Reviews

"Life Inside Out" is a story that anyone can relate to. How far do you take a dream? Laura, the main character, re-discovers an old passion - songwriting, which has previously taken a back seat to raising a large family. But the core of the film is how that pursuit of that dream draws her closer to her family, specifically her moody son. The film lays out characters that act truthfully towards one another in a plot that also strives for realism over showy theatrics and lame movie conventions. The direction by Jill D'Agnenica is calculatedly unobtrusive in its style, yet she draws good performances out of the actors, especially Maggie Baird and David Cowgill. Along the way, there's humor and warmth, making this a "Life" worth examining!

Beth Broderick and Ashley Rickards star in Janet Grillo's film about a divorced working mother raising an autistic teen daughter. Rickards won the Reel Frontier Special Jury Award for best performance at the 2011 Arizona International Film Festival, but other than its Prism Award nomination for best feature film dealing with mental health, "Fly Away" has not received it's due share of award recognition.

Fly AwayRickards performance as young, autistic Mandy is baffling, uncomfortable and utterly believable. Not having been familiar with her work prior to viewing "Fly Away", I presumed this was an autistic actor. But then I wondered how possible it would be to direct someone that high on the autism spectrum, and I discovered that she had been on "American Horror Story: Asylum," and now stars in MTV's"Awkward." I marveled at the realistic performance. When you forget you're watching performances, you know you're undergoing a brilliant film experience. Rickards should have been noticed for this performance in a much greater capacity. Yet the film seems to have been off the Academy's radar.

Also in a spot-on natural and moving performance is Beth Broderick ("Sabrina the teenage Witch") as Mandy's mother Jeanne. Her representation of this oh-so patient mom reveals such tender care and empathetic love, that I am not likely to forget soon.

The story is not anything new, but it may be to those who are unaware of how autism affects lives. We live the challenge,if only momentarily, with Jeanne and Mandy. It's a truthful slice of the struggle, and such parental devotion is sure to make us clutch our chests in an effort to hold our hearts as we watch.

"Fly Away" is not an educational film, even though it educates. It is not a docu­-drama, even though it documents real struggles. It's not a film that should only be used to teach something or prove a point. It's a well-­made, natural work of art. It can (and should) be watched by all who appreciate well-­made dramatic films, with whole­hearted, real comedic moments.

BREAKING THE WAVES and DANCER IN THE DARK were soul crushing, films that still live lonely in the recesses of my mind. Tragically submissive to love, Emily Watson relates her sexual exploits to her bedridden husband, Stellan Skarsgard, upon his request. A demanding, tyrannical love. A degrading and abusive love, but she forges through losing her sweet naiveté every time she spreads her legs. I have seen the BREAKING THE WAVES once, and I can't say if I will ever watch it again. It left me hollow and tortured.

DANCER IN THE DARK, eliciting a most brilliant performance from the reclusive Bjork, was like being hit in the head with an anvil, forcing all rationale and logic out. Or, more appropriately, removing my heart, throwing it on the ground and stomping on it. Repeatedly. The fact that this film is essentially a musical only adds to the tragedy befallen upon Bjork. Either Von Trier is an evil misogynist, or he understands that women can ultimately endure much more than men both physically and emotionally.

That being said, he stays somewhat true to this ideal in ANTICHRIST.

Charlotte Gainsbourg's grieving mother is nothing if not fragile, tormented and weak, preyed upon by Willem Dafoe's condescending and pedantic psycho babble. After you suffer through the four chapters of ANTICHRIST, you see a glimmer of feminist hope when Gainsbourg's grief and fury are unleashed violently on Dafoe. But not so fast my female compatriots. Perhaps misogyny prevails after a bizarre act of violence spurs on more random violence with Dafoe as victor.

The performances in ANTICHRIST are exceptional. There is some cinematic artistry and choice sounds that, pursued further, could have created a different type of film. Some of the imagery was dark and luscious, reminiscent of David Lynch, but without his blood beating through it, giving it a life of it's own. With Von Trier, it was gimmicky and trite, out of his element. I understand creating a "horror" film based around the stages of grief, but he leads us astray more often than not and his message gets muddled in with some idea of nature as "Satan's church", which makes no sense in the confines of the story (the story being one of irresponsible love making leading to the death of their child). Therefore, sex plays a huge part in the twisted script and becomes their final demise. Their internal punishment. Their shame. The difference between David Lynch's eccentric vision and Von Trier is that you take what you need from Lynch at your own discretion. Lynch does non-linear better than most. Von Trier has already proved he is a dark storyteller, one that we all glean a similar experience from. He does not need to be "obscure" or "artistic". He needs to go back to BREAKING THE WAVES and DANCER IN THE DARK and remember his craft. Remember what his gifts are and then go back to the drawing board.

"This is It", the first concert film I can think of that's entirely pieced together with rehearsal footage, is a noble, perhaps necessary topper to Michael Jackson's career. It's hard to believe you wouldn't know this, but when Jackson died this summer, he had been rehearsing at Staples Center in L.A. for a 50-show engagement in London. This film is a compilation of the rehearsal footage lovingly (and meticulously) edited together by director Kenny Ortega in a love letter to the entertainment behemoth Jackson was.

Here's my theory on Michael Jackson. When the music was brilliant ("Off the Wall", "Thriller"), he was a musical genius who had a bit of controversy over his relationships with children. When the music went south ("Invincible"), he was an alleged child molester. The most disappointing part of Jackson's late career was that he didn't perform often enough, leaving the world to focus solely on the allegations and tabloid minefield that was his personal life. He needed these London concerts. This thought came racing to my mind immediately upon seeing Jackson's first song in "This is It", "Wanna Be Startin' Something". He floats, pops, locks, and lives in the music. He reminds you immediately that he is a performer not to be ignored, and unfortunately it took his death to get the most attention he's had in a decade.

The concert footage here cuts between three or four different shoots (or more), of varying degrees of film and video stock quality. But "This Is It" comes pre-packaged with a built-in pass on all tech elements. I knew it wasn't 'finished', so I wasn't expecting Kubrickian prowess (any excuse to use the word "Kubrickian"). There was even one moment where a big stage show effect (a bulldozer crashes through the stage) was never realized, so the film cuts to the 3D rendering of what the effect might look like, but you can't fault the filmmakers for this move, it was all the footage they were working with.

One tech element needs to be mentioned by name – Editors Don Brochu, Tim Patterson and Kevin Stitt. Not only was the footage meshed together in a palpable concoction, but I couldn't help but wonder what ended up on the cutting room floor. Jackson looks really good in this. Was there really no drama? No celebrity tantrums? If they were captured on video, they were cut around nicely by the editors. Perhaps too nicely. The MJ fans will love the way their hero is represented. Movie fans might want to see more of the challenge in putting up this monstrosity of a show. There isn't much backstage in this show that's compelling. There are shots of the making of the short films included in the concert and extra rehearsals with the band, but nothing ever really seemed to be problematic. I mean, even Scorsese couldn't get the Stones set list until right before they went on.

