance company President Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey), is passed over for a promotion that he rightly deserves, with Harken taking the job himself. Kurt actually used to love his job working at an industrial warehouse under Jack Pellitt (Donald Sutherland), but when Jack dies from a heart attack, Kurt is stuck working for his son Bobby (Colin Farrell), a lazy, cocaine-addicted good-for-nothing. Dale is engaged to be married, but constantly faces sexual harassment from his man-eater boss Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), who has some compromising photos taken from a time when Dale was drugged into unconsciousness. With the option of getting new jobs not available to the three, they hatch on a plan to murder their evil superiors. Hiring local criminal "Motherfucker" Jones (Jamie Foxx) to consult them on the fine art of assassination, the three embark on a mission many have considered, one few would actually follow through.

Everybody say hey! Everybody say ho!

Obviously Horrible Bosses is meant to be fantasy; that much is obvious. What isn't necessarily obvious is how funny attempted murder can actually be. Seeing Nick, Dale, and Kurt somehow bungling their way through this caper is hilarious, almost feeling as if the cast made it up as they went along. Any good comedian will tell you that great comedy is in your timing, and the direction of the film by Seth Gordon and a great screenplay come together to quickly and unexpectedly derive laughter from the audience with that very skill. Sure, there are the expected jokes that the trailers prepared you for, but thankfully the best stuff wasn't saved for preview audiences, as you're just as surprised by the cracks as you are by where the story goes. While the film goes on a few potty humor binges, it's encouraging that minor themes such as unemployment and sexual harassment are explored to some degree along the story's course. Sure, I don't expect much more than a cursory look, but that it bothers at all is a surprise and does the film all the better.

Don't you hate when Jennifer Aniston does that?

The cast is also a big part of why Horrible Bosses works so well as a comedy, as both heroes and villains have essential roles to play in the film's events. The good guys all have sympathetic goals. Bateman's Nick just wants a fair shake for all the hard work he's done, and while this role isn't a stretch from Bateman's recent work (Paul being an exception), he's still supremely qualified for this role, and makes a good frontman for the film to settle on. Day has wowed some good friends of mine on his FX show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but this was the first chance I've had to see him in a leading role, and that his character of Dale just wants to live in a "rape-free" workplace is unusually endearing, especially since most films would have had Dale as a female character with an overly-amorous male boss. This reverse positioning is really thinking outside the box, and Day makes the character all the more fun with his quirky attitude. Sudeikis is surprisingly good as a straight man, with his more quirky characters (like that in last year's Bounty Hunter) making him look like an extension of his Saturday Night Live career. Fortunately, he makes use of his comedic background while not coming off as a complete caricature in the process, his Kurt just hoping for a return to the workplace that he once loved.

Would you trust this man? They did.

As I mentioned before, the bad guys did some great work, too. Spacey of course was as amazing here as he is in just about everything he's ever done. Sure, he plays no Verbal Kint or Lester Burnham, but he still kills as a jealous, power-hungry psycho, and the film does well situating him as the main villain of the story. Farrell is also good as a smarmy lout, and the actor apparently had a lot to do with the character's creation, to his credit. Farrell is often overlooked when naming great modern actors (not entirely his fault, but hey he tries) but this smaller role is yet another good one. Jennifer Aniston is really the only disappointment, but that's not the actress's fault. While it's great seeing her change pace and take on a completely unlikable character, the role doesn't have as much to do with the main story as Spacey's or Farrell's. This results in an unfortunate imbalance among the film's foils, with Spacey taking up most of the time from Farrell and Aniston, whereas the three good guys have more or less equal playing time. Jamie Foxx slums it up as "Motherfucker" Jones (which leads to some hilarious dialogue). I guess now that he's won that Oscar, he doesn't care quite as much about what roles he takes; still, he does a good job here as his character advises the others how best to murder their enemies.

Mr. Anderson never condones a comb-over

Let me be the first to say that Horrible Bosses is one of the few 2011 titles that has had me laughing from beginning to end. I can't even say that about Bridesmaids, though that film made up for it by having much more heart. Still, there was nothing wrong and a lot right with this modern workplace fantasy, which took great actors, gave them a good script and good direction and let them run with it. The result is pretty amazing, and there's every chance that Horrible Bosses could wind up as the most gut-busting film this summer. Do yourself a favor; if you haven't already seen this title, don't wait for the DVD release. You'll just be postponing one of the funniest experiences this year, and who wants THAT?

It's Raining; The Sound of Music

It's among the American Film Institute's Top 100 Films. Sight & Sound magazine has listed it among the best ten films of all time. It's an American classic, and most everyone has at least HEARD of it. Donald O'Connor won a Golden Globe for it. How then has Mr. Anderson managed to miss this classic film? Well, the answer is right there in the word "classic", as subjective a term as ever there were in film. In the past I would often be accused of favoring more "modern" film, and that argument is certainly not without merit; most of what I've seen the past few years has rarely further back than the 1980's, and even before then I've been wary of "classic" films that were supposedly iconic for their time, since many have failed to live up to that standard (I'm looking at you, Sunset Boulevard). I've seen my fair share of them, but most have been coaxed upon me, not purposely sought out by myself for my entertainment. This was also true when my friend Anne reintroduced Singin' in the Rain, and I had to admit it was about time. Long regarded as one of Hollywood's best, I couldn't for the longest time get past the (in my eyes) ridiculous scene were the hero actually sings and dances in a downpour. Of course I realized the film had to be about more than that, but it was still enough to keep my interest at bay. Finally compelled, it has become the latest oldie recommendation for Hello Mr. Anderson, and as I'll finally be getting back to the new releases this week, perhaps the last DVD review for a while.

