Freida Pinto is gonna be pissed.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 05/04/2012
Director: John Madden
Cast: Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Dev Patel, Penelope Wilton, Maggie Smith, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie, Tena Desae
Rated: PG-13 for sexual content and language.
Runtime: 2 hours, 4 minutes

---

Trailer:

Tell Daniel Craig to act like James Bond, not a Bourne clone.

Based on a novel with an even longer title, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” comes from director John Madden. No, not the football analyst (Yes, I’ll make this joke every time). This is the John Madden that made last year’s “The Debt” but is probably best known for “Shakespeare in Love”.

As with either of those movies, he’s again working with top tier British talent (being English himself probably makes it a smaller coincidence). Audiences will be drowning in the acting riches. The film stars Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, Penelope Wilton, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie and Dev Patel. It’s the kind of cast that could make watching a table read worth the price of admission.

The story involves a collection of elderly Brits who have been adorably conned into moving to a struggling Indian hotel, ran by Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel). He dreams of turning the crumbling property into the vision his father had of the place and attempts to make it come true almost solely on nerve and optimism. Each of the new tenants come to India with different goals, expectations and baggage. As they handle those elements for themselves, Sonny is juggling not only the rigors of trying to make the hotel turn a profit but also must figure out a way to get his mother to accept his girlfriend and stop trying to run his life.

It’s plain to see that there are character details and subplots that are likely developed and explored much more in the book. That’s the nature of any literary translation. However, screenwriter Ol Parker manages to balance things effectively and the end result is a successive ensemble effort beautifully delivered by the actors.

Of course, in doing so, audiences looking for a quick and cute diversion may find things moving a bit slower than they want. Considering the number of characters, I felt the pacing was about right and it’s hard to see how it could have been trimmed without sacrificing more than would be gained. There is a nice mix of comedy with the drama and although the demographic is likely to skew slightly older, anyone who enjoys fine acting will do just fine.

A 4 out of 5, the vibrancy of India comes through “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” and boosts the already engaging effort by the actors. This is one of those movies that is saccharine enough to temper my overall esteem but makes it one of the easiest films to recommend to nearly anyone looking for nothing more than a good, solid movie. Just be forewarned that watching Dev Patel again try to woo a remarkably beautiful Indian girl may make you long to watch “Slumdog Millionaire” again so make sure your DVD is handy for a possible double feature (decide for yourself if you want the heavier film first or second).

So the title of the movie refers to your eye make-up?

---

Theatrical Release Date: 05/11/2012
Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Johnny Depp, Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Bella Heathcote, Chloë Grace Moretz, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller
Rated: PG-13 for comic horror violence, sexual content, some drug use, language and smoking.
Runtime: 1 hour, 53 minutes

---

Trailer:

I usually play piano with my hands but that works too.

Goth. Goth. Goth. Johnny Depp. Goth. Goth. Goth. Helena Bonham Carter. Goth. Goth. Goth. Danny Elfman.

What Tim Burton movie am I talking about? What Tim Burton movie am I NOT talking about?

In this particular case, the subject matter is “Dark Shadows”. Based (every so loosely) on the TV series, Burton clearly was a fan of the show. To show his love, he essentially made a movie with his usually cohorts, made sure it felt like “Charlie & the Chocolate Factory” meets “Corpse Bride” with a fair sprinkling of “Sleepy Hollow” thrown in – and then scribbled in some character names and details after the fact.

Although I’ve only seen a handful of original episodes, the genres are miles apart and this is yet another adaptation that could best be described as baffling. You love the source material, and yet you alter it so as to be almost unrecognizable to its fan base? What’s the point? Why not just ask to do some commentary on the recently released DVD box set and call it a day?

Then there’s the continued collaboration between Burton, Depp, Carter (and Elfman). The world gets it. You all like each other. While there are a number of folks happy to see you repeat the same character dynamics over and over and over again, at some point it’d be nice to see some variation to the formula. Isn’t it enough to go to dinner with each other now and again? I hear Depp has a nice place in France you can visit.