I think I also enjoyed "This is It" more than I thought because the film stuck to my personal favorite MJ tunes – "Billie Jean", "Black or White", "Thriller" and the outstanding, high-energy "Smooth Criminal". With as large a catalog as Jackson has, it's impossible to include all the songs you might like, but I was fine doing without the inane "Bad" or any of the other songs from the Luke-warm "Dangerous". And there is a SICK amount of dancing in this movie. We get a very brief introduction to the dancers at the top of the film, who couldn't be more excited to land the job of working with the legend himself. As the rehearsals progress, they dance their ASSES off. Too often, I think the lightweight flakes that have emerged in Jackson's wake over the last ten years employ dancers because they really don't have much else going on – no band, no lyrics to really sink teeth into and no personality. In "This is It", the dancers are the icing on an already tasty cake.

The unforgettable moment of "This is It" comes during the end of "They Don't Care About Us". As the song ends and the lights fade, just before darkness covers the stage, Michael Jackson drops all the attention he's given his show, he sheds the focus he applies to rehearsal and the desire to get it right and he settles into a brief, but utterly playful smile. Even with an empty arena, on stage is where Michael Jackson was ultimately happy, where he knew he could get the only unconditional love he had left. Then the lights faded.

When I first saw this trailer in the theater, I teared up. Something about it caught my attention right from the start. I know, I'm a sucker for an underdog movie, but I think I was welling up because I knew Sandra Bullock was going to kick major ass in this movie and I was right. (Oh, and she looked hot as hell too!) Let's not beat around the bush, I loved this movie. I had no idea that it was based on a true story until the end when I saw footage of the real Michael Oher. I don't really like sports movies and I am not a huge football fan, but that's not what this movie is about. This movie is about doing what is right even if it's the harder thing to do.

This is the real-life story of Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock), her husband Sean Tuohy (Tim McGraw) and their unlikely new "son" Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron). Leigh Anne is a wealthy southern spit-fire who speaks her mind and knows what she wants. One night when she spots Michael walking in the cold rain without a coat, that's it, from that moment on, Michael's life would never be the same.

Michael's father left when he was just a baby and his mother is a drug addict. Even though he is homeless and wanders from couch to couch, his spirit is never broken. He has the body of a giant and the heart of a lamb. He just needs a chance and thanks to Leigh Anne, he gets it.

The love that Leigh Anne and her family show Michael is honest and real. I especially found the relationship of the children and Michael to be unique. I kept waiting for the cliché scene where the "legitimate" children are jealous of Michael and all of the attention that he's getting. Thankfully, that never happened. I think that speaks volumes to what great parents Leigh Anne and Sean were. Their children learned by their example and did not pass judgment on Michael just because he was poor and from the projects.

For me, the major theme in this movie was: What does being a Christian mean? How many good Southern Christians passed by Michael that night when he was walking in the cold? How many people go to church every week and give to the local food banks but would never pull the car over and invite a huge African-American boy into their car and, eventually, into their life? Leigh Anne Tuohy didn't even stop to think that she might be making a mistake until long after she took the young man into her home and tucked him into bed. That's a Christian who talks the talk and walks the walk.

Oh, and who knew the movie would be so funny?! Tim McGraw (who was so believable as the husband that I didn't even recognize him) has some of the funniest lines in the movie. His performance is rock solid and he holds his own next to Bullock's fast and feisty Leigh Anne. Jae Head, who plays the Tuohy's son, steals scenes with his quick wit and enthusiasm. He's a perfect match to Michael's quiet, Ferdinand The Bull energy.

So, could this finally be Sandra's ticket to the Oscars? I can't be sure of that. But I can be sure that this movie was pretty great, even without Bill Murray in it. (Who knew that was possible).

"Zombieland" is such a fantastic ride, it is hard to find fault with it. The first five minutes with the opening sequence and credits set up the exact style of this film. You know right off the bat that it's funny, quirky, scary, gory, and a new bend on an old idea. It is a wonderful black comedy, so much so, that you will be hard pressed to predict moment after moment.

Seldom is violence so entertaining. Other than Nazis, zombies are the perfect enemy. They live, only to kill, completely devoid of any positive trait. So, watching shot after shot of zombies getting their comeuppance is satisfying on a colossal scale. The main characters (played by Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin) are constantly finding new ways to kill, dismember, squash, and destroy zombies. And watching it done has never been so enjoyable. Sure, at times the violence is for comedic effect, but elsewhere in the film it is used as a release from a genuinely tense chase scene.

Furthermore, this means the movie is genuinely scary. This is not just a hack remake of the same thing we have seen a thousand times before. This is fully new and inventive. From moments full of heart pounding tension to moments that make you jump, the movie does not disappoint. There were several audible gasps, screams, and guffaws from the audience throughout the film.

Also, seldom do you find a touching love story in a zombie movie. Since, zombies, by their very nature are thoughtless, irrational creatures that are void of any emotion other than rage; you would not expect any hint of a romantic storyline. Furthermore, most zombie movies are hell bent on inspiring fear. So, to find an emotion connected to a zombie film that is even remotely connected to an inspiring heartfelt one is almost absurd to imagine. Yet, they are able to create one here. I give total kudos to writers, Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who so poignantly point out the true difference between the walking dead and us as humans. In a world where zombies live to destroy and kill, we as humans still live to connect and build.

Finally, it's nice to see Woody Harrelson back on the big screen in a role that allows him to play cocky, brutish, and stupid: three characteristics worthy of "Zombie Killer of the Week". Eisenberg also steps up his game, proving that he is equal to his more popular twin Michael Cera.

While some may say that the zombie genre is overdone, I say as long as there are new and inventive ways to kill zombies, I'll keep watching.

"The Men Who Stare At Goats" opens with a sentence on the screen, "More of this is true than you would believe", and indeed that seems likely, depending on who you are. It's a glib introduction, but it also has an extra element of self-conscious awareness. The story is so inherently weird and subjective that believing it completely would be somewhat foolish. A movie about this particular series of events couldn't possibly be 100% accurate, and "The Men Who Stare At Goats" is not a film that is overly concerned with trying to portray historical facts. The opening sentence is a warning for the audience, that things like this can't be perfectly explained.

Ewan McGregor plays Bob Wilton, a reporter at a small newspaper in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He finds himself recently cast aside by his wife and in need of distraction, if not complete rebirth. He finds the first, and possibly the second, rather accidentally, in Kuwait City in the form of Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a former Special Ops military man. Bob had recently written a newspaper story about Gus Lacey (Stephen Root), a man who claimed to have psychic powers of his own, as well as knowledge of the US Army's involvement with psychic research and the possible military applications of such capabilities. From that story, Bob recognizes Lyn Cassady's name as someone who was also involved in the program that Lacey described to Bob. Wilton attaches himself to Cassady at this point, and Cassady leads Wilton down the rabbit hole, through the Iraqi desert, and into a crazy world of Military Intelligence, the classic oxymoron.