Most living people only know this one scene

Like the aforementioned Sunset Boulevard, Singin' in the Rain is a Hollywood film ABOUT Hollywood. In fact, the film covers a remarkable event in cinematic history, that of the introduction of talking pictures, or "talkies" as they were referred to at that time. Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are famous silent picture stars who live in the hearts of their fans, and are rumored to be connected romantically as much as they are professionally. This couldn't be further from the truth, as Don has never been fond of Lina, whose shrill voice and snotty personality has long been hidden from the public by the nature of her performances and her bosses and fellow stars, who never let her speak to the public. One night, by chance Don meets Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), an aspiring singer and dancer who has yet to really break in. Despite not getting off on the best of terms, Kathy's career gains some traction thanks to support by Don and his best friend Cosmo Brown (Donald O'Connor, who won a Golden Globe for this role). Don wants a real relationship with Kathy, but Lina stands in his way with a mind full of vengeance and public opinion on her side. Is there any way for Don to be with Kathy and for Kathy's career not to end after it's barely begun?

This is of course the downside of musicals: everybody sings

Packed with big (at the time) stars, Singin' in the Rain is unfortunately one of those type of film that carries the worst pretensions of Hollywood: the film about Hollywood. By the same mindset that makes D-List celebrities like Heidi & Spencer and the Real Housewives so popular among the masses, films surrounding Hollywood suppose that the everyday workings of a Hollywood studio are worth committing to celluloid. At least these older films carried a certain amount of respect for their industry, unlike many similar titles today which are quick to spoof that which is considered low-brow (such as No Strings Attached's dashboard copy of High School Musical). The change from silent pictures to talking films was a huge milestone for the industry, and while that doesn't necessarily mean that it had to be made into a full-length motion picture, at least the RESPECT for the event is there.

A lesson to those who would dare turn their backs on Donald O'Connor

The respect is also apparent in the numerous musical numbers that inhabit this relatively story-short film. In fact, it would be safe to say that there would be no Singin' without the dancing, tunes and yes singing that make up the vast majority of the movie. Most of the songs are in the high quality range, especially O'Connor's "Make 'Em Laugh", which has been copied faithfully by many an entertainer over the years (perhaps most recently Joseph Gordon-Levitt's rendition when he hosted SNL a few years ago) as well as the eponymous "Singin' in the Rain", which Kelly delivers with pitch perfection and amazing dance choreography. Some of the other musical numbers manage to go on far too long, such as "Beautiful Girl" and the completely unnecessary "Broadway Melody" which seemingly only take up time that otherwise wouldn't be used. Still, most of the music is well-used, and the choreography of Kelly is put to good use as not one dancer looks out of place at any time during the production.

That's quite an ankle you've got there...

Back in the old days of Hollywood, talent was just as important (if not more) as good looks when it came to an actor's star power. An performer was not only expected to look good and pull off a decent acting job, but since these people often came from the bright lights of Broadway, song and dance was often a necessity for success. Gene Kelly was one of the ones who had it all, from a chiseled jaw that would make Brad Pitt and George Clooneycombust or melt away at the end of his career. Every performance in this film is highly animated, almost to the point of being all over the place. In this regard he's countered nicely by O'Connor. O'Connor didn't have the good looks of Kelly. If anything, he looked perpetually like Superman's little buddy Jimmy Olson during his career, and character-wise that comparison holds up nicely between him and Kelly. Still, where Kelly is pure energy, O'Connor is the same but in distilled form; he's no less talented than Kelly when it comes to singing and dancing, but he manages to instill subtlety and grace where Kelly is decidedly lacking. He's simply a wonderful performer, and that he worked at an ice cream shoppe with my father's mother has no bearing on that fact. Debbie Reynolds was not a dancer when she was signed to this film, and it was only thanks to help from the acclaimed Fred Astaire that she was able to do as well as she did. That said, the final product has her holding her own against Kelly and O'Connor, so that's certainly more than what people might have expected. Jean Hagen is both funny and vicious as the film's main antagonist, a dangerous blend that many of the best bad guys can pull off. She perfectly plays an actress who will have no chance once talking pictures become the norm, and she really manages to make herself unlikable to the audience who might have otherwise searched for an excuse to like her.

No close ups, please, Mr. Demille...

While a few minor elements of the film are a bit silly and overly simplistic, the biggest problem is the story, which ran in fear from the sheer number of musical numbers added to the script. Add atop that the pretension of the idea and by today's standards you'd rightfully have empty theaters and bad reviews. Back in the day this was a major phenomena however, and Singin' in the Rain was a flagship title that basically dictated how musicals were presented to the public for decades to come. That isn't to say this film succeeds only as a byproduct of its era, however. Expertly acted, with wonderful music and radiating pure entertainment, this film is a perfect example of the good kind of "classic," deserving its place among the tops of "best films" lists. More entertaining than you might expect, Singin' in the Rain is certainly one I don't regret taking time to see on the small screen.