Now sure, this review clearly isn’t of the positive persuasion, but before anyone interested in seeing this film plunks down their $53 at the box office, there’s one key thing I want to make sure you know. You’ve seen the trailer, right? Isn’t it just so adorable seeing Depp play an awkward character out of his particular element (in this case, the 200-year fish out of water cliché). Well, I hope you don’t expect any laughs to keep going when you get in the theater.

While the trailer makes this out to be some offbeat comedy, 90% of the jokes have already been shown. Worse still, although this carries a PG-13 rating, the sexual and violent themes have a much more adult-oriented feel. The marketing is hoping their net will catch the same wide demographic that “Alice in Wonderland” received but it’s all a smoke-screen when you sit down to figure out who the true demo should be: only the diehard Tim Burton fans. Anyone else is better off saving their cash for laundry, tollbooths, and cappuccinos.

Putting aside all of the typical Burton-esque touches, there’s the fundamental problem of the movie being boring and plodding along its predictable path to its perfunctory conclusion. The only unexpected element comes from a revelation regarding Chloë Grace Moretz’s character … and it’s only unexpected because it makes NO SENSE and does NOTHING to help ANYTHING (no, the caps lock button is not having problems).

In any case, Tim Burton appears to remain stuck in goth neutral. Aside from 2003’s “Big Fish”, his best days were in the last millennium (when his skewed perspective didn’t feel like a Hot Topic t-shirt). “Dark Shadows” merely continues a string of uninspired work and gets a 1.5 out of 5. If it were just the problem of repeating the same things with the same people, this would merely be another forgettable nothing that will probably earn far more than it deserves. That the movie is such a scattered and lackluster mess makes it slightly more memorable … just not in a good way.

The morning after isn’t always THIS awkward.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/27/2012
Director: Zat Batmanglij
Cast: Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius, Brit Marling, Davenia McFadden, Kandice Stroh, Richard Wharton, Christy Meyers, Alvin Lam, Constance Wu
Rated: R for language including some sexual references, and brief drug use.
Runtime: 1 hour, 25 minutes

---

Trailer:

We’re going to play a game …

It’s a little hard what one can say about “Sound of My Voice”. From the trailer and the available first 12 minutes one can find online, it’s obvious this has something to do with a cult and possibly time travel. Beyond that, mentioning any specific plot points would be a disservice to anyone interested in seeing the film.

Co-written by director Zat Batmanlij and actress Brit Marling, the story is a bit like a puzzle. Broken into numbered sections presented in order, each segment is a piece of the whole, and as the audience is given more information it sometimes makes things clearer but it can also open up a whole new rabbit hole to jump into.

The acting is all executed decently, with Marling once again exhibiting a remarkable screen presence; she won the 2011 Best Actress award from myself and the rest of the San Diego Film Critics Society for “Another Earth” which she also co-wrote. Although she plays things here at such an even keel, it’s readily apparent that there’s so much emotion and thought bubbling just beneath that calm facade. It’s perhaps a less sympathetic character than that of Rhoda from “Another Earth” (though the argument could be made), but Marling pulls off a very tricky balancing act and only bolsters my hope audiences will see a lot more from her in the future; either in front of, or behind the camera.

What really sells the movie though is its originality and ability to elicit discussion. People who need everything spoon-fed and aren’t willing to do a little work to connect the dots need not apply. Instead, if you enjoy a healthy and constructive dissection of the work following the end credits, by all means go out and support this film. This is exactly the kind of project that breaks up the endless formula-driven fare crammed down our eyeholes each week.

Now, there are a few problems; choosing when and how to utilize close-ups, camera-work which felt a little too shaky at times even allowing for the low-budget sensibilities, and a really, really odd choice of music to end the movie and roll into the credits with (for the most part, the music/score works well). Also, while it can be fun to assemble the bits of information and extrapolate a more complete understanding of the world being presented, there’s a certain sense that the screenwriters were trying a little too hard to keep people off-balance; that it might be a shade too clever.

In the end, trying to decide where to come down on the film is anything but easy. I think it will require at least another viewing to make sure the pictures created in my mind are the ones I want to stick with in a more lasting sense. However, this is an effort I’ll gladly put in sometime down the line and while general audiences may find “Sound of My Voice” a little too out of reach considering an increasingly apparent desire to only show up for really ‘safe’ movies, this is easily going to remain one of 2012′s more thought-provoking efforts and it gets a 4 out of 5. It’s so nice to see a fresh approach to the scene and Marling continues to prove that actors can do more than take the roles that are out there and cash in a check – they can also create for themselves and help diversify the ever-homogenizing marketplace in the process.