Cassady explains himself as having been the most successful psychic soldier, a "Jedi Warrior", in fact, of a program in the US Army called the New Earth Army. The NEA was the brainchild and proposition to the Army of Bill Django (Jeff Bridges, perfectly cast), a Vietnam veteran and new age hippie. Django is the most unlikely of soldiers, and he guides his troop of men through various exercises to attempt to create a peaceful army for the new millennium, using the power of positive energy, psychic strength, and dancing. Yes, dancing. If the history of this bizarre story is to believed, a group of Army soldiers danced together regularly, in uniform, on a military base, in a free-form style, to rid themselves of inhibition in order to become more powerful soldiers of love and good mojo.

This was back in the 1980's, the Reagan era, and President Reagan himself was said to be a supporter of this kind of research. It seems the Soviets were themselves attempting to employ psychic powers to gain an advantage in the cold war… or perhaps to end it, one would assume… and our side didn't want to fall behind on a potentially ground-breaking front.

Clooney plays Lyn Cassady sympathetically, as a man convinced of his own supernatural ability and driven by a desire to do good and perhaps help reform the Army, if not the human race, through the techniques and belief system he has committed his existence to. Cassady is not a young idealist any more, as the bulk of the movie takes place in the early part of this decade, years after the New Earth Army has dissolved and given way to the Bush era. The current administration is attempting to use some of the techniques and findings of Django and Cassady for torture and other nefarious practices. You may have heard of the Army using the music of the big purple dinosaur Barney as a torture device against captives in Iraq. That's one of the things that Cassady refers to as part of "the dark side". Cassady is an aging idealist, and he sees Bob Wilton as a tool for redemption… a man who can tell Cassady's story to the world. Cassady is, in the frame-work of the film, a mystifying figure; insane or brilliant, pathetic or heroic. Clooney deadpans the part as he must, since any over-playing of Cassady's cards would almost certainly betray the man as a buffoon and a liar. And anyway, George Clooney doesn't know any better than you or I do, even after seeing the movie, what is real and what is not.

But that's beside the point, or perhaps it is the point. As Clooney and McGregor (our former Obi-Wan is hilariously confused about the way of the Jedi) tumble through this movie, almost nothing factual becomes clear. We see some desperate men in the process of trying to do some good running up against the standard problems that confront such people… the will of those in power who do not concern themselves with morals, but rather attempt to "succeed" and "win" at any cost. There is a hilarious scene wherein two security companies full of soldiers-for-hire, all of US origin, accidentally find themselves in a firefight sparked by misunderstanding and machismo. It is classically FUBAR (a military term for screwed up), and as Clooney, McGregor and an Iraqi man they have recently befriended skip out of the skirmish ("my house is near here", says the Iraqi), the message is simple: Fear and aggression are powerful forces that can consume anyone, and good mojo and innocence are easy targets. Sometimes it's best just to get out of the way.

"The Men Who Stare At Goats" is a sad yet somehow triumphant tale of good persevering over evil, if only in the hearts and minds of a few fairly powerless humans. In our time, in this crazy, mixed-up, violent and fearful world, what else do we have, anyway? Love, dancing, and the movies

Maurice Sendak's book, "Where The Wild Things Are", is embedded in the minds of most people of adult age because of the wonderful character and landscape designs that enthralled them as a kid. Plot? There really isn't much. Max gets angry, Max imagines wild world where he vents anger and pals around with monsters, Max longs for home, eats dinner. That story doesn't beg for cinematic interpretation. So, the first challenge for co-writers Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers was to make Max's adventures fill a feature length movie. The challenge may have been too much, as this adult needed more than the gorgeous design to get through 100 minutes of Max's world.

The film "Where the Wild Things Are" is essentially a nine-year-old's adventure. The production elements, acting, music and design all lend themselves to telling the ADD-saddled story of a kid with issues. Max has problems at home. He's upset with his mother (Catherine Keener) dating a new man (presumably after her husband's death), he's upset with his sister not getting his back, he's upset with his sister's friends for mistreating him. He needs to get away. After acting out and biting his mom, he finds a boat that takes him to the island where the Wild Things live. You'd think if a book is thirty-seven pages long, you wouldn't have to make any cuts, but Jonze and Eggers make the boat trip somewhere outside of Max's house. In the book, one of the more memorable images is Max's room transforming to into a jungle. That magical illustration is lost here.

So what's added to beef up the story? The opening is exciting, as Max chases his dog around the house in the trademark "Wild Thing" outfit from the book, and soon we see his vulnerable side as he builds a snow fort and watches it get destroyed by his sister's friends. When Max gets to Wild Thing island, they add a bunch of action you would find in a nine-year-old's adventure – mud fights, they smash stuff, they pile on each other, they build a fort. I'd love to say all these events touched my inner child, but it all adds up to a meandering plot that never really engaged me.

Under it all is the idea of the Wild Things making Max their king. Max's "reign" as king has different effects on the Wild Things. Some question his leadership, some are disappointed in his role, and Max lies and feels the repercussions. Jonze and Eggers probably do the right thing in keeping the story simple (as opposed to Bruckheimering it up), but at times I was just (I hate to say this about a movie that presumed 'hip') bored.

The Wild Things are given individual personalities they weren't afforded in the book. Their leader is Carol, who is all destructive id, K.W. is the voice of reason, Alexander is the none-too-subtly devised goat, always condescended to and left out, there's a twitchy bird character named Douglas and a "couple", Ira and Judith, who mix parental adoration with pessimism. It is no doubt the purpose of fleshing out these characters to give them characteristics a young child deals with on a daily basis, either owning them or facing them.

Voicing these beasts are James Gandolfini as Carol, going for vulnerability, but having difficulty escaping his Tony Soprano voice. I expected him to drop an F-bomb. Paul Dano is excellent as the sheepish Alexander and Lauren Ambrose is nurturing as K.W. The Wild Thing designs are a marvel, mixing Henson Creature Shop full-body suits with CGI-built faces, providing a wide variety of expressions. The two technical achievements are seamlessly combined. One misstep I feel the film made was not including the bodysuit performers alongside the voice actors in the end credits. You have to search deep in the scroll to find out who did all the on-set work with Max. They did a great job and I want to rectify that misstep here:

Vincent Crowley – Carol Suit Performer Sonny Gerasimowicz – Alexander Suit Performer Nick Farnell – Judith Suit Performer Sam Longley – Ira Suit Performer Angus Sampson – The Bull Suit Performer Mark McCracken – The Bull Additional Suit Performer John Leary – Douglas Suit Performer Alice Parkinson – KW Suit Performer Garon Michael – KW Additional Suit Performer

Hard to believe this information isn't even available at IMDb.com! Sonny Gerasimowicz was one of the suit designers, too, and deserves special mention.

Other tech elements are superior, too, as the production made full use of the Australian countryside where they shot. Deserts, forests, beaches and rock canyons all provide eye candy and the fort design and other visual FX blend in nicely. The music by give-him-an-Oscar-already Carter Burwell is great, working with Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs to provide a whimsical score, reminding us that even when the Wild Things act violent or outrageous, they're childish at heart. DP Lance Acord shoots the proceedings at a kinetic pace when necessary, and lush when called for.

Acting first-timer Max Records is impressive as Max, in that he inhabits a bratty kid as well as flawlessly interacting mostly with expressionless puppets on the set. But perhaps it's the brattiness in Max and in the Wild Things that left me a little cold in the end. Few of these characters are sympathetic and there's no real dramatic thru-line to get involved in.

I have to admit at the top of this interview that I'm a rampant liberal. I'm all for universal health care as an option for people who need it (if you think there's no money for it, re-think the places we're inappropriately spending money now), I think harmful greed needs to be kept in check to ensure that corporations don't abuse their workers, I think money needs to be taken out of politics and I think there are politicians in America whose highest priority is to see the current president fail and whose second or third priorities are to actually vote for or create legislation that could advance America.

Hmmm, might I like the latest Michael Moore film? "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a call to action. Moore has a beef with the way capitalism has run roughshod over hopes, dreams and lives in America. Does he have a legitimate gripe? Yes, but these are some of the shakier waters Moore has delved into in yet. Capitalism is the reason most people choose to live in the good 'ol U.S. of A., how can you rail against it? Moore makes some good points: - Ronald Reagan appointed the CEO of Merrill Lynch to the Secretary of Treasury, sparking the beginning of the marriage of business and politics - Businesses are taking life insurance policies out on their employees and are naming THEMSELVES the beneficiary. Companies are starting to make money if you die. A little something called "Dead Peasants". - The richest 1% of America makes more money than the bottom 95%. This inequality creates instability in the country.

Moore methodically tells fifty or so quality, involving stories to back up his case that the financial status quo in the U.S. needs repair. But it's the percentage inequality that resonates most with me. When a country doesn't care for its most downtrodden, the downtrodden get desperate. That's memorably shown in this film, too.

Over the course of reviewing Moore's films for a decade now, I've often stated that he's created his own genre, infusing himself into the documentary template. Even more than in "Sicko", Moore's takes an on-screen back seat. The footage, the stories, carry the day. Moore has only a couple of scenes where he does his routine antics, and they are carried out with full knowledge that everyone is on to him. The result is hilarious.

One of the things that struck me most about "Sicko" was the British Parliament member who said people in Europe keep the government in check, and in America, the government keeps people in check. That theory is further expanded upon here. Moore is trying everything to bust through American sit-on-your-hands apathy and crying out for action! These guys are outnumbered, and if more people who felt they got a bad slice of American pie stood up, the voices would be deafening. "Capitalism" shows a microcosm of this in the story of Chicago's Republic Windows and Doors, firing its entire unionized workforce of over 250 people, giving them only three days notice, and failing to pay legally required vacation and severance pay. This was a compelling story when it happened and is still compelling today. It made national news, it caused national reaction, but these reactive moments are few and far between. (Moore probably wisely leaves out Gov. Rod Blagojevich's role in helping the Republic workers. Although he was instrumental in bringing their plight to media attention, he later turned douchebag).

The highlight of the movie is an eye-opening bit of previously-lost film in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt lays out a proposal called the "Second Bill of Rights" for America. This would provide, for all Americans, a living wage, a home, medical care, and education and freedom from monopolies. Coming out of WWII, this was an excellent course for the country that was never followed through due to FDR's health. Never has a president handled war and the economy as deftly as FDR, hearing his never-realized vision told directly to camera was a haunting and sad moment.

Making the media rounds recently, Michael Moore often told the story of Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine. You know what he did with the vaccine once he created it? HE GAVE IT AWAY. It was better to help people survive than to make money. That concept seems lone gone in the world brought to light in "Capitalism: A Love Story". We must be in the part of the love story where the Titanic sinks. I hope we make it to the part where we throw the expensive diamond in the ocean.

My wife and I recently saw "Couples Retreat". Our comments/conversation below:

JUSTIN: Kristen Bell, Kristin Davis, Malin Akerman and Kali Hawk all look great in a bikini. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The little boy was cute.

JUSTIN: It's a funny movie, but not necessarily a good movie. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The images during the closing credits were fun. It made me want to go to Bora Bora.

JUSTIN: The story arc lacks the dynamic and artistic elements that form a coherent structure pertinent to believable in-depth character development. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The fake sharks looked really fake.

JUSTIN: Vince Vaughn is at his comedic best when he is writing for himself. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The color of the ocean was a pretty green/teal color. It made me want to go swim.

JUSTIN: It was blatantly missing nudity. JUSTIN'S WIFE: Vince Vaughn got really sweaty. He needed a fan.

JUSTIN: The story felt very choppy. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The natural portrayal of hair in the humid climate was unusually uncharacteristic of a romantic comedy.

JUSTIN: Too predictable for a John Favreau script. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The alcoholic drinks looked idiotic. The bottles just had fake leaves taped on them.

JUSTIN: Vince Vaughn plays the likable asshole better than anyone else in Hollywood. JUSTIN'S WIFE: The "going to the bathroom" scenes were crude. No movie needs to have bathroom scenes.

JUSTIN: Not all movie relationships need to end with the couple promising "to change" and stay together. JUSTIN'S WIFE: I don't want to watch a movie about characters who want to have an affair. Everyone should love each other.

JUSTIN: Overall this was a valiant attempt by Peter Billingsley to direct a John Favreau script; unfortunately it felt like the studio stepped in and didn't give him the freedom that John Favreau would have received. JUSTIN'S WIFE: There should have been more music montages with island activities like learning to square dance.

ME: See it, ONLY as a date film. MY WIFE: See it, only if he won't go see "Fame" with you.

There is a shot in the opening prologue-scene in A Serious Man where a husband and wife in 19th century Poland, while debating the origin of a visitor to their home, stand next to each other and look through the camera, out into the audience. It is an interesting perspective, as the two of them stand side-to-side and represent polar opposites of a a disagreement. The wife is convinced that their visitor is a "dybbuk", a malicious possessing spirit, believed in the Jewish faith to be the dislocated soul of a dead person. The husband is sure the visitor is merely an old man who is need of some warmth and soup. The end of the scene provides no definitive answer to the dispute. The tale is allegorical, meant to show that the mere perception of impending evil can in itself create a kind of curse. Or, perhaps, it shows that Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a modern-day descendant of the couple and "hero" of A Serious Man, was cursed long ago by a demon. The perspective of the film has been set to be viewed in two disparate ways. The couple stares out at the audience and we are left to choose.

The Coen Brothers pick up with Larry and his family in 1967. Larry is a physics professor who is married, with two young children: whiny adolescent daughter Sarah (Jessica McManus) and her younger brother Danny (Aaron Wolff), who is about to celebrate his bar mitzvah, the Jewish ritual of transition to manhood for 13-year-old boys of the faith. From the beginning of our acquaintance with Larry, it's clear that he does not have a solid command of his domain. His wife, Judith (Sari Lennick) has taken up with another man, his son seems only to care whether F-Troop will come in clearly on their television, his neighbor is intimidating, and he is a victim of an attempted bribe by a student who is looking for a better grade. His brother Arthur has come to live with the family in their drab suburban home, and he spends much of his time in the bathroom, draining a persistent sebacious cyst. Judith asks Larry for a divorce.