I would love to be the next victim of this Black Widow.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 05/04/2012
Director: Joss Whedon
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, Clark Gregg, Cobie Smulders, Stellan Skarsgård, Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference
Runtime: 2 hours, 22 minutes

---

Trailer:

Nice costume. Hold on, I’ll go get you some candy.

Reviewing a film like “The Avengers” is sort of like letting surfers know that the ocean can be fun. There are legions of fanboys foaming at the mouth to see what director/co-writer Joss Whedon has done with the culmination of four origin stories for the characters. There are even bigger legions of movie audiences who enjoy summer blockbusters, only need a modicum of story to go along with heaps of action/explosions/super powers, and are obviously not picky (see the box office take on “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”).

All of the early buzz and studio-allowed reviews (from outlets almost guaranteed to like this movie) has been stellar. Seriously, at this point you’re either completely out of the demographic and couldn’t care less, are planning to see it opening weekend, or are planning to see it opening weekend and possibly a few more times after that.

Well, while I’m sure you can find a metric ton of glowing reviews, I can pretty much sum up my take on things with: ‘Yeah, it’s really good. Probably the best of the Marvel movies to date. When does “Looper” come out?’. And before anyone looks through their closet to find the costume Wolverine claws or Hulk hands they wore a few Halloweens ago, allow me to explain.

In an age of origin stories to allow audiences who didn’t read the comic books to understand the characters, we’re finally being given a movie where it should just be plug and play … and it is for the most part. However, rather than need to fill up the first 75% of the story with back story, the overall plot is merely an origin tale for how all of these A-list actors/chosen superheroes formed a super group named “The Avengers”.

There are some gaping plot holes (the sudden ability for The Hulk to do more than smash objects with the targeting selection of a T-Rex being one of the biggest) but Whedon is quite familiar with the Marvel universe (he’s written comics including a stint on “Astonishing X-Men”) and he has done the very best of any director in staying true to the characters. I’d love, love, LOVE to see him at the reins of a rebooted X-Men franchise (those movies hurt my former Marvel comic geek soul more than any other). So for anyone worried he might switch things up drastically, you can relax.

That doesn’t mean Whedon managed to avoid a few scenes which severely slow down the film’s momentum. It’s fine to stop moving at breakneck speed but some of the actors are less engaging than others and watching them work so consciously to seem “real” was like a bright red stop sign.

There’s also a problem in being forced to release this in 3D. While it’s okay for the most part, there are a couple of scenes that take place in very low light which are not adjusted for the extra dimming brought on by tinted 3D glasses. Also, during the final fight scenes, the numerous fast moving objects and actions was reminiscent of “Clash of the Titans” terrible stab at the technology. Save those extra bucks and buy yourself some candy or as a down payment on your repeat visit to this opening salvo to summer.

Other than that, the film was quite enjoyable. Robert Downey Jr.’s comedic timing helped keep things light, Johansson may be the least believable of the bunch when it comes to embodying a former Russian spy but she looks great in those skintight outfits, and even Mark Ruffalo came off okay as the latest actors to step into the role of Dr. Bruce Banner (Lou Ferrigno lends his talents as the voice of the Hulk though which is a fantastic decision). The rest of the gang all do their bit ably, Natalie Portman’s character is hilariously written out (it wasn’t funny “ha ha” but funny “that’s the easiest way to do it”), and anyone familiar with Whedon’s motus operandi as it comes to ever character living to see the end credits is intact.

If you’ve happily watched all the movies leading up to this, seeing “The Avengers” is a no-brainer and it gets a 4 out of 5 (taking it’s genre into account). I’m not sure how anyone would be on the fence, making your ability to read all of this review much appreciated. Really, all one needs to know is to go to the bathroom right before it starts (this clocks in at almost 2 ½ hours) and stay in your seat for an extra scene midway through the credits which hints at who’ll be causing trouble in the sequel. Other than that, enjoy assembling in theaters worldwide. We’re all about to see just how much money a superhero film can make … and whether Batman can reclaim box office supremacy once all is said and done. Hopefully it’ll be a decent fight no matter how you look at it.