This is Coen Brothers country, and as usual it is populated by ugly, desperate people. Larry attempts to make sense of his world and control it as best he can, but finds himself floundering amid the forces of an oppressive community and the various twists and turns of a dull existence. Larry is dumbfounded by the confluence of negative events that come his way all at once, and is completely incapable of extricating himself from the jaws of the monster that is slowly devouring him and his sense of fairness and nobility. He attempts to seek the advice of several rabbis. He smokes a little weed. He tries to do what's right.

The film is an excruciating discovery of the helplessness of a man who simply is not equipped to surmount his many perils. Larry Gopnik is the anti-Odysseus, as he stays in one place and repeatedly fails God's trials, never finding his way to the home he imagines… with a loving wife and children. With fairness. With hope. With triumph.

The Coen Brothers have crafted another eviscerating examination of humanity, this time via the prism of the Jewish religion and community. It's not hard to imagine that they themselves likely grew up in a similar world as the one the viewer sees on the screen. Or, perhaps, it is merely their perception that makes the world look as stark and bleak as it is for the fictional Larry Gopnik. Either way, if the view and presentation of the Coen Brothers can be trusted…and perhaps they have earned that by now… then their unflinching willingness to show Jewish stereotypes that they are clearly well-acquainted with is in itself shocking.

The most gorgeously grotesque scene in the film takes place at young Danny's Bar Mitzvah ceremony. He has gotten high in the bathroom with his buddies and must then walk to the stage, stand at the bema (altar), and perform his end of the ritual… davening (singing prayer) for all the members of the congregation. As riveting and convoluted as any scene the Coen Brothers have ever crafted, this scene allows the audience to see through the eyes of a freaked-out young man as he peers at all the attendees in the Temple. Some are bored. Some are happy. Some are scared. They all are the denizens of Danny's fears and nightmares. There is levity, terror, ugliness. There is comedy.

Near the end of the film, Larry's brother Arthur (the sublime Richard Kind) tells Larry that Larry has received great gifts from God, while Arthur has received no such gifts for himself. From Arthur's point-of-view, that may be true. From the audience's point-of-view, things don't look great for either of them. Larry is perhaps even worse off than Arthur (who is also having legal trouble stemming from his sexual appetites), but Larry seems utterly incapable of turning his ship away from the coming storm. He is too afraid of changing course. This fear has festered and enveloped him, and by the end of the film, Larry has no choice. No way out. He is ultimately a victim of the defenses that he and his community have erected. He is his own hostage.

If you know the work of the Coen Brothers, you know none of these themes represent new ground for them. But in what is perhaps their most introspective and controversial film to date, they have afforded us all a unique perspective. Go to the doctor. Kiss your children. Receive tenure. Keep your chin up. Life is beautiful.

Who could you watch in a movie if they were roughly the only actor in the film? It worked with Tom Hanks. "I am Legend" was a hit for Will Smith. Could probably work with Denzel Washington and maybe Brad Pitt. Who came up with the idea that Sam Rockwell, eternally under-appreciated lead actor often used in supporting roles, could pull off such a feat? If you're a Rockwell fan (I am), you know he's up to the task. He delivers big-time as a harvester of energy resources on the Moon, who encounters an unusual, yet familiar individual. There are obvious tips of the hat to "2001" all over this movie, but that's a good film to emulate. Director Duncan Jones does a great job at establishing the isolation of Rockwell's character, Sam Bell, left on the Moon to communicate solely with order-keeping robot, GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey.

Let's go into everything above in depth. "Moon" doesn't pack the budget of a film like "District 9" or "Star Trek", but successfully creates a plausible Moon surface, lunar domicile and hi-tech mining machines. Its main asset is not in whiz-bang visuals, but in creating an eerie existence for its main character, Sam. In doing so, "Moon" hearkens back to a not-often-visited form of science fiction – the thinking-man's sci-fi genre. Think of the great movies in this class – "The Thing", "Outland" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". That's good company, and "Moon" belongs there as an excellent mood piece.

Unsurprisingly, Sam deals mostly with boredom and restlessness as he finishes up a three-year contract mining The Moon for Helium-3. Space being a lonely place isn't exactly a new concept, but it's handled well here as Sam's reminiscence and longing for a return to his family is coupled with a mysterious (and perhaps nefarious) company that has hired his services. GERTY is Sam's only friend, but being a computer, GERTY is more interested in the tasks at hand than anyone's well-being.

I know what you're saying, "Yeah, that's 2001". And you're right. I think the thing that makes "Moon" unique is Rockwell. I think this film benefits from his status as a not-so-leading man. He can embody all the different sides of Sam Bell with equal ease and a great sense of humor. All that time alone on The Moon allows Sam to get to know himself, and he gets more of an extra opportunity than most of us. And as Sam discovers how Lunar Industries is using questionable methods to prolong his employment, Rockwell brings real pathos to his situation, and makes "Moon", in the end, a moving film as well as intriguing science fiction.

So, with all this praise, why not four stars? I thought the ending was a little abrupt. When such care is taken to build up this plot to the climax, I wanted a little more time with the denouement…and a cigarette. Finally, all the homage, in the end, makes "Moon" a touch too familiar to take me completely out of my comfort zone like "Blade Runner" or "Dark City" did. I think Duncan Jones proves with "Moon" that he can graduate successfully from commercials to features, and in the future, he won't need deference to great works in order to make his own.

To enjoy Judd Apatow's latest film, you kind of have to be a fan of ApatowLand. For example, I LOVE Coen-BrothersLand. You know what you're getting when you enter their world – originality, eccentricity and, regardless of the story, they will totally NAIL the tone. In ApatowLand, you know what you're going to get – wise-asses, insane profanity, bromance and shallow behavior. I LOVE THAT! I'm a little late getting to the "Funny People" table, which opened July 31st, and there's been much talk about the movie as "Apatow's James L. Brooks movie" and "his attempt at drama". Fear not, the feel of an Apatow comedy is thoroughly in place, even though he's taken on deeper themes than usual.

Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, an eternally selfish and mean stand-up comic in L.A. who learns he has a deadly blood disease. While he undergoes an experimental Canadian medicine, he plots a return to stand-up (after years in apparently lousy, but successful films). He employs the services of young, naïve comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to help him write jokes and do all sorts of other, demeaning services. I know Judd Apatow came to prominence in the L.A. comedy scene, and he's brought authenticity to locations, players and attitudes in the live comedy game. At times I felt like I wasn't supposed to be watching these personal recounts. Most of the cameos are entertaining, too, especially a who'd-have-thought appearance by Eminem.

A common oversight by moviegoers nowadays is to mistake Judd Apatow-directed movies for Judd Apatow produced movies or movies that were made attempting his style. There's a big difference. And the difference usually shows itself here: - An Apatow-directed film will have an underlying sweetness or vulnerability that makes me care about the characters, warts and all. Films he produces often go straight for laughs, bypassing the story elements that really draw us in (see "Step Brothers" or "Walk Hard") - An Apatow-produced film just isn't as funny as one he produces AND directs. He's a good director! (see "Year One" or "Drillbit Taylor") - Films not directed by Judd often force the emotion into the scene. Romantic montages seemed out of place and awkward in movies like the over-rated "Wedding Crashers" and films like "I Love You Man" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" try too hard to build relationships that Judd Apatow has made look easy. One movie that handled the romance skillfully was "Adventureland"….too bad it wasn't crazy funny. That being said, I was concerned that Apatow would abandon everything he's used to make a successful formula up to now and turn "Funny people" into something too earnest, too (gasp) emotional.

"Funny People" thankfully avoids overdoses of sentimentality. Every moment that seems like it could be an unnatural, forced turn of schmaltz is undercut by great, comic dialogue. Even a climactic fight scene plays out with a level of truth because the characters are lumbering and inept, as I would expect comics to be when asked to ramp up the machismo.

Eric Bana provides the machismo as the new husband of one of Sandler's exes. He's got one of my favorite scenes, providing f-word-laced commentary to an Australian Rules Football game. Sandler's ex is played by the more-stunning-with-age Leslie Mann, following up on what I thought should've been an Oscar-nominated turn in "Knocked Up" with another conflicted late-thirties adult dealing with ghosts of the past and a conflicted marriage of the present. She deftly takes on a lot of the emotional weight of the plot, which wisely leaves the gags up to Rogen and Co. I was relieved to see Sandler's character be unrepentantly callous. It'd be easy to give George Simmons the "Regarding Henry" treatment, but it's more complicated (and therefore, more satisfying) to go the route Apatow took. I live in L.A. There are plenty of pricks out here like George Simmons. I know he borders on over-saturation (he did appear in 11 films in the last two years), but the best thing about this movie is Seth Rogen. He has an expert comic delivery in every one of Apatow's films and it's wonderfully on display here. This brings up the final note I'll make about the acting – if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Judd Apatow has what people are calling a "gang" at this point, and he succeeds when he keeps it in the family. Mann (Apatow's wife), Jonah Hill, Rogen, Jason Schwartzman and Justin Long (in a cameo) have been in Apatow projects before, and they work well here.

Don't mistake "Funny People" for a hilarious movie, even "Knocked Up" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin" were funny more for the relationships and the way people talked than for any huge comedy moments. Same here, there are no big laughs, but I could've listened to the dialogue for another hour.

The flaws, then? The narrative gets a little wonky as the true nature of dying comic George Simmons is tested while re-visiting past relationships. Apatow's previous films were essentially showing the rocky path on the road to romance. In tackling something bigger here, the storyline does stray here and there. When I saw "Evan Almighty" many moons ago, there was a scene early on where newly-elected-to-Congress Evan is settling into his new D.C. home. There's an establishing shot of his children in the living room before Evan enters the scene. It's an innocuous five seconds of set-up. But fellow Movie Guy Adam wisely noted that Judd Apatow would've used those five seconds to allow something funny to happen. That's what makes Apatow great.

What do you want in a foreign period film? Beautiful locations? Check. Class struggle? Check. Subtitles? Check. All that's missing is urgency.

Coco Chanel is a French legend. The designer of the ground-breaking haute couture style, creator of the huge fashion brand Chanel, and a forward-thinker in terms of women's independence. Chanel is a complex and dynamic personality. Makes me want to see a movie called "Coco During Chanel". But "Coco Before Chanel"? Not so much.

Audrey Tautou does a commendable job of playing Chanel in her early years (and looks a lot like Chanel in the movie's later scenes). Adding complications to the idea is the fact that there is little known about Chanel's youth, and what is known often has conflicting stories. But be prepared, what does happen in "Coco Before Chanel", happens slowly. This, in a movie that portrays the French elite as people with crazy money, outlandish parties and a constant desire to quench their boredom. I desired the same.

Although she often denied it, Chanel was brought to an orphanage early in life (this was denied mainly to prevent preconceptions of her as an undesirable). The film sharply cuts to late teens/early twenties Coco (real name, Gabrielle), singing with her sister in clubs to make a buck. It was the plight of women in the 1890s to find a man or fear being lost in society. Coco's sister was beholden to a man for thirty years, and he FINALLY married her after his parents died so he wouldn't have to explain to them that he married an orphan (for shame!). This assnine mentality is certainly worth rebelling against, but Coco remains passive for too much of the movie. She is taken in by a wild playboy named Balsan (expertly played by Benoit Poelvoorde) and is mistreated by him for years. Chanel wants to answer to no man and wants to design clothes that avoid the feathers and corset that alter a woman's natural body. But again, this is done with little dramatic flair and many, many pages of slow-moving script. Coco came off as a little too inert for a little too long.

This movie is the first of the late-year potential Oscar nominees. Tautou's performance is a maybe, but the costume design is a sure thing, and rightfully so. The Chanel style is famous, they have to nail it, and they did, while also building gorgeous period outfits for the rich, end-of-century French culture and a few military outfits as well.

The score by Alexandre Desplat does a lot to enhance a few of the scenes, and the cinematography is lush. I want to give a special nod to Alessandro Nivola, who's very good here and very good in everything, but the guy doesn't appear in enough high-profile stuff. He sits very comfortably in the French language here and smolders in some of his more romantic moments like a poor man's Ralph Fiennes.

A traumatic event late in the film propels Coco to launch into her designing full speed. That moment felt a little rushed and the whole ending follows suit. What I wanted at the end was the "Coco During Chanel" movie to start, so, then, that could be kind of a success for the film? But remember, I wanted "Coco During Chanel" going in, so really, the whole 'before' story just felt like slow filler. Frills, perhaps? Padding?

"Surrogates" proposes a fascinating vision of the future, but unfortunately delivers a sub-par movie to explore this future. The idea is that technology has advanced to where people can control movements of robots with their mind. The robots eventually take on the physical characteristics of their "operators", to where people rarely leave their homes, allowing the counterparts to experience life on their behalf. This can lead to extreme behavior, as there is no risk involved for the operator, the robot will take the brunt of any abuse or aggression in the physical world.

One day a surrogate is murdered (kind of a short-circuiting), causing the simultaneous death of its operator, a situation previously thought impossible. Bruce Willis plays Tom Greer, whose surrogate begins the investigation into the weapon that may have caused this death. Willis is well cast, because he's a rare actor who can look youthful enough to pull off the robotic action hero, and ragged enough in his fifty-some years to be a world-weary policeman.

Director Jonathan Mostow has made serviceable action films before – "U-571" is especially good and "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" has its moments for a movie that never should have been made. But you can get the idea that he doesn't have a directorial signature, and that leaves "Surrogates" to be a capable feature that never gets too radical or risky. For example, Paul Verhoeven's "Surrogates" would have gone to great lengths to examine the excesses in pleasure and danger one could experience through a surrogate. David Fincher's "Surrogates" would've been DARK, and the characters would've been a bit more flawed.

But where Mostow's "Surrogates" lacks in style, it makes up in devotion to story. By no means is this film empty, as the filmmakers have put together a decent who-dunnit with some nifty surprises and a direction that leads the tale back to the running theme of the importance of humanity.