I’ve never had enough to drink to do THAT.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/27/2012
Director: Peter Lord
Co-Director: Jeff Newitt
Featuring the Voices of: Hugh Grant, Martin Freeman, Imelda Staunton, David Tennant, Anton Yelchin, Brendan Gleeson, Al Roker, Jeremy Piven, Salma Hayek, Lenny Henry, Brian Blessed, Ashley Jensen
Rated: PG for mild action, rude humor and some language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 28 minutes

---

Trailer:

Did they have cameras in these days?

From Aardman Animations, the studio that brought us “Wallace & Gromit”, “Chicken Run” and “Creature Comforts”, comes “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”.

Like their other work, the animation is largely of the stop-motion variety, though CGI was used to flesh out background details. The result is a wonderfully detailed experience that lends itself brilliantly to pairing with 3D. The depth of field created is fantastic and even when utilizing gags which either point or throw objects at the audience, the result is an immersive one and should you be headed to the theaters to catch this, ponying up a few extra doubloons for the glasses is well worth it.

As for the story itself, the screenplay is based on two of Gideon Defoe’s novels. He wrote the script himself so while I haven’t read the source material, one would hope fans of the books won’t be angry about their translation should anything have been changed. The story involves a pirate captain – named Pirate Captain – hoping to win Pirate of the Year. He and his crew are led astray by Charles Darwin and eventually must rescue their beloved mascot Polly from the clutches of pirate-hating Queen Victoria. Sure, it’s silly but in the right way.

The voice-work is all nicely handled. Hugh Grant was a great choice for Pirate Captain, and he has the likes of Martin Freeman, Brendan Gleeson, Anton Yelchin, Al Roker, and Ashley Jensen as his crew. David Tennant (the 10th Doctor Who) voices Charles Darwin and the amazing Imelda Staunton brings the very necessary gravitas to Queen Victoria. It’s a smart mix of talent whose abilities elevate the movie and bring the script to life.

Now, that’s not to say there isn’t anything that could not have been done better. As much fun as the ride is for about an hour, the last twenty minutes or so are a bit of a drag; almost like the energy had been sucked out of the theater by one of those cyclone vacuums – you know, the ones that don’t need bags, they never lose suction, they’re amazing, they’re … but I digress. The runtime may only be 88 minutes but you really start to feel each one as the film draws to a close, though thankfully the actual last few minutes end on a high note.

There was a bit of shuffling around by the kids in the audience, particularly in the lower-energy portion of the film, but “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” is far more fun for adults than most of the other kids fare of 2012 so far and it gets a 3.5 out of 5. Plenty of background action and scenery will go right over the heads of your children but it’s this attention to detail that make the movie a nice change of pace in the genre. And who doesn’t love pirates? This is far better than the Disney ride turned franchise (especially the sequels) and hopefully audiences will appreciate not only how much fun it is but also the artistry on display.

Pet Rocks are just catching on with chimps.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/20/2012
Directors: Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield
Narrator: Tim Allen
Rated: G.
Runtime: 1 hour, 18 minutes

---

Trailer:

I’m adorable, dammit.

It’s that time of year again. As sure as you can count on the Tax Man wanting his take, you can count on Disney releasing a nature documentary around Earth Day. However, don’t let The Mouse hear you calling “Chimpanzee” a documentary.

It’s about chimpanzees (did the title give it away?) and follows a troop of the primates over the course of a few years. The star, as one can tell from the trailer, is Oscar. His status as central character is assured because baby animals are cuter and the tragedy that befalls his family makes for a compelling story. This is where the notion of documentary versus narrative comes into play because directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield were more concerned with telling a story than just giving audiences another fly-on-the-wall description of chimp life.

Some may find the manipulation of the story cute, others like myself will find it slightly more on the obnoxious side. Bookended by adorable chimps playing while a dippy song raises the energy level, the tale being crafted is both classic Disney and yet also not what I’d want to show to young kids.