The special effects are hit and miss. It seems like movies with the scope of "Surrogates" long to have a few F/X shots that can show how big they can be. These shots usually come with the cost of the viewer saying "Hey, look, it's a big CGI shot". Instead of saying " I have nothing to say here because I'm busy being invested in the story". Sure enough, the surrogate factory is one such "Hey, it's a green screen" shot. There is, however, an excellent chase scene as Willis' surrogate chases a man into a 'humans only' sanctuary.

Supporting roles are well served as Ving Rhames and Bruce Willis reunite and nobody gets sodomized. Radha Mitchell is very good as her character and her character's surrogates undergo many changes. She's up to the task. James Cromwell is as good as ever as the designer of surrogate technology.

I hope I'm not contradictory here, but I could've used a little levity in this movie. Normally, I think action movies foolishly trade in danger for "let's have fun!". But often the fun is in the danger. Look at the trailer for the upcoming "2012", as actors trade gag lines while MILLIONS of helpless people are perishing all around them. "Surrogates" treats its mystery very soberly, and I appreciate that. It's not often that I find myself then wishing for a little more humor, but I could've used it here. You know Bruce Willis would've delivered the comedy goods as smoothly as he does the distress.

This film falls in line with similar-themed sci-fi projects of late. It has elements previously seen in "Gamer", "I, Robot", "The Sixth Day", TV's "Dollhouse" and classics like "Blade Runner", "The Matrix" & "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". The fact that so many movies are being made about Americans losing their soul may be more of a statement than any of the movies individually make.

Quentin Tarantino DARES you to like his new movie, to the point where he'll trash any conventions he sets up, kill off any characters he wants, stray from a storyline for an eternity, cross-pollinate genres and styles and basically give the audience the 'ol "Fuck you, I'm making MY movie, come along if you want, but I don't need you." Such searing macho bravado is annoying in the hands of other directors (this was pretty much Michael Bay's stance making "Transformers 2" – "If I want a hot chick Transformer, I'm gonna do it, sensibility be damned!"). With Tarantino, I was IN early on, and stayed hooked for 153 minutes.

Tarantino mastered a dialogue style in "Pulp Fiction" that I find brilliant – the anticipation of violence. When Jules and Vincent start talking about European food, the dialogue is fun and engaging. When they stop and get guns out of the trunk, there's obviously something more at work here then guys driving, talking about Le Big Mac. What they're doing is, however, delayed and delayed for more banter. They talk about T.V. pilots, they talk about foot massages, they even get to the door where SOMETHING is going to go down, and they pause even further to "get into character". The scene is fascinating, with whip-smart, funny dialogue, and it all feeds into the violent payoff like a symphony reaching its grand chorale. I say this is a Tarantino style, 'cause he's certainly employed it again ("Kill Bill, Vol. 2" – The Bride meets Bill and they talk and talk before ever getting down to business, but the talk is electric and soaked in history).

"Death Proof" had A LOT of talk, and, to me, wasn't as effective because there was nothing underneath the chatter. It was just that, a lot of chatter for the sake of being hip. In "Inglourious Basterds", Tarantino's new World War II epic, the film opens with a "Once Upon a Time in the West"-style meeting between a Nazi officer known as The Jew Hunter and a French man accused of hiding Jews in his home. Right away, the gamesmanship displayed was masterful, both actors steadily at odds, and the sociable dialogue masking the tension and intention of its characters. To see Tarantino deliver an opening scene so solid, controlled and authoritative meant the "glourious" return of a director who I thought was delving into the excess pool a bit too often in his last few projects.

But then, just when you get a handle on the movie, he'll do whatever he feels like doing again. "How's about DIRK DIGGLER-esquire on-screen text to introduce one of the characters? You like Sam Jackson? I got him, for no reason other than we're friends. Has Mike Myers been in too many lousy movies lately? I'LL CHANGE THAT." The balls on this guy! And yet, it's conveyed with such audacity, it ends up wildly entertaining.

Think about the title of the movie: "Inglourious Basterds", a group of Nazi-hunters in WWII. But we don't meet them until after that brilliant opening scene. Then we get a taste of the Basterds, but QT has other stories to tell. We meet an escapee from the opening scene who now owns a movie theater, and the Nazi soldier who is smitten with her. We meet a British soldier who gets new orders to be part of Operation Kino, and we get to see the operation in full effect (and ANOTHER scene where we wait and wait for the violence as layer after layer of the tavern-goers gets peeled away in deliberate conversation). So, if we're going to be sidetracked from Nazi scalp-hunting, Tarantino better bring the goods. This is where the film keeps our attention because the stories intertwine, and a true, can-they-pull-it-off narrative kicks in with an infusion of patented Tarantino energy.

Universally thought to steal the show in this movie is Christoph Waltz as Colonel Landa, The Jew Hunter. He does a great job of playing Nazi soldier as charmer, counterpunching with smarts. He is the real bastard. Tarantino gives him an interesting shift in paradigm near the end of the film that is bold and intriguing, but not wholly satisfying. Brad Pitt is good as Aldo Raine, leader of the Basterds, often eliciting laughs from his no-nonsense approach to killing NAH-ZIS. Diane Kruger is good in the complicated role of actress Bridget von Hammersmark, an otherwise high-class citizen who finds herself ingrained in dangerous war scenarios. She also has the line of the movie: "Do you Americans speak any other language than English?" Much has been made of the end of "Inglourious Basterds", and I have to admit it was a little surprising, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility, given the way the film built to the end. Stops were pulled out, extremes were explored, so why not just GO FOR IT? But even in a pulse-pounding finale, there's pause to be had watching Jews enact revenge on Nazis in a blood-soaked fashion similar to that employed by the Reich itself. The climax is a blazing, cinematic extravaganza, and when layered with thought-provoking imagery and haunting ghosts dancing in the smoky light of a movie projector, the result stays with you longer than a baseball bat to the head.

We know what to expect from a "Star Trek" movie, thirty plus years after "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Perhaps this is because the franchise has kept it all in the family up till now. The majority of films have been directed by people involved in the "Star Trek" universe for years. The thought of an outsider venturing into the realm of "Star Trek" and directing the re-launch of their precious franchise is enough to make a Vulcan's ears straighten out. I mean, the last time an interloper put his stamp on a "Trek" adventure, the result was the Stuart Baird-directed "Star Trek: Nemesis", considered a failure on all fronts.

So, it's refreshing to see TV guru J.J. Abrams not just succeed, but overwhelmingly so in delivering a fresh, relevant and exciting take on a new "Trek" tale. Even more impressive is that "Transformers" scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmann developed an ingenious device to appease long-time Trekkers and newcomers alike. Said device is a black hole that creates an alternate "Trek" universe early in the film. This allows the filmmakers to have fun with shades of the "Trek" characters we know and love, yet gives them a chance to re-make and re-discover them in a new adventure. It's a great story design and that rare occasion where a time travel story has no glaring flaws. "Back to the Future II", a movie that is built on traversing space and time, had a major error in its depiction of time travel* and even another "Star Trek" film, "First Contact", mishandled time travel*. But if you follow the characters of this movie in and out of wormholes, go home and draw out a schematic diagram of exactly what happened, it make sense! The plot details involve Spock traveling back in time on the heels of Romulans, who are convinced Spock caused the destruction of their home planet. The Romulans are bent on revenge and destroying Vulcan with a mysterious substance called Red Matter. At this point in time, youthful Kirk, Spock, Bones and the rest of the crew are getting their feet wet on the bridge of The Enterprise after the original Captain, Christopher Pike, is captured by the Romulans.