I say classic Disney because it deals with one baby chimp named Oscar losing his mother (a theme evident in nearly every story from the studio) but finding an unlikely adoptive member of the troop. And there are two reasons I wouldn’t want to bring a small child to see this movie (three if you count the price of movie tickets): 1) There are some scenes and themes that are a bit dark and totally at odds with the nature docs that have been the staple of the past few Earth Day releases; 2) It’s BORING.

Not since “Jonah Hex” has nearly 80 minutes felt so long. Most of the nature docs lately have been vignettes of multiple animals and settings, breaking up the monotony – or come in a running time well under an hour. Here we get to watch these chimps figure out how to break nutshells … then groom each other … then risk a skirmish with a rival troop … then figure out how to break nutshells … then groom each other … then risk a skirmish with a rival troop … and then again figure out how to break nutshells … and then again groom each other … and yet one more time risk a skirmish with a rival troop … If you read all that, I both apologize and hope that the message is sinking in.

Quite honestly, this was one of the least enjoyable movie experiences I’ve had in 2012. This should have just been a bit of light, cute fare for the kids. There’s nothing wrong with that. But in trying to invent some new sub-set of documentary-meets-narrative, the filmmakers have spent a great deal of time and effort delivering a product that shows some of the more aggressive and true-to-life chimp aspects but missed the mark on what audiences have come to expect and want out of these Earth Day releases.

If you’re a parent, some of the scenes may be too harsh for your little ones and others too boring. If you’re a nature enthusiast, Tim Allen’s quips as narrator and the Disney tinkering will be at best irksome, more likely irritating. Taking that in to account, “Chimpanzee” gets a 1.5 out of 5 and I suggest just waiting for the footage to get re-used in some future project as is so often the case.

Thor: The College Years.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/13/2012
Director: Drew Goddard
Cast: Kristen Connolly, Fran Kranz, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Amy Acker, Brian White,
Rated: R for strong bloody horror violence and gore, language, drug use and some sexuality/nudity.
Runtime: 1 hour, 35 minutes

---

Trailer:

The place looks safe enough.

Loyal readers probably know that I’m a scaredy cat. That rush associated with being scared by horror films present at a younger age has pretty much disappeared. However, the buzz was so good on director Drew Goddard’s “The Cabin in the Woods” that I sucked it up and attended a screening.

If you don’t recognize Goddard’s name, that’s not a big surprise. He’s been producing episodes of “Lost”, writing episodes of “Lost”, and worshipping at the altar of writing with grand-fanboy pooh-bah Joss Whedon (who non-Buffy/Angel/Firefly/Dr. Horrible fanatics will know as the director of the rapidly approaching “The Avengers” … and lets all agree to forget “Dollhouse”). For fans of Whedon, watching this tale of five college kids battling evil at a cabin in the woods (where did they get that title) will be a mix of nostalgia and catharsis. He’s not in the director’s chair but co-wrote the screenplay with Goddard and produced the film; truth be told, it’s not quite clear what stamp Goddard was able to imprint as this has Whedon’s fingerprints all over it.

For years, Whedon’s been working primarily within the restricted domain of TV – playing with dark themes but not able to go hard-R. That’s certainly changed here. People are stabbed, bitten, ripped apart, shot, pummeled, etc., etc. by a veritable whats-what of horror creatures; zombies, werewolves, ghosts, giant snakes, little Japanese girls that float around and act creepy, even a Pinhead knock-off and so much more. While death has always been a constant of his work, Whedon took advantage of the opportunity to make sure each kill was bloodier and more brutal than ever before.

Also, as fans of his know, there’s always a certain glibness and meta-nature to the characters and plot. One can almost always count on the most normal seeming characters being the most capable of evil deeds. And look for longtime collaborators making bit appearances. One of whom, Amy Acker, gets to share the screen with Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford – who are the key puppet masters pulling the strings behind the scenes and making this a vacation the collegians won’t soon forget.

For the more hardcore film fans out there who knew this was filmed in 2009 and is only now getting released, be assured that the long shelf time wasn’t due to the quality of the product. Goddard and Whedon had to fight off plans to convert this to 3-D (THANK YOU!) and Lionsgate bought the distribution rights off of MGM. And as long as you aren’t the type to find the almost pretentious nature of the script’s cleverness a problem, this is one very fun and bloody ride.

What begins as a typical slasher film with obvious undertones of a grander scheme at work settles quickly into a balance between its horror roots and Whedon’s almost macabre sense of humor. Fanboys (and girls) will certainly enjoy the film and even if you’re a less dedicated follower like myself, this is plain and simple entertainment … that is, if you enjoy a little death and dismemberment with a nice dose of comedy to even things out. A 3.5 out of 5, “The Cabin in the Woods” is best enjoyed with a crowd, as most horror films are (though hopefully there will be fewer children at your screening than there were at mine). I can only hope Whedon takes a few cues from this and applies it to the Marvel universe … because we don’t really need all of The Avengers to live, do we? Don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical … and accurate.

Caution: Bus Driver May Not Care If Your Child Is Bullied.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/13/2012
Director: Lee Hirsch
Rated: PG-13 for some language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 39 minutes

---

---

Trailer:

Chocolate milk for everyone!

Opening to a cover of Wheatus’ “Teenage Dirtbag” by Scala and Kolacny Brothers (the Belgian girls choir who covered Radiohead’s “Creep” for “The Social Network” trailer), it took a second or two to adjust and realize this was not “Bully”, the 2001 made by director Larry Clark, but the documentary of the same name, formerly known as “The Bully Project” (though that sounds like some reality TV show).

This look at the effects of bullying comes from director Lee Hirsch, who presents the story of a handful of kids who suffered at the hands of classmates being cruel to them, amidst communities and school administrations unable and/or unwilling to step in. Since I’d like to end this review on a positive note, I’ll get my gripes out now.

Each of the featured kids come from towns no one would consider re-designating a “city”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the locals learned the definition of “diversity” via Ron Burgundy, i.e. as an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era. As we watch these kids suffer from not fitting in with the rest of the crowd, while there are certainly failings within the school system, the problems are more reflective of the community and their tolerance of anything different. It would have helped the overall case so much to see at least one kid living in a population big enough to have even a minor league baseball team stadium.

My other major concern is that like “Waiting for Superman“, the call to action is muted (though “Bully” is a far better film). What is it that people are supposed to do? Anyone living in an urban setting could shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Well I don’t live in podunksville so my child will likely never be singled out so distinctly’. And while the links to social media are present, it isn’t until near the very end of watching these children take inordinate amounts of crap from their peers and get little to no help from adults whose jobs it should be to protect them, that one father tells a group of teens that they should stand up for kids when they can’t stand up for themselves and make an effort to make anyone new or different feel welcome.

An additional minor complaint stems from one or two of the kids not getting enough development of their story. While I’m sure you could have made a full-length documentary using any one of them, if you’re going to cover multiple subjects, it would have been nice to have their coverage be a bit more balanced.

Aside from those factors, however, if you have kids/are planning to have kids/work with kids, this is a movie well worth watching. For those of us in big cities, bullies were fewer and farther between simply due to the scale of the landscape. Even if one found themselves the target of ridicule, there likely were others in similar situations who allowed for a sense of belonging that got you through. Let’s face it, nearly every child goes through a phase where the world is against them in some manner; whether it’s because they’re on the outskirts or too popular. Having the ability to blend into larger communities can lessen the abuse.

The kids featured in the documentary are all sweet kids, each with some attribute that engendered ridicule from their peers. Watching them be abused is hard to watch, as the normal instinct should be to want to step in. Making it worse is seeing their complaints fall upon deaf ears. One vice principal in particular may be one of the worst excuses for flesh I’ve seen on film in years; somehow able to work in the birth of her beautiful granddaughter to a discussion about a child being punched, stabbed with pencils, and having his head bashed into the seats on the school bus. Stay classy (and thank you for not being in San Diego). That they would act this way while BEING FILMED is even more astonishing.

It’s nice to see that the MPAA finally caved and allowed a PG-13 rating (I’ll leave out the hypocrisy of the MPAA right now). Aside from the difficulty in watching kids be cruel to one another and realizing their best option is often to move to a town more tolerant of diversity, the only material parents will find objectionable are a few snippets of bad language. Of course, when this language comes from the mouths of these children, the notion that we shouldn’t let our kids hear these words becomes rather moot. Sorry, parents. Your kids know these words. And they use these words. And a few nasty words shouldn’t be the reason you don’t watch this with your kids.

Since the active message of the film is not so overt, hopefully the ability to discuss the events on-screen with your kids either after they see it in a school setting or with you will open their eyes to the problems of bullying. Although the only examples in the film take place in red states where high school football is the hottest ticket in town, it doesn’t mean you’re safe in a big city. Kids are naturally cruel to one another as part of their maturation process, trying to fit in and hide any of their differences so as not to stick out and become the target of other kids. It’d be nice to live in a world where that doesn’t happen but don’t expect a radical change simply because one film points things out.

In reading some of the comments on the websites connected to the film, it’s evident that having this message presented can make some difference. And no matter if this uptick in common decency lasts only as long as the hoopla surrounding the project, each act of kindness generated is another act that may not have happened otherwise. So despite my misgivings about certain filmmaking aspects, “Bully” is an important film for you and your children to watch, earning a 4 out of 5. Even if you don’t take away the motivation to help someone else out, simply being aware of the scope of the problem is beneficial so that instances formerly swept aside as “kids being kids” are treated with just that much more attention and thought.

A simple “no” to dinner would suffice, Maggie. I’m used to rejection.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 4/13/2012
Directors: James Mather & Stephen St. Leger
Cast: Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, Vincent Regan, Joseph Gilgun, Lennie James, Peter Stormare, Tim Plester
Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and language including some sexual references.
Runtime: 1 hour, 35 minutes

---

Trailer:

Oh look, they built the ship with a big hole in the middle. That’s smart.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see John McClane in space? Would you like to see Wolverine rescue a hot chick from a maximum-security prison following a hostile takeover by the inmates? Does the notion of spotty CGI elicit any sense of excitement? Do you prefer your characters to come stock, with very little in the way of development or modification? Is the amalgamation of numerous film clichés into one watered-down and overly simplistic story your idea of fun?

If you answered yes to ALL of those questions (and it’s a game I could have kept going for a while), then your name is most likely Luc Besson and you just came up with the “original idea” for “Lockout”. And it’s no wonder his films seem to be a Frankenstein of so many others, he seems to have his hands on so many films each year, it’s a wonder he can keep them straight at all.

Now, I’m not knocking the guy. I love a great deal of his work, from “León”, “The Fifth Element”, “La Femme Nikita” and on down. Even when he’s only screenwriting and producing (as is the case here), the film always seems to retain his stamp on things. So allow me to simply state that the credited directors/co-writers are James Mather and Stephen St. Leger and we’ll never speak of them again for the purposes of this review. Even two against one, Besson’s signature wins out easily.

This is good for the sake of making such a contrived and predictable story retain any sense of fun. For while “Lockout” is brainless, there’s still something satisfying about watching Guy Pearce do his best Bruce Willis/Hugh Jackman impersonation, beat up a bunch of bad guys, and keep a beautiful woman safe (Maggie Grace in this instance) – all while set in the quasi-distant future of 2079.

If you’ve seen the trailer, you know exactly what you’re in for and you shouldn’t expect any different. There’s a minor subplot about government secrets and a badly disguised game of “Which shadowy government figure is the traitor?” but really, we’re only talking about 13 or 14 brain cells necessary to follow along, or more often, stay ahead of the pace.

But all of that’s okay. I certainly wasn’t expecting some revolutionary idea and simply wanted a little dumb fun – which is essentially what I got. Trying to dissect the film anymore would literally be scene descriptions and where’s the joy in that? A 3 out of 5, “Lockout” is a decent action flick to check out if you need a quick fix but it will deliver the same impact on the home market so don’t worry too much if you miss out on the big screen experience.

Could I have chosen another photo? Sure. But this one had Kate Upton in this get-up. About the only thing I care to remember from this experience.

---

Theatrical Release Date: 04/13/2012
Directors: Bobby & Peter Farrelly
Cast: Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, Will Sasso, Jane Lynch, Sofía Vergara, Jennifer Hudson, Craig Bierko, Larry David, Kirby Heyborne, Kate Upton
Rated: PG for slapstick action violence, some rude and suggestive humor including language.
Runtime: 1 hour, 32 minutes

---

Trailer:

Whatever you’re doing, stop it.

As Hollywood marches on with the reboot/reimagine/rehash/remake craze, so comes “The Three Stooges”. The unparalleled masters of slapstick comedy, Moe, Larry and Curly (no Shemp here) have been watched by generation after generation. Over time, the same glee people derive from watching them poke and hit each other has morphed into the current fascination with shots to the groin best characterized by shows like “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and the gentleman scholars of the “Jackass” crew.

Resuscitating the Stooges’ franchise is a throwback, and likely an experiment; to see if the kindler, gentler examples of abuse will still appeal to the masses. Well, there’s good news for the studio on that point … if their target demo is 7-10 year-olds.

The gaggle of children in the theater were eating up the antics on-screen like Go-Gurt with extra meth and I haven’t heard kids laugh that much at a screening … well … maybe ever. And I understand why. Slapstick is funny. However, fans of the originals and anyone no longer in elementary school may want to think twice (or at all) before plunking down their good money to see this in theaters.

On the plus side, the casting department did a tremendous job of filling these iconic shoes – with Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, and Will Sasso playing Moe, Larry and Curly respectively. Hayes is by far the more familiar of the group to most audiences, which makes blending into the character slightly more difficult but he, like his compatriots, come so close to matching up with the originals.

The goofy sounds associated with each hit, slip, and crash all return. Even the notion of presenting the film in three “episodes” rather than acts, harken back to the TV show. Directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly obviously know the material but were more interested in reliving the past than understanding how to bring the characters into the modern day. And it’s at this point where things go sideways.

First off, the film begins with our protagonists as orphan children already up to the hijinks we’ve come to expect from their adult selves. This sequence takes far too long, which is saying something for a movie with a 92-minute runtime. The story then shifts 25 years ahead, to modern day. Oddly, the nuns who work at the orphanage don’t age a day but everyone else does … there may be some kind of joke at play here but it sailed right over this college graduate’s head like a football thrown by Brett Favre after bionic arm surgery.

The plot predictably turns into a quest for the Stooges to raise the money necessary to save the orphanage but unpredictably takes a turn for humor that really isn’t in keeping with the spirit of the franchise. Sofia Vergara (thankfully dressed in attire a size too small if you know what I mean) hires the guys to kill her husband. Murder … yeah … that’s great for kids! Umm, wait. Then when the inevitable falling out between the trio happens, Moe ends up as a cast member on “Jersey Shore”. No, you didn’t read that wrong: “JERSEY SHORE”. I again call attention to the appropriateness for kids when you’ve got JWoww and Snookie parading around in shirts made for 10 year-olds.

“But Ian!”, you say (even if you don’t, play along, it works better), “Surely this movie isn’t supposed to only appeal to kids”. No, I’m sure that wasn’t the intention. However, it was the result. While there are occasional gags and jokes that elicited a chuckle or two, the humor and overall story is best described as monotonous. It starts at one level and just carries through with very little dynamism. Twice I counted myself doing that “head-jerk” motion where you hope no one else saw you almost falling asleep. Despite the fact that the scene may have shifted locales and we were potentially closer to resolving the storyline, it all felt like the same joke being repurposed.

“But Ian!”, you say again (thanks for being such a sport), “That’s largely how the original show went”. I’ll give you that. But if you’re rebooting this for a new generation, you need to make it feel different in some fashion (bringing in ‘The Situation’ doesn’t count). The exact same enjoyment can be derived from watching old episodes in the comfort of your own home (and for free! Well, you’re paying for cable but … look, consider it at no extra charge. There. Happy?).

So while I give kudos to the actors for delivering some spot-on impressions and can see that the Farrelly’s respect the source material, there’s just no real reason for this movie to exist and I can only give it a 2.5 out of 5. “The Three Stooges” clearly knows where it comes from but it has very little ambition of understanding where it should be in 2012 or, heaven forbid, in the future. Do yourself a favor and either DVR the original or at least wait for this to hit “free” cable in the near future. Giving Hollywood the idea that they don’t even need to be creative in their reboots is just asking for some real train wrecks in the near future. This is merely a fender bender in the scope of the damage that could be done if left unchecked.