The tech aspects of the movie are top-notch, killing the old notions of cheesy FX that have haunted this franchise in the past. Also top notch is the casting, succeeding in many different ways. Chris Pine as Kirk brings the right machismo and sense of humor to rival straight-as-an-arrow, logic-based Zachary Quinto, nailing the role of Spock. The early-relationship standoffs between Kirk and Spock are a lot of fun, almost playing out like the romantic comedy couple who hate each other that you know will be together in the end. There is romance in this film that wakes Trek fans out of the coma they've been put in by Picard's stodgy relationships (he deserved sexier times). There's a romantic liaison between Spock and Uhuru (a concept straight out of "alternate universe") that works as a romance and for comedy fodder as something else to come between Kirk and Spock. Karl Urban has his best role since "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy as "Bones" McCoy. His role isn't as re-imagined as some of the others, instead, he flavors his role with the best parts of DeForest Kelley's original portrayal, to hilarious effect.

Eric Bana does a fine job as the revenge-bent Romulan, reminding audiences that a real THREAT is essential to an adventure movie. Once the threat is real and potent, a movie can have all sorts of fun underneath that umbrella, and "Star Trek" does. Take note, Indiana Jones. In fact, George Lucas, why don't you give J.J. Abrams a call

Surprise, surprise, Pixar has made a wonderful film. "Up" is a true original, loaded with unique characters, outstanding design, and some wild, vertigo-inducing action. Through it all, the Pixar brand of wit and humor is fully intact. John Lasseter and his team have chosen another rather risky project for a Memorial Day weekend release: an old man ties balloons to his house to travel to a South America, a location he's desired to go to since his youth. Outside of "Gran Torino", this is the only film that's taken a risk on putting an octogenarian front and center of a potential blockbuster. But "Up' gives it's lead a real warmth and humanity that is all but missing in Hollywood's general portrayal of the elderly, who, when not pointing shotguns at the local hoodlums, are normally the butt of the joke.

"Up"'s main character is Carl Frederickson, and Pixar deals a masterstroke in telling his backstory in an remarkable montage set to Michael Giacchino's dazzling score (Giacchino scored both "Star Trek" and "Up" and deserves an Oscar for the love of god – he was unfairly passed over for his GREAT "The Incredibles" score years ago). The montage of Carl's life elicits laughs, tears and strongly establishes why Carl is doing what he's doing. The house with balloons is as memorable a cinema icon as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang or Dorothy's house flying through the tornado. But it's the reason for Carl's quest and the metaphor of the house as the baggage he's carrying that makes the story of "Up" go from memorable to truly magical.

The voice talent is strong throughout, and like "Wall-E" before it, there are no superstars driving the show. Ed Asner's voice brings all the weight of his years to Carl, and he's matched pitch-perfect by Christopher Plummer. In a hilarious turn, young Jordan Nagai kills as the Explorer scout constantly bothering Carl. "Up" has been shown in 3-D, and I get why theaters are doing that. With pay-per-view, on demand, online, blu-ray and DVD options for people to see a film, the in-theater option is pulling out all the stops to get you to come out and spend up to $14. But "Up" is so strong in character and narrative, there's no need to add the special effect of exploring the third dimension. An added plus, for sure, but not necessary. "Up" excels in its animation, robustly coloring every frame, whether it's with thousands of individual balloons or the painter's palette worth of color on a unique South American bird.

"Up" also fires up the Pixar humor to uproarious effect. Particularly funny are a pack of dogs who "speak" through collars that read their thoughts. The combination of the absurd and the direct translation of a dog's actions into words make for some pretty funny stuff. They also get a lot of mileage out of Carl's grumpiness, without making him unlikeable.

Gush time. Pixar makes the best films in Hollywood right now. An eclectic mix of top acting talent, dazzling animation, inventive and risky storytelling, every time. Next up, they're re-distributing "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" this fall in 3-D. Again, whether the 3-D is necessary is debatable, but it'll be great to re-watch the first feature length film that put Pixar on the national map. They came out of the gate so strong, it's amazing that they've managed to see the possibilities in risky plots and never waiver from a formula underneath that is the most watchable cinema out there.

"Year One" is not very funny, and I hope putting a number in the title doesn't presuppose sequels. This story of two caveman misfits trying to fit in, explore the new world and save their loved ones occasionally encounters a funny situation, but mostly relies on cheap, cheap gags to get its laughs, rarely succeeding. What do you need? Poop? Pee? Vomit? Circumcision? It's all here, and it's all lame. You can drive a wooly mammoth through some of the dead zones at the end of scenes here that don't work.

Especially disappointing in the cavalcade of talent not measuring up: - Jack Black. He's given standard schtick to do, and it's a shame that a comic talent like him can have a performance described as "standard schtick". - Michael Cera. It can also be argued that Cera is doing his "same old routine" here, too. But his routine usually hits big, and it's just not successful surrounded by bawdy slapstick. He's meant for more heady fare. - David Cross. His opening scene is an example of why most scenes in this film fail. He plays Cain and he, as the Bible story goes, killed his brother Abel. Make a joke and move on. But the film lingers on this scene too long, doing a weak "I'm not dead yet" riff and sucking the life out of the comedy. He also comes back to the film too often, dispelling the energy he originally brought, almost as if the film's idea was to have a lot of David Cross around, when the idea should be to have a great character in the film and let's get a good character actor to play the part. You want Cross? Don't miss "Arrested Development". - Harold Ramis. How come Ramis hasn't made good on the promise of "Groundhog Day"? That film signaled his arrival. Even after helming two legendary comic masterpieces in "Caddyshack" and "National Lampoon's Vacation", it wasn't until "Groundhog Day" that Ramis really went A-list. There was a lot more than laughs in "Groundhog Day", there was romance, there were life lessons, consequences, relationships and Ramis handled it with panache. Outside of "Analyze This", he hasn't capitalized on his then new-found status. In "Year One", he shot for Mel Brooks glory, but landed somewhere below "Dead and Loving It". - Gene Stupnitsky & Lee Eisenberg, the writers of "Year One". Bad news for those excited about "Ghostbusters 3". Meet its screenwriters…

Coming out looking good in all this is Hank Azaria. His turn as Abraham, although saddled with dick jokes that are funny at first, but unfold much slower than the viewer's attention needs them to, is good. His commitment to character enlivens the scenes he is in. Combined with his great Jeremy Irons impersonation in "Night at the Museum 2", he's got some of the best comic performances of the summer, in two of the worst